66

purposes, and that the particular mineral employed in the greater number of cases has been arsenic. Arsenic was the poison charged as administered in the cases of Dick, March 1649; Bisset and Currier, June 1705; Cockburn, August 1754; Wilson, August 1755; Ogilvie and Nairne, August 1765; Hay, September 1780; Marshall, 1796; Stewart, 1797; Rennie, April 1822; Elder, February 1827; Wishart, April 1827; Lovie, September 1827; Jeffray, April 1838; Gilmour, January 1844; Campbell, November 1846; Frasers, June 1852; Smith, July 1857. The circumstance that this mineral has been so frequently employed for the commission of the crime of poisoning, Mr Burnet (Criminal Law, p. 9) regarded as going to show that killing by poison has fortunately been but little practised in this country; for of all poisonous substances, arsenic is the most difficult to disguise, and, in general, the most uniform in its operations." Perhaps the frequency of its use is principally due to the ease with which it may, or rather might, have been procured, and the popular knowledge of its deleterious properties. We find also, in contradiction to Mr Burnet's theory, that, even where the art of poisoning has attained its most infamous perfection, as at Rome, during the Pontificate of Alexander VII., arsenic was the substance made use of,-the prevailing opinion of men of science being, that the celebrated aqua della Toffana was nothing else than crystallized arsenic dissolved in water by decoction. Modern science, by the perfection of its analysis, renders the detection of arsenic a matter of almost complete certainty, however small and minute the quantity administered. The medical evidence as to the cause of death, and as to the existence in the body of the deceased of the poisonous substance, especially where a mineral poison has been administered, is now therefore generally so precise, and so strengthened by the variety and accuracy of the tests employed for detection, as to render the proof offered on this branch of the corpus delicti seldom a matter for question.

The case seems to have been very different at an earlier period; for, among the trials for poisoning in Scotland during the middle and end of last century, very few instances occur in which the existence of poison in the body of the deceased was determined by chemical analysis. In the case of Wilson (August 1755), the pannel was found guilty, on the grounds of his having bought arsenic on a false pretence (the usual one, that of killing rats); of his having been seen to throw something from a paper into a jug of ale, from which the deceased drank; and of some few other less important criminating circumstances. Although a whitish powder had been observed on the edge of the jug, neither it nor the contents of the stomach were analyzed. Similar laxity was shown in the cases of Cockburn, August 1754; of Ogilvie and Nairne, August 1765; and of Inglis, 1795. In that of Ogilvie, the surgeons not being desired to examine the body till five or six days after death, did not then think it safe to open it. In the case of Hay, September 1780, where a family showed

symptoms of poisoning after partaking of a dish of sowens, it was discovered by chemical analysis that arsenic had been mixed with the sowen-seeds in the kit or barrel where they were kept. The investigations of the medical examiners were attended with success in the cases of Semple, May 1773; Stewart, 1797; and Marshall, 1796. In the latter case, no suspicions were entertained for a considerable time after the decease of the party poisoned, and the body was not exhumed till two months after death. Even after this period had elapsed, three grains of a whitish powder were discovered in the stomach, which on analysis proved to be arsenic. Instances are on record of its discovery in the body at a very much more extended period after death.

Directing our attention to the trials that have taken place during the present century, we do not find that the crime of poisoning has been on the increase. If a judgment may be formed from the recorded instances, it would seem that the disposition to commit this crime has here as elsewhere, exhibited itself by more virulent outbreaks at several particular periods. That such has been the case in other countries does not admit of doubt. The prevalence of poisoning at Rome in the days of Nero and the infamous Locusta, as also in the later times of the Borgias, is matter of history. And in France, after the execution of the Marchioness of Brinvilliers, in 1676, so serious an aspect did this crime assume, that a special court, under the title of Chambre de Poison or Chambre Ardente, was established for the purpose of investigating such cases. In Scotland, the criminal records of 1827 present a more than usual number of trials for poisoning. The case of Alcorn, in June of that year, is peculiar from the circumstance that the poison (tartar emetic) was administered, not with intent to poison, but, as the pannel, a servant-girl, asserted, "merely for a bit of fun," under the impression that it would sicken those partaking of it without doing any particular injury. The results were nearly being fatal to her master and mistress; but the absence of malicious intent being apparent, the prosecutor gave up that part of his charge, and the prisoner received sentence of twelve months' imprisonment.

In the case of Margaret Wishart, April 1827, where the defence was attempted to be set up that the deceased had committed suicide, it was held to be a strong argument against such a supposition that the deceased was blind, and would therefore have difficulty in procuring or distinguishing arsenic, and that the prisoner had been in the habit of preparing her meals. The case of John Lovie also occurs in 1827.

The incompetency of examining a medical witness, who had been in Court during the examination of the previous witnesses, in regard to facts connected with the case apart from his medical opinion, was determined in the trial of Elizabeth Jeffray, who was convicted of murder by poison in 1838.

In a later case (Gilmour, January 1844), the Lord Advocate having proposed that the medical witnesses should be allowed to

remain in Court during the examination of the other witnesses, the Lord Justice-Clerk (Hope) strongly objected to this course being followed, on the ground of the difficulty experienced in such circumstances of separating moral presumptions from scientific opinions. This trial created a great sensation at the time, the circumstances of the case being of peculiar interest. The accused was a young woman of twenty-three years of age, the daughter of a respectable farmer, who was forced into a marriage contrary to her inclinations, and notwithstanding her declared love for another. This ill-assorted union had a fatal termination; for scarcely a month after marriage her husband died with all the symptoms of arsenical poisoning, and after death poison was discovered in his body. Arsenic was traced into the pannel's possession, for which she accounted by stating, that so miserable was she, that she intended to put an end to herself. This trial, although strong circumstances of suspicion existed, terminated in a verdict of not proven.

With the exception of the case of Miss Smith, few poisoning trials of interest have occurred within the last few years. In Nov. 1846, Janet M'Lellan was tried for poisoning her husband, and found not guilty. At a still later date, 1852, a case occurred which, from the peculiarity of the mode in which the guilty parties escaped, excited much attention, and considerable regret that the ends of justice should be frustrated by a technical error of law. The crime, of which the prisoners were convicted, was one of extraordinary enormity. The culprits were mother and son, and the victim was husband of the one and father of the other. The evidence clearly proved the administration of the poison; but, in the course of the trial, an objection was taken to the admissibility of a production. The judges admitted the production, with a view of certifying the point, for the consideration of the High Court. The trial then proceeded, and the pannels were convicted; but, when the case came before the High Court, it was found that, owing to the generality of the certification (no precise day being fixed for the diet), the diet had fallen, and the pannels were accordingly liberated. A subsequent attempt to reindict the prisoners was defeated by the objection that they had already tholed an assize; and thus, through a mere clerical inadvertence, two convicted poisoners were sent back to society unpunished.

As was remarked in a celebrated English trial by Sir Francis Bacon (then Attorney-General), other murders are committed "cum sonitu," poison kills silently and in the dark. Direct proof of poisoning is therefore rarely to be had, and juries have to come to a decision on mere circumstantial evidence. Their reluctance to convict of a capital offence on such grounds, is exhibited by the frequency with which, in such cases, verdicts of "not proven," have been returned; a result partly attributable, perhaps, to the frequency with which counsel for the defence urge the very atrocity of the crime as a reason why guilt should not be lightly presumed.

Review of the Alouth.

The Case of Madeleine Smith-The Court of Session Bill-The Administration of Justice in Glasgow.

THE event of the past month is, of course, the trial and acquittal of Madeleine Smith. There never was such public excitement-never a case of such deep and absorbing interest. Rich as are the annals of our criminal jurisprudence in stories of romance and mystery, it has been reserved to our own time, with all its achievements in science and advances in civilization, to furnish one which, in every aspect, is almost without a parallel. The tragedy, with a guilty and clandestine love for its foundation, closes amid a doubt and uncertainty that makes it rival in fascination the wildest creations of fiction. Mystery it is, and mystery, apparently, it will remain to be. Its peculiarity was, that there was not one circumstance in it which is not capable of two different constructions. We therefore concur, as lawyers, in the general ratification which has been pronounced by the public on the verdict of the jury. Whatever might be their own impressions of the case, they could, on the evidence before them, come to no other finding. The fact that their determination has been in favour of the accused, removes both her and the grounds of accusation beyond the pale of public criticism; and we, therefore, forbear entering on what is rather an inviting field of inquiry.

But the trial was, in several respects, invested with a legal interest, which it belongs to our more peculiar province to consider. In the first place, the case is remarkable for the consummate ability displayed on both sides of the bar in its management. The Lord Advocate and the Dean of Faculty, like truly able men, rose with the magnitude of the occasion. It was one of those accidental opportunities which are as necessary to the display of genius as its possession. The trial may therefore be regarded as the acme of two careers, alike rapid and brilliant. The Lord Advocate, like every other public prosecutor, laboured under the disadvantage of being placed in an ungracious position, in directing all the crushing weight of the powerful machinery of the Crown against an unhappy girl,

whose age, sex, and station-nay, whose passionate outpourings in the very letters which were the strongest testimony against hersecured for her everywhere a vivid sympathy. To demand the doom of such a creature, guilty or innocent, was one of those painful tasks which those in an official position frequently must have the nerve to face. But even in the discharge of this painful duty, there is room for the display of a temper, taste, and moderation, which, in like circumstances, have often been violated. The Lord Advocate is free from such an imputation. The whole conduct of the case for the Crown was a fine illustration of the humane manner in which the law of this country vindicates itself against those by whom it has been wronged. In the Lord Advocate's speech, this was especially observable. It was not that of an advocate representing only one side and one interest in the dread question which was placed in issue. On the contrary, it was pervaded throughout by a calinness and moderation, which, with its other qualities, gave it the character of an eloquence altogether judicial.

The speech of the Dean of Faculty, on the other hand, was an effort no less remarkable. It was undoubtedly one of the finest speeches ever delivered in a Scotch Court of Justice. It brought back the remembrance of the old time, when the feelings were overcome as powerfully as the intellect was assailed. It was a rare manifestation of powers seldom found in union. While his usual sustained argumentative force was not wanting, in the demolition, step by step, of the theory of the Crown, the earnest pathos with which he referred to the more touching features of his client's case, was an appearance in a character for which few gave him credit. This may be thought the language of extravagance; but the soundness of this estimate will, we have no doubt, be confirmed by the perusal of the published reports. When, moreover, there is taken into account the superiority of spoken over written discourse-the surpassing excellence of the delivery-the mode in which figure, voice, and a graceful and expressive action, contributed to the general effect-the powerful impression produced will easily be appreciated. The exordium was one of touching simplicity, and shows the advantage of the natural over the picturesque school. Other passages were very affecting-perhaps no counsel ever had materials more thoroughly suitable for this purpose-but it is in the peroration in which all the qualities of the oration are most happily brought into play. There is nothing like it in the forensic oratory of this country, save, perhaps, the closing passages of the speech of the present Lord President for the Glasgow cotton-spinners, to some of which the Dean's address bears a close but pardonable resemblance. This trial, we repeat, will be remembered, apart from other circumstances connected with it, for the credit it has brought the bar, of which the two leaders in this remarkable case are at the head; and the distinguished manner in which

VOL. I.-NO. VII. JULY 1857.

A A A