JOHN BELLINGHAM - The Liverpool Assassin

By Margaret Brecknell

Spencer Perceval 1812 Drawing by Charles Turner – Yale Center for British Art/CC0

One of the most shocking crimes in UK history occurred 210 years ago, on 11th May 1812, when the then Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval, was shot dead in the lobby of the Houses of Parliament.

Perceval is now best remembered for being the only UK Prime Minister ever to be assassinated. The name of his assailant, John Bellingham, a merchant broker from Liverpool, has, however, been largely forgotten, as have the events that led him to carry out such a shockingly violent act.

Details of Bellingham’s early life remain largely unknown, but he is thought to have been born around 1771 and to have spent much of his childhood in the Cambridgeshire town of St Neots. His mother, Elizabeth, came from a well-to-do local family, while his father, John, was a land surveyor and artist from London, who, towards the end of his life, is believed to have suffered from serious mental health problems.

One account of Bellingham’s life, which appeared in James Stonehouse’s Recollections of Old Liverpool by a Nonagenarian, portrayed him as a troublesome teenager, who, at the age of 14, was apprenticed to a London jeweller, but ran away “after giving much trouble and annoyance”.

His mother, by then a single parent, turned for assistance to her brotherin-law, a prosperous barrister called William Daw, who managed to find the young Bellingham a position as an officer cadet on board a ship which was about to set sail for China. During its voyage the vessel was wrecked off the coast of Cape Verde and Bellingham was fortunate to make it home safely.

Daw was again asked to intervene and next helped him to set up as a tin-plate worker on Oxford Street in London. Once more, matters do not appear to have run smoothly for Bellingham. A bankruptcy notice regarding an Oxford Street “tin-plate worker and dealer” called John Bellingham, which appeared in The London Gazette in March 1794, is very likely to relate to him.

Subsequently, Bellingham found work as a bookkeeper in London and eventually was sent to work as the firm’s representative in the northerly Russian port of Archangel.

By the early 1800s, he had set up his own business, acting as an agent and insurance broker for companies whose trade involved importing and exporting goods from Russia. He also appears to have developed close business ties with Ireland and this may well have been the reason behind his decision to come and live in the North-West.

In 1803, he married Mary Nevill, the daughter of an Irish business associate, and the couple set up home together on Duke Street in Liverpool.

In the summer of 1804, Bellingham, together with his wife and new-born son, set sail for Russia from Liverpool on a business trip to Archangel. By November he had finished his business in the Russian port and was preparing to return home via St Petersburg, when the police arrived without warning and accused him of failure to pay an outstanding debt.

For the rest of his life Bellingham maintained that he did not owe any money and the cooked-up charge was, in fact, a ruse to keep him in the country for an entirely different reason. Some months previously a ship called the Soyuz had been lost at sea. Its two wealthy Russian owners (one of whom happened to be the Mayor of Archangel) had taken steps to insure the ship and its contents with Lloyd’s of London. However, the underwriters refused to compensate them for their losses, claiming that they had received an anonymous letter which suggested that the owners had deliberately sabotaged the ship. Rightly or wrongly, the two men believed that Bellingham was the man behind this letter and sought to detain him in Archangel until they could prove this to be the case. 

 Mary Bellingham travelled to St Petersburg to await her husband’s arrival, but he was detained for over a year before finally being allowed to join her there. At this point the couple may well have had the opportunity to return home, but Bellingham, incensed at the treatment he had received, decided to pursue a case against the Archangel authorities on the grounds of false imprisonment. This proved to be an extremely bad move. Bellingham was rearrested and his wife travelled home to North-West England without him.

Later, during his trial for the murder of Spencer Perceval, Bellingham recalled the ordeal he endured in Russia during this period. He described being “banded from prison to prison, and from dungeon to dungeon, fed on bread and water, treated with the utmost cruelty, and frequently marched through the streets under a military guard with felons and criminals of the most atrocious description, even before the residence of the British Minister, who might view from his window this degrading severity towards a British subject who had committed no crime”.

He did not arrive back in the UK until December 1809, having been finally given permission to leave Russia. By this point he had spent five years in and out of prison, often in the most appalling conditions, and had faced financial ruin. Throughout his detention in Russia, he had frequently pleaded with the British authorities for assistance, but had received none. Bellingham was particularly critical of Lord Granville Leveson-Gower, the then British ambassador in St Petersburg, who had rejected several of his pleas for help.

Bellingham did not immediately return home to Liverpool to be reunited with his wife and young family. Instead, he stayed in London at the home of his cousin, Ann Billett, and began his attempt to obtain financial compensation from the British Government for its failure to intervene on his behalf in Russia. At his later trial, Bellingham’s cousin described his unstable state of mind at this time, recalling that, “He said that he had realised more than a hundred thousand pounds, with which he intended to buy an estate in the west of England, and to take a house in London. I asked him where the money was. He said he had not got the money, but it was the same as if he had, for that he had gained his cause in Russia, and our government must make it good to him.”

Bellingham’s confidence proved to be misplaced and the compensation for which he hoped did not arrive, despite a series of formal petitions to the Foreign Office, the Treasury and the then Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval.

Bellingham was eventually persuaded to abandon his quest for justice in London and return home to his family in the North-West. Mary, by this time, was running a successful dressmaking and millinery business in Liverpool with a friend called Mary Stevens and Bellingham began work again as an insurance broker. Superficially, all seemed well, but, in truth, Bellingham was already making plans to return to the capital.

In December 1811 Bellingham set off for London on what was ostensibly supposed to be a short business trip. In fact, he never returned to Liverpool. He found lodgings on New Millman Street in the capital and spent the next four months petitioning anyone whom he thought might listen regarding his campaign for compensation. All he received in return were polite refusals at best.

At his trial, Catherine Figgins, a servant at Bellingham’s London lodgings, recalled how, on the morning of Monday, 11th May 1812, he had appeared “not so well as he had been for some time past”. Nevertheless, in the early afternoon he had accompanied his landlady and her young son on a visit to the European Museum in the St James district of London. From there he had proceeded alone to Westminster.

Spencer Perceval, oblivious of the impending danger, left Downing Street alone at just after 5pm to walk the short distance to the Houses of Parliament. On entering the lobby, the Prime Minister is reported to have been approached by Bellingham, who produced a pistol from a concealed pocket in his coat and fired at him at point-blank range. Felled by a lead ball through his heart, Perceval staggered forward and is reported to have exclaimed in a faint voice, “I am murdered”, before collapsing on the floor. He was carried to a nearby room, but the unfortunate man died only a few minutes later.

Bellingham made no attempt to escape and was easily apprehended. He was transferred to Newgate Prison, where he was placed on suicide watch. Parliament in the weeks preceding the fateful day of the shooting.

In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, there were fears that Bellingham’s deed might have been intended to act as a catalyst for an uprising on a much larger scale, but it soon became apparent that he had worked alone. The Lancaster Gazette reported that the authorities were relieved to discover “the assassin was neither a Roman Catholic, a Dissenter, a reformer of public abuses, nor a starving manufacturer”, which provides an interesting insight into those sections of society regarded at the time as being potentially dangerous.

Whether he intended all along to murder the British Prime Minister remains unclear. During the trial Bellingham made a formal statement in his defence, in which he claimed that “If I had met Lord Gower he would have received the ball, and not Mr Perceval”, adding that “I disclaim all personal or intentional malice against Mr Perceval”. Yet earlier in his rambling speech, in which he attempted to justify his actions but showed little remorse, he had declared that “If they had listened to my case this court would not have been engaged in this case, but Mr Perceval obstinately refusing to sanction my claim in Parliament, I was driven to despair, and under these agonising feelings I was impelled to that desperate alternative which I unfortunately adopted”.

It did not take long for Bellingham’s fate to be decided. Charged with “wilful murder”, his trial took place at the Old Bailey only four days after the shooting. His defence counsel put forward a motion that his client was unfit to answer the charge on the grounds of insanity, but he was unable to find an expert witness to testify regarding Billingham’s state of mind in the limited time he was given to prepare for the case.

The evidence which came to light during the trial suggests that Bellingham had been planning the crime for several weeks. He was reported as having purchased two pistols from a London gunsmith about a month previously. One witness, a tailor called James Taylor, testified that in late April he had been approached by the accused to make an alteration to an overcoat, stating that “He gave me directions to make him an inside pocket on the left side, so as he could get at it conveniently. He wished to have it a particular depth and accordingly gave me a bit of paper about the length of nine inches”. This was the concealed pocket from which the murder weapon was later produced. Several other witnesses recalled regularly seeing Bellingham at the Houses of

It took the jury less than a quarter of an hour to find him guilty. Just three days later, on a wet Monday morning, Bellingham was hanged at Newgate Prison in front of a large crowd.

In Recollections of Old Liverpool by a Nonagenarian, James Stonehouse recalled that back home in Liverpool news of his “atrocious act” caused “a great sensation in the town”. Stonehouse added that such was the speed with which Bellingham was tried and executed, “The news that it had been perpetrated had scarcely reached us in Liverpool before we heard of his trial and execution”. Bellingham’s unfortunate wife, Mary, was supported by friends and neighbours who raised funds to help her provide for her young family.

Following his execution, John Bellingham’s body was taken to St Bartholomew’s Hospital to be used for the purposes of medical science. Remarkably, his skull was preserved and, in 2018, scientists at Barts Pathology Museum in London created a digital reconstruction of his face, thus allowing modern audiences a chance to stare into the eyes of the 19th-century Liverpool assassin. 

Denise Mullen is a journalist, columnist, writer and entrepreneur.

INTRODUCING THE NEW BANKSY An Urban Warrior - in Slippers

By Denise Mullen

Agood friend of mine is blessed with a happy marriage to a lovely husband with a quirky personality. All going well then. Her spouse, and my own husband, have a few quirks in common. Both are compassionate people who wear their emotions on their sleeves. Rare in men – and I know I’m generalising – it may just be the men in my circle of friends and relatives. These two both have the strongest compunction ‘to do what’s right’ and look after people. I love that about them.

The other thing they share is the alcohol tolerance of a fruit fly. When they’ve ‘had a Baileys’ they generally either disco dance in the sitting room to some ‘banging tunes’ from the 90s or have an impassioned debate about whatever is in the headlines - and what should be done about it. One last note on the dancing thing, I should mention I have witnessed both of them attempt Riverdance moves to 80s classic ‘Come On Eileen’ when sufficiently mellow. Both will also do their utmost, where they can, to personally contribute to doing the right thing – and encourage others to do the same.

So it was, then, that these two lovebirds of our acquaintance were celebrating having ‘achieved’ Friday evening and decided to crack on with a couple of G&Ts. Now this is hard liquor, so prime Riverdance fuel. However, they stuck to some wellchosen vintage tracks for a bit of sitting room shimmying post aperitif. By 9.30pm the music was cranked up and inhibitions discarded. Then my pal announced to her husband that she was off to bed. He shouted over something by Blur, that he’d be up in a little while, adding ‘Women, they’re like cats. No wonder they live longer.’ She had not been in bed more than ten minutes before she was off in the land of nod, despite the wail of the music and the whisking sound of fast-moving slippers over limestone flooring from below.

She was surprised to be woken by an urgent ringing noise. Checking the time as she reached over to answer her mobile, she noted it was now 10.30pm. It was her cousin. This is what he said. “I’ve got your husband here, he’s inebriated. He says he’s been on a secret mission. I’ve not let him in, I’ve sent him home.”

Her apologies were effusive, but one question just burst forth. “Was he in his slippers?” She was reassured ‘no’ and then went downstairs to check their dog was still in the house and hadn’t nipped off for his own adventure, opportunist that he is. All was well, dog in basket, slippers in sitting room, wellies missing. A short while later the husband hoveto. Dishevelled and holding a can of spray paint, the sort you use to mark out for construction work.

He began his secret mission story, but by then it was approaching 11pm and she was overseeing the removal of wellies and shoving him upstairs. The following morning, she was driving through an underpass on her way to do a weekly shop and she saw it. The graffiti. It was brand new, and at the precise height that would be comfortable for a medium-height radical in wellingtons. Also, and this confirmed her suspicions, it boasted the correct use of a plural possessive apostrophe and no swearing. Not something that’s generally evident in ‘gangsta’ scrawl. I can’t reveal the message, as it might, in some way, implicate the author. So instead, we have a new subversive artist and social commentator on the block. Grampsy. He’s 61 and should know better.

Aiming Higher

YOU CAN DONATE TO AIMING HIGHER USING THE FOLLOWING METHODS:

WEBSITE | www.aiminghighercharity.org.uk/donate JUST GIVING | www.justgiving/aiminghigher/donate/ PAYPAL | Found on Aiming Higher website or call to make donations by phone POST | Aiming Higher, 231 – 233 Church Street, Blackpool, Lancashire FY1 3PB. To see more of what we do please visit our website www.aiminghighercharity.org.uk or follow us on facebook @aiminghighercharity, Instagram @aiming_higher_charity or twitter @ahcharity.

Please ring us on 01253 206447/8 for further information.

About Aiming Higher

Aiming Higher for Disabled Children & their Families is the Blackpool based charity that supports hundreds of local children and their families. The charity has been bringing the families of children with disabilities together for 10 years.

After two and a half years the “Annual” Aiming Higher Ball is back and ready to put lockdown behind us! This fantastic event has long been a vital fundraiser for the charity. It is also a wonderful night for everyone in attendance with music, games, great food and drink and an opportunity to get glammed up with friends. This year’s event will take place on 17th September at The Village Hotel. The night includes a three course dinner and entertainment

- BOOK NOW TO QUALIFY FOR THE EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT!

Further details opposite, or call us on 01253 206447

Local band Chique who play disco and 80s tunes will be providing live music and throughout the evening, revellers will be able to take part in a variety of fundraising activities with a raffle, money tree and balloon burst for the chance to win all kinds of spectacular prizes. There will also be a chance to watch a video presentation where families will explain the issues they face and the positive impact Aiming Higher has had on their lives. The 2019 event raised over £12,000 to support this important work. Charity Manager Latoya Sykes said, “We are excited to be able to revive the ball and have some fun after two years without this crucial fundraising event. It is always an enjoyable event and a chance to thank the people who make our work possible and support us.” If you would like more information regarding the ball or the support offered by Aiming Higher and would like to join our email mailing list please give us a call on 01253 206447 or email info@aiminghighercharity.org.uk You can also view our new newsletter by visiting:

bit.ly/AHnewsspring2022

PHOTOS FROM THE AIMING HIGHER BALL IN PREVIOUS YEARS 

 Becky Cartwright, Charity Manager Latoya Sykes and Emma Nickson

 Sally Smith and Claire Reynolds  Debbie Travis and Gilly Bee  Chair of Trustees, John Child