The Murder of Saville Kent: A Dark Chapter in Victorian England

Gabrielle Stringer
1 day ago
10 min read

In the early hours of June 29, 1860, William Nutt searched the grounds of Road Hill House, a grand estate in Wiltshire, England, owned by the Kent family. As he combed through the rose bushes, scraping his forearms, a sinking feeling settled in his gut—something was terribly wrong. Just moments later, he approached the servants’ outhouse, peering through a small, slotted window. In the dim light, he saw something dark and glistening on the floor. His heart pounded as he realized it was blood. Panicked, William cried out for help. The search for young Saville Kent had taken a grim turn.

Family Background

Samuel Saville Kent was born on the 7th July 1800 in Allhallows, Middlesex. He married Mary Ann Windus, at St. John’s Church, Hackney, London on the 8th June 1829. Samuel’s occupation as a Factory Commissioner for the Home Office, his duties required him to inspect factories that employed women and children. It also meant the family moved fairly often. Since Mary Ann had been ill for a long time, with an obstruction of the bowel, Samuel employed a very attractive governess, Mary Drewe Pratt to take care of his young family. Mary Ann Windus Kent died in May 1852. Just over a year after Mary Ann’s death Samuel married Mary Drewe Pratt in Lewisham, London (registered in the September Quarter of 1853) fuelling rumours that Samuel, a known adulterer, and Mary Drewe Pratt were having an affair whilst Mary Ann was alive.

A Family Thrown into the Spotlight

On the night of the murder, Road Hill House, a beautiful three-story mansion, was the home of Samuel Kent, aged 59, head of the family; Mary Kent (nee Pratt), aged 40, second wife of Samuel; Mary Ann Kent, aged 29, children of Samuel’s first marriage; Elizabeth Kent, aged 28; Constance Kent, aged 16; and William Kent, aged 14; followed by the children of the second marriage Mary Amelia Kent, aged 5; Francis Saville Kent, aged 3; and Eveline Kent, aged 1. Also in the house were servants:- Elizabeth Gough, Nursemaid, aged 22; Sarah Cox, housemaid, aged 22 and Sarah Kerslake, cook, aged 23.

On that fateful morning, the Kent family awoke to discover that Saville was missing from his bed. His nanny, Elizabeth Gough, had assumed the child had gone to his mother during the night, but as the morning progressed, it became clear that the little boy was gone.

As the household and local community scrambled to search the estate, ominous clues began to surface. An open window on the first floor, usually kept shut, suggested an intruder. However, Francis was eventually found in his night clothes and wrapped in his blanket, half down the water-closet, with his little throat cut to the very spine and a fearful gash in the left side as if inflicted with a sharp-pointed dagger or knife. There was one puzzling fact, there was no blood in the privy and there was bruising around his mouth.

The Investigation Unfolds

Detective Jack Whicher, one of the earliest and most renowned figures in Scotland Yard, played a crucial role in the investigation of the Road Hill House murder. Upon his arrival at the scene, Whicher quickly assumed command of the inquiry, meticulously examining the evidence and making several key observations that would shape the direction of the investigation.

During the early part of the investigation, a heavily blood stained night dress was found lodged in a chimney in the house. Although there was a plan to watch over the scene, the plan went wrong and the night dress vanished.

One of Whicher's most significant insights was the discovery that the open window, initially thought to be the point of entry for an intruder, had actually been tampered with from the inside. This critical detail suggested that the killer was likely someone within the household, leading Whicher to suspect that the family was concealing information.

Additionally, a blood-stained piece of newspaper, matching those delivered to the Kents, hinted at the potential complicity of a household member. Most disturbingly, a woman's corset insert was discovered alongside Saville's body, fueling speculation that a female member of the household might be responsible for the crime.

The major lead in the case was one of Constance’s nightdresses was missing, she explained it away as being lost in the wash. She took her second nightdress from the drawer to wear and put the third into the laundry basket. The third had been seen in the basket by the maid prior to her departure on an errand for Constance. While the maid was away, Constance had the opportunity to return the still clean nightdress to her drawer. The basket then went off to the laundry – the maid unaware that the nightdress had been removed and the alibi was complete.

Suspicions and Scandals

Elizabeth Gough, the nanny, was initially suspected. Whicher theorized that Elizabeth, possibly caught in a romantic tryst, might have killed Saville to keep him quiet. However, Elizabeth’s intense grief and lack of motive led Whicher to focus on another suspect—Constance Kent, Samuel’s teenage daughter from his first marriage. Constance’s seemingly indifferent attitude and the mysterious disappearance of one of her nightgowns further fueled Whicher’s suspicions.

However, despite his strong conviction, Whicher faced intense public scrutiny. His theories were met with skepticism, especially from the Kent family and the local community. The investigation and Whicher’s conclusions became the subject of widespread debate, and his handling of the case was criticized for a perceived lack of conclusive evidence. In fact, the case was not solved at the time, and Whicher’s involvement in it did much to raise questions about his methods.

Obstructed at every step of his investigation, Whicher returned to London. He resigned from the Metropolitan Police shortly afterwards without catching the killer of Saville Kent. He did tell a friend “we will only know the truth when Constance confesses”.

Constance Kent herself - presumably because of the whole unsavoury nature of events, was sent, first, to a religious institution in France and, then, came back to England to enter a similar institution in Brighton - the St Mary's Home for Penitent Females (which included those women who had had illegitimate babies or who had been prostitutes). The family was, evidently, not popular in the neighbourhood and both Constance and William had been jeered by other children so Constance's absence may have been engineered as an act of prudence.

A Twist in the Tale

Years later, Constance Kent confessed to the murder, claiming she acted alone and killed Saville out of jealousy and resentment toward her stepmother. She was sentenced to life in prison but served 20 years before being released. To this day, questions linger about her confession—whether it was a guilty conscience or a desire to shield someone else.

There were questions over the honesty of 'the confession' and whether or not Samuel, her father, had played a role in forcing the confession. When the confession was made, Constance was a pupil at a Roman Catholic school. Reverend Arthur Wagner, the principal of the school, gave the authorities Constance’s "handwritten confession".

The murder at Road Hill House continues to captivate true crime enthusiasts, not just for the tragedy itself but for how it exposed the dark undercurrents of a seemingly respectable Victorian family.

Constance's Life Following the Murder

By this time Constance had been transferred to Parkhurst Prison. She was working on mosaics for churches. She was later moved to Woking prison and then back to Millbank. It was then realised that at the time of her sentencing, life was at least 20 years. In 1877, 12 years after her trial, the family pleaded her case and submitted a petition for release, though unsuccessful.

On the 16th April 1885 Constance submitted her seventh petition, as a result of which a release on licence from Fulham prison was granted on 18th July 1885, 20 years from the start of her trial. On her release she was met by Rev. Wagner, who escorted her by train to his home "Belvedere" at Buxted, Sussex, where he had established a religious community, affiliated to his St. Mary's Church.

Constance left England to emigrate to Australia. She arrived in Sydney on the “Carisbrook Castle” on 27th February 1886, just six month after her release. It is thought that Constance stayed with her brother William and his family during this time.

Constance quickly established herself in the colony, volunteering in the typhoid tents in Melbourne in 1888-1889. She trained as a nurse at Alfred Hospital from 1890 to 1892 and became sister-in-charge of the Female Lazaret at the Coast Hospital in Sydney in 1894. Known for her administrative skills and proficiency, she was well-liked by staff and patients. She remained there until mid-1898 before becoming Matron of the Industrial School For Girls at Parramatta. Matron Jean McMaster noted a 'period of comparative calm' during Constance's administration.

At the Industrial School, Constance oversaw the kitchen, laundry, and health and welfare of the girls, organizing evening activities and giving 'plain talk' lectures to address 'sexual delinquency'. After 1900, the school functioned as a 'lock hospital'. In October 1908, Constance learned of her brother William's death. William had a successful career at the British Museum and in fisheries management in Australia, traveling widely and publishing several works.

Constance later established 'Devon Electric Treatment' in Mittagong, reflecting her interest in alternative therapies. After a year, she became Matron at Pierce Memorial Nurses' Home at East Maitland, retiring in 1932. She moved to Loreto Rest Home in Strathfield, Sydney, where she died on 10 April 1944 and was cremated at Rookwood Cemetery. Her ashes were not collected.

CONSTANCE KENT'S CONFESSION.

Below is an excerpt from South Australian Register Saturday 18 November 1865. This showed the severity of the crime, that it gained the attention in Australian Newspapers.

Dr. Bucknill, of Rugby, the medical gentleman who visited Constance Kent to give an opinion on the subject of her sanity, has published, at her particular desire, a confession which she made to him of her crime. On the night of the murder she undressed herself and went to bed, because she expected that her sisters would visit her room. She lay awake, watching until she thought that the household were all asleep, and soon after midnight she left her bedroom and went downstairs and opened the drawing-room door and window shutters. She then went up into the nursery, took the child from his bed, and carried him downstairs through the drawing-room. Having the child in one arm, she raised the drawing-room window with the other hand, went round the house and into the closet, lighted a candle which she had secreted there, and placed it on the seat of the closet, the child being wrapped in the blanket from his cot and still sleeping, and while the child was in this position she inflicted the wound in the throat with a razor of her father's, which she had procured a few days previously.

She says that she thought the blood would never come, and that the child was not killed, and she thrust the razor into its left side, and put the body with the blanket round it into the vault. She went back into her bedroom, examined her dress, and found only two spots of blood on it. These she washed out in the basin, and threw the water, which was but little discoloured, into the foot pan. She took another of her nightdresses and got into bed. In the morning her nightdress had become dry where it had been washed, and she folded it up and put it into the drawer. Her three nightdresses were examined by Mr. Foley, the Police Superintendent, and she believes also by Mr. Parsons, the medical attendant of the family. She thought the blood stains had been effectually washed out, but on holding the dress up to the light a day or two afterwards she found the stains were still visible. She therefore secreted the dress, moving it from place to place, and she eventually burnt it in her own bedroom, and put the ashes or tinder into the kitchen grate. As regards the motive of the crime, says Dr. Bucknill, it seem that, although she entertained at one time a great regard for the present Mrs. Kent; yet if a remark was at any time made which in her opinion was disparaging to any member of the first family, she treasured it up and determined to avenge it. She had no ill-will against the little boy except as one of the children.

Dr. Buckmil adds, ' She told me when the nursemaid was accused she had fully made up her mind to confess if the nurse had been convicted, and that she had felt herself under the influence of the devil before she committed the murder ; but that she did not believe, and had not believed, that the devil had more to do with her crime than he had with any other wicked action. She had not said her prayers for a year before the murder, and not afterwards until she came to reside at Brighton. She said that the circumstance which revived religious feelings in her mind was thinking about receiving the sacrament when confirmed.' The doctor does not believe Constance Kent is insane, but he thinks from her peculiar temperament that solitary confinement would be very likely to make her so. Of the above confession the Times says:— ' A more horrible story has seldom been placed before the world. A description given by a girl of 21, of the way in which, when only 15, she murdered her little brother from no motives but those of the most trifling spite, the horrible deliberation which every turn in the story displays, the indifference or the still more diabolical self-possession which it indicates — these things combined form a picture which may well make us shudder. It is evident, however, that we have not yet obtained a complete account of all the circumstances, whether from that obliquity of mind which seems to prevent every criminal from making a perfectly accurate confession, or from mere inadvertence or omission on the part of the narrator, it is impossible to say. There is some mystery about the nightdresses, and also about the girl passing through the house at night without disturbing anyone, even the child. Let us hope that the mystery which remains may be soon unravelled, and the terrible tale consigned to a quick oblivion.' She insisted that she'd acted 'quite alone' and 'not out of jealousy', although she later explained to a friend that she had done it out of hatred for her stepmother, who had usurped her own mother, Mary Ann, in the Kent household. There seems to be a lot of conflicting evidence about the nightdress, whether it was stuffed into the chimney or Constance washed out the blood stains and then burnt it.