Some suspicious circumstances, however, appearing that night and the following morning, a rumor got wind that Clark had absconded; and upon inquiry, most certainly, he was not to be found. An active search was immediately made for the goods and plate with which he had provided himself, when some part of the goods was found at Houseman’s house, and another part dug up in Aram’s garden: but as no plate could be found it was concluded, somewhat naturally, that with them Clark had decamped. The strictest inquiry was instantly set on foot to discover his retreat; persons were despatched to all parts; advertisements describing his person inserted in all the papers; but to no purpose.
Eugene Aram being suspected to be an accomplice, a process was granted against him by the steward of the honor of Knaresborough to arrest him for a debt due to a Mr. Norton, with a view to detain him till such time as a warrant could be obtained from the justice of the peace to apprehend him upon that charge. To the surprise of all, however, the money was instantly paid, and moreover, at the same time, a considerable mortgage upon his house at Bondgate was also discharged. Soon afterwards, Aram left the town, and was not heard of until the month of June, 1758, when the murder of Clark being traced to him, he was found residing at Lynn.
Upwards of thirteen years after Clark’s disappearance, it happened that a laborer employed in digging for stone to supply a lime-kiln, at a place called Thistle hill, near Knaresborough, striking about half a yard and half a quarter deep, turned up an arm bone and the small bone of the leg of a human skeleton. His curiosity being excited, he carefully removed the earth round about the place, and discovered all the bones belonging to a body, presenting an appearance, from their position, as though the body had been doubled at the hips, though the bones were all perfect. This remarkable accident being rumored in the town, gave rise to a suspicion that Daniel Clark had been murdered and buried there; for no other person had been missing thereabouts for sixty years and upwards. The coroner was instantly informed, and an inquest summoned.
The wife of Eugene Aram, who had frequently before given hints of her suspicions, was now examined. From her evidence, it appeared that Clark was an intimate acquaintance of Aram’s before the 8th of February, 1744-5, and they had had frequent transactions together, and with Houseman also. About two o’clock in the morning of the 8th of February, 1744-5, Aram, Clark, and Houseman came to Aram’s house and went up stairs, where they remained about an hour. They then went out together, and Clark being the last, she observed that he had a sack or wallet on his back. About four, Aram and Houseman returned, but without their companion. “Where is Clark?” she inquired; but her husband only returned an angry look in reply, and desired her to go to bed, which she refused, and told him, “she feared he had been doing something wrong.” Aram then went down stairs with the candle, and she being desirous to know what they were doing, followed them, and from the top of the stairs heard Houseman say, “She’s coming; if she does, she’ll tell.” “What can she tell, poor simple thing?” replied Aram; “she knows nothing. I’ll hold the door to prevent her coming.” “It’s of no use, something must be done,” returned Houseman; “if she don’t split now, she will some other time.” “No, no, foolish,” her husband said; “we’ll coax her a little till her passion is off, and then”—“What!” said Houseman sullenly.—“Shoot her,” whispered Aram, “shoot her!” Mrs. Aram, hearing this discourse, became very much alarmed, but remained quiet. At seven o’clock the same morning they both left the house, and she, immediately their backs were turned, went down stairs, and observed that there had been a fire below, and all the ashes taken out of the grate. She then examined the dunghill, and perceived ashes of a different kind lying upon it, and searching amongst them, found several pieces of linen and woollen cloth very nearly burnt, which had the appearance of wearing apparel. When she returned into the house, she found a handkerchief that she had lent to Houseman the night before, and a round spot of blood upon it about the size of a shilling. Houseman came back soon afterwards, and she charged him with having done some dreadful thing to Clark; but he pretended total ignorance, and added, “she was a fool, and knew not what she said.” From these circumstances, she fully and conscientiously believed that Daniel Clark was murdered by Houseman and Eugene Aram, on the 8th of February, 1744-5.
Several other witnesses were examined, all affirming that Houseman and Eugene Aram were the last persons seen with Clark, especially on the night of the 7th of February, being that after which he was missing. Upon hearing these testimonies, Houseman, who was present, was observed to become very restless, discovering all the signs of guilt, such as trembling, turning pale, and faltering in his speech. Few men guilty of the crime of murder have the strength of heart and self-command to conceal it: by some circumstance or other, the truth will out; a look, a dream, and not unfrequently, as in this case, their own unfaithful tongue, is the involuntary agent that brings at last the blackened culprit to that punishment which unerringly awaits the man that sheds his brother’s blood. Accordingly, upon the skeleton being produced, Houseman, taking up one of the bones, dropped this most unguarded expression: “This is no more Daniel Clark’s bone than it is mine.” “What?” remarked the coroner instantly—“what?—how is this? How can you be so sure that that is not Daniel Clark’s bone?” “Because I can produce a witness,” replied Houseman, in evident confusion—“because I can produce a witness, who saw Daniel Clark upon the road two days after he was missing at Knaresborough.” This witness was instantly summoned, and stated that he had never seen Clark after the 8th of February; a friend, however, had told him (and this only had he mentioned at first) that he met some one very like Clark; but, it being a snowy day, and the person having the cape of his great coat up, he could not say with the least degree of certainty who he was. This explanation, so far from proving satisfactory, increased the suspicion against Houseman; and accordingly a warrant was issued against him, and he was apprehended and brought before William Thornton, Esq., who, examining him, elicited a full acknowledgment of the fact of his having been with Clark on the night in question, on account of some money (twenty pounds) that he had lent him, and which he wanted at the time very pressingly. He further stated, that Clark begged him to accept the value in goods, to which proposition he assented, and was necessarily, therefore, several times to and fro between Clark’s house and his own, in order to remove the goods from one to the other. When he had finished, he left Clark at Aram’s house, with another man, whom he had never seen before. Aram and Clark, immediately afterwards, followed him out of the house of the former, and the stranger was with them. They then went in the direction of the market-place, which the light of the moon enabled him to see, and he lost sight of them. He disavowed most solemnly that he came back to Aram’s house that morning with Aram and Clark, as was asserted by Mrs. Aram; nor was he with Aram, but with Clark, at the house of the former on that night, whither he only went to see Clark in order to obtain from him the note.
Being then asked if he would sign this examination, he said he would rather waive it for the present, for he might have something to add, and therefore desired to have time to consider of it. The magistrate then committed him to York castle, when, expressing a wish to explain more fully, he was again brought before Mr. Thornton, and in his presence made the following confession:—That Daniel Clark was murdered by Eugene Aram, late of Knaresborough, a schoolmaster, and, as he believed, on Friday the 8th of February, 1744-5; for that Eugene Aram and Daniel Clark were together at Aram’s house early that morning, and that he (Houseman) left the house and went up the street a little before, and they called to him, desiring he would go a short way with them; and he accordingly went with them to a place called St. Robert’s cave, near Grimble bridge, where the two former stopped, and there he saw Aram strike Clark several times over the breast and head, and saw him fall as if he were dead; upon which he came away and left them; but whether Aram used any weapon or not to kill Clark, he could not tell, nor did he know what he did with the body afterwards, but believed that Aram left it at the mouth of the cave; for that, seeing Aram do this, lest he might share the same fate, he made the best of his way to the bridge-end, where, looking back, he saw Aram coming from the cave-side, (which is in a private rock adjoining the river,) and could discern a bundle in his hand, but did not know what it was: upon this he hastened away to the town, without either joining Aram or seeing him again till the next day, and from that time he had never had discourse with him. He stated, however, afterwards, that Clark’s body was buried in St. Robert’s cave, and that he was sure it was there, but desired it might remain till such time as Aram was taken. He added further, that Clark’s head lay to the right, in the turn at the entrance of the cave.
Proper persons were instantly appointed to examine St. Robert’s cave, when, agreeably to Houseman’s confession, the skeleton of a human body (the head lying as he had described) was found. A warrant was instantly issued to apprehend Eugene Aram, who was discovered to be living at Lynn in the capacity of usher at a school. He confessed before the magistrate that he was well acquainted with Clark, and, to the best of his remembrance, about or before the 8th of February, 1744-5, but utterly denied any participation in the frauds which Clark stood charged with at the time of his disappearance. He also declared that he knew nothing of the murder, and that the statements made by his wife were without exception false: he, however, declined to sign his examination, on the same plea preferred by Houseman, that he might recollect himself better, and lest any thing should be omitted which might afterwards occur to him. On being conducted to the castle, he desired to return, and acknowledged that he was at his own house when Houseman and Clark came to him with some plate, of which Clark had defrauded his neighbors. He could not but observe that the former was very diligent in assisting; in fact, it was altogether Houseman’s business; and there was no truth whatever in the statement that he came there to sign a note or instrument. All the leather which Clark had possessed himself of, amounting to a considerable value, was concealed under flax at Houseman’s house, with the intention of disposing of it little by little, to prevent any suspicion of his being concerned in the robbery. The plate was beaten flat in St. Robert’s cave. At four o’clock in the morning, they, thinking that it was too late to enable Clark to leave with safety, agreed that he should stay there till the next night, and he accordingly remained there all the following day. In order, then, the better to effect his escape, they both went down to the cave, Houseman only entering, while he watched without, lest any person should surprise them. On a sudden he heard a noise, and Houseman appeared at the mouth of the cave, and told him that Clark was gone. He had a bag with him, containing plate, which he said he had purchased of Clark, money being much more portable than such cumbersome articles. They then went to Houseman’s house, and concealed the property there, he fully believing that Clark had escaped. He never heard any thing of Clark subsequently, and was as much surprised to hear there was a suspicion of his being murdered, as that he (Eugene Aram) should be considered to be the murderer. Notwithstanding this surprise, however, his examination having been signed, he was committed with his companion to York castle, there to await the assizes.
On the third of August, 1759, they were both brought to the bar. Houseman was arraigned on the former indictment, acquitted, and admitted evidence against Aram, who was thereupon arraigned. Houseman was then called, and deposed to the same effect as that which has already appeared in his own confession. Several witnesses were called, who gave evidence as to finding several kinds of goods buried in Aram’s garden, Aram’s knowledge of the fact of Clark’s possessing two hundred pounds, and to show that they both had been seen together on the evening of the 7th of February. After which the skull was produced in court; on the left side there was a fracture, from the nature of which it was impossible to have been done but by the stroke of some blunt instrument. The skull was beaten inwards, and could not be replaced but from within. The surgeon gave it as his opinion, that no such breach could proceed from natural decay; that it was not a recent fracture made by the spade or axe by which it might have been dug up; but seemed to be of some years’ standing.
Eugene Aram’s defence, which he read, was marked with an undoubted manifestation of very considerable powers. It was learned and argumentative; and in some passages, glowing and eloquent. He attempted to show, that no rational inference can be drawn that a person is dead who suddenly disappears;—that hermitages such as St. Robert’s cave were the constant repositories of the bones of the recluse; that the proofs of this were well authenticated; and, that therefore the conclusion that the bones found were those of some one killed in battle, or of some ascetic, remained no less reasonably than impatiently expected by him. A verdict of guilty was however returned, and he was condemned to be hanged accordingly.
On the morning after his condemnation, he confessed the justice of his sentence to the two gentlemen who attended him, and acknowledged that he had murdered Clark. He told them, also, that he suspected Clark of having an unlawful commerce with his wife; and that at the time of the murder he felt persuaded he was acting right, but since, he had thought otherwise.[4]