https://www.historytoday.com/archive/history-matters/case-poison-pen-letters Skip to main content Home User menu logged out * Subscribe * Sign in History Today October 2023 Subscription Offers Give a Gift Enter your keywords [Search ] [Search] Subscribe Search Toggle navigation Main menu * Home * The Magazine * Subscribe * Buy the Current Issue * The Archive * App * Reviews * Sign in Home Mini header menu * Search * Magazine * Latest * Subscribe [printnew] Subscribe History Matters The Case of the Poison Pen Letters Anonymity can be a powerful shield. Tracing the culprit when it came to libellous letter-writing in the early 1900s was not straightforward Emily Cockayne | Published in History Today Volume 73 Issue 10 October 2023 A letter used in the libel case against Annie Tugwell, 1909-13.A letter used in the libel case against Annie Tugwell, 1909-13. MEPO 3/ 189, Criminal libel: "The Sutton Libel Case" (Mrs Annie Tugwell), 1909-1913. Annie Tugwell, the wife of the Registrar for Sutton, Surrey was found guilty in August 1910 of libel for sending anonymous letters and even parcels of dog waste and 'a female pessary' to various people, including Canon Henry Taylor Cafferata, a local Catholic priest. The letters made insinuations and accusations of immoral behaviour. One letter to the canon stated: 'You really must keep up payment for your child. It grows more like you every day'; and a postcard ordering two casks of beer from a local brewery was signed in his name. In 1909, Tugwell had taken Annie Dewey, Cafferata's housekeeper, to court accusing her of writing these letters, claiming she received some herself, one of which read: 'Mrs Tugwell you are to be shot when the nights get dark.' Eventually, this was dismissed as merely a ploy; the case against Tugwell in 1910 established that she had sent these items mimicking Dewey's writing. The case was not clear-cut, despite the police's efforts. One detective disguised himself as a bootlace seller; another 'got wedged in traffic' while cycling after Tugwell. Under oath, however, witnesses testified that it had been too dark for a policeman to have seen Tugwell post letters as they claimed and alibis placed her far away when letters were dispatched. Inspector Ward, the detective in charge, noted 'this proves conclusively' the collusion of 'Mr Tugwell or one of the family'. The court heard how marked stamps purchased by the Tugwells' servant were found on offensive letters, but those could have been used by anyone from the property. Incriminating blotting paper was discovered in the pocket of 'a green mixture skirt' in Annie's wardrobe. In court, dressmakers swore that Annie's skirts had no pockets, and pocketless garments were produced. On the witness stand, Annie explained that only her underskirts had pockets, but Archibald Bodkin for the prosecution interrupted her: 'Oh, never mind that.' In his summary, Frederick Low, for the defence, argued that the case 'rested almost entirely on police evidence ... that it was almost impossible to check, because it involved a creation of facts in order to support a preconceived notion'. Inspector Ward's notes reveal his amazement that 'educated people' would 'stoop to wickedness of any depth', seemingly perjuring themselves for the defence. To him, Annie was 'a very bold woman', 'very vindictive' and 'a consummate actor'. The jury, swayed by material and circumstantial evidence, deliberated for just overa quarter of an hour and found her guilty. She received a 12-month sentence, without hard labour, and maintained her innocence: it was a 'Catholic conspiracy'. 'Thus ended one of the most remarkable cases of modern times', noted the Sutton and Cheam Weekly Record, incorrectly. Anonymous items continued to circulate. In 1913, Emily Jones, Tugwell's sister-in-law, and others came forward with obscene letters they had received. The case against Annie hinged not on whether she had written them all, but whether she had posted them. Posting them would have made her guilty of publishing the libels. In 1913 Inspector Ward justified renewed intensive surveillance with reference to 'the crafty nature of this woman', and her previous offence. Three detectives followed Annie for a month, watching her posting letters - including one to Jones. Back in court, Annie argued she had known she was being watched: 'I am not such a foolish woman [to] put any letters in.' Annie also raised the suggestion of her husband's involvement, claiming that her eldest son Leslie, 'told me that my husband would not be satisfied until he had got me in prison', but she was interrupted by Bodkin, who told her it 'was useless to ramble on in that strain'. But from the witness stand Emily Jones stated that the letters were 'in the handwriting of my brother ... when he had his mistress and he left [Annie] to starve'. Annie's husband had been praised for sticking by her in the Croydon Advertiser in 1910: 'Seldom under such circumstances had a man given evidence in a manner so suggestive of truth as he did.' Annie's diary entry for 7 June had recorded: 'Feel so ill ... why did I let myself sink for him and his children, who will no doubt suffer in his footsteps.' Throughout the period of police observation, Annie was also grieving: her youngest son, Cyril, a 15-year-old sailor, had drowned at the end of May. Her second child had died in infancy in 1889. Leslie had been made deaf by an assault in 1897. Yet there is no evidence that Annie's emotional state, or any extenuating circumstances, were considered by the court. Annie was depicted as a danger to society - 'an unpleasant freak of nature', as one newspaper had it. In October 1913, Annie was sentenced to 12 months, this time with hard labour, in Holloway Prison. The exaggerated concern plainly related to social anxiety around female behaviour. Male writers were treated differently: less focus on their appearance in court; less salacious attention to the content of their letters; less determined pursuit. Their offences were explained as the consequence of addiction, hypnotism, even 'influenza'. In 1939 a Uttoxeter man pled guilty to a long, obscene campaign, but refused to apologise. That he had thrice been to Canada was taken as evidence of his respectability: he was fined PS10. Of the Tugwell case, the Birmingham Weekly Post wrote: 'In the whole lexicon of crime there is scarcely a more despicable offence than that of grossly libelling people ... by means of anonymous letters.' Such hysteria around female letter-writers stemmed from a fascination with deviant women. But in the words of Annie's barrister: 'There was mystery in the case which had not been fathomed.' Certified insane at the end of 1913, Annie was transferred to an asylum. Emily Cockayne is Associate Professor in Early Modern History at the University of East Anglia and author of Penning Poison: A History of Anonymous Letters (Oxford University Press, 2023). EdwardianEnglandCrime Related Articles malice.jpg Britain's Libel Laws: Malice Aforethought tabloid.jpg Tabloid scandals: Hacks and aristocrats Popular articles Seated Bodhisattva, Avalokitesvara, or Guanyin, China, 11th century. What is a Bodhisattva? stephenson.jpg George Stephenson's First Steam Locomotive Recently published Somer's day: page from the Psalter of Henry VIII showing Henry with William Somer, by Jean Maillart (or Mallard), c.1540. Bridgeman Images. 'Fool' by Peter K. Andersson review A portrait of the Venerable Bede in a 14th century Germany homilary. Walters Art Museum. Public Domain. On the Spot: Janina Ramirez A Mughal depiction of the Siege of Arbela in the era of Hulagu Khan, c. 1596. 'Empires of the Steppes' by Kenneth W. Harl review Most read 1. 'Empires of the Steppes' by Kenneth W. Harl review 2. 'Fool' by Peter K. Andersson review 3. Was Richard III a Bad King? 4. The Case of the Poison Pen Letters 5. Minor Monarchs X Get Miscellanies, our free weekly long read, in your inbox every week [ ] [ ] [Sign Up] Footer menu * About * Masthead * Contact * Jobs * Advertising * RSS feeds * Submit an Article * Back Issues * Binders * Cookie policy * Awards * Students * Privacy policy * Terms of Use * Twitter * Instagram (c) Copyright 2023 History Today Ltd. Company no. 1556332.