^^^H-^'<^ 
 
 
 -J^,Jm 
 
 :*rs« v-^ar 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS ONE OF A 
 COLLECTION MADE BY 
 
 BENNO LOEWY 
 1854-1919 
 
 AND BEQUEATHED TO 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
Cornell University Library 
 arV17556 
 
 Trial of Miss IMadeline Smith, in the Hig 
 
 3 1924 031 265 915 
 oiin.anx 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this bool< is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031265915 
 
TRIAL 
 
 MISS MADELINE SMITH 
 
 JNIHE 
 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY, EDINBURGH, 
 
 ON THE CHARGE 
 
 POISONING. 
 
 JUNE 30-JULY 9, 1867. 
 
 REPRINTED, WITH COEEECTIONS AND ADDITIONS, 
 FEOM " THE SCOTSMAN." 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 SCOTSMAN OPFICB, 267 HIGH STREET. 
 
 McceiiVii. 
 
TEIAL 
 
 MISS MADELINE SMITH 
 
 BBFOEE THE 
 
 HIGH COUET OF JUSTICIARY. 
 
 FIRST DAY.— Tuesday, June 30. 
 
 The High Court of Justiciary met at ten o'olook this 
 morning for the trial of Miss Madeline Smith, charged 
 with the murder of M. Emile or Pierre Emile L'Angelier. 
 The Judges present were — the ,Iiord Juetioe-Clerk, Lord 
 Ivory, and Lord Handyside. Lord Cowan also occupied 
 a seat upon the bench. The doors ; of the Court were 
 besieged, at, an early hour in the morning, but before the 
 general public were admitted, nearly all the arailable 
 space in the interior was appropriated by those provided 
 with tickets of admission, and otherwise privileged to be 
 present. The excitement which prevailed among the 
 andienoe became intense as the hour of pommencement 
 drew on, . and the utmost intei^est was manifested to 
 catoh a glimpse of the prisoner as she stepped into the 
 dock. She appeared about half-past ten o'olook, accQm- 
 pan^ed by two policemen and a female attendant, and 
 topk her seat with the most perfect self-possession. She 
 is probably about twenty years of age, lady-like in 
 
2 
 
 appearance, of middle height and fair complexion, and 
 wore a brown silk dress and straw bonnet trimmed with 
 white ribbon. Her features wore an expression indica- 
 tive of extraordinary nerve ; and it was only by those 
 nearest to the dock that any difference could be seen in 
 the manner of the prisoner from that of the surrounding 
 spectators. Throughout the entire proceedings the 
 prisoner manifested the same composure, paying never- 
 theless the closest attention to every item of the 
 evidence. 
 
 The indictment charged Madeline Smith, or Madeline 
 Hamilton Smith, with wickedly and feloniously adminis- 
 tering arsenic, or some pther poison, with intent to 
 murder, as also with murder, in so far as, 1st, on the 
 19th or 20th days of February last (Thursday or Friday), 
 in the house in Blythswood Square, Glasgow, occupied 
 by James Smith, her father, she did wickedly and 
 feloniously administer to, or cause to be taken by, Emile 
 L'Angelier or Pierre Bmile I/Angelier, now deceased, 
 and then or lately before in the employment of W. B. 
 Huggins & Co., merchants, Bothwell Street, Glasgow, as 
 
 i clerk or in some other capacity, and then or lately 
 before residing with David Jenkins, a joiner, and Anne 
 
 uthie or Jenkins, his wife, in Franklin Street, Glasgow, 
 a quantity or quantities of Eu:senici or other poison to the 
 prosecutor unknown, in cocoa or coffee, or some other 
 article or articles of food, or of drink, to the prosecutor 
 unknown, or in some other manner to the prosecutor 
 unknown, with intent to murder the said Emile 
 L'Angelier, and that he having taken the said arsenic or 
 other poison, or part thereof, so administered or caused 
 to be taken by her, he did, in consequence thereof, and 
 immediately or soon after taking the same, suffer severe 
 illness; 2d, on the 22d or 23d February (Sunday or 
 Monday), in the house at Blythswood Square aforesaid, 
 she did administer, or cause to be taken by, the said 
 Emile L'Angelier, a quantity or quantities of arsenic or 
 other poison in cocoa or in coffee, or in some other article 
 of food or drink, or in some other manner, with intent to 
 murder him, and that in consequence of taking the said 
 poison that he again suffered severe illness ; and, 3d, on 
 
the 22d or 23d March (Sunday or Monday), in the houae 
 in Blythswood Square aforesaid, she did administer to, 
 or cause to be taken by, the said Bmile L'Angelier, in 
 some other article or articles of food or drink to the 
 prosecutor unknown, or in some other manner to the 
 prosecutor unknown, a quantity or quantities of arsenic 
 or other poison to the prosecutor unknown, and the said 
 Emile L'Angelier having taken the said arsenic or other 
 poison, or part thereof, administered or caused to be 
 taken by the prisoner, he did immediately or soon after 
 suffer severe illness, and died on the 23d March, in 
 consequence of the said arsenic or other poison having 
 been so taken by him, and was thus murdered by the 
 said Madeline Smith. 
 
 There appeared on behalf of the Crown: — The Lord 
 Advocate, the Solicitor - General, and Mr Donald 
 Mackenzie, Advocate-Depute ; Mr Brodie, Crown Agent. 
 For the defence there were : — The Dean of Faculty, Mr 
 George Young, and Mr A. MoncriefF, advocates. The 
 agents for the defence were : — Messrs Eanken, "Walker, & 
 Johnston, "W.S., Edinburgh ; Messrs Monorieff, Pateraon, 
 Forbes, & Barr, Glasgow; and Mr John "Wilkie, of 
 Messrs WiUrie & Faulds, Glasgow; 
 
 Mr Young took an objection to the words " or cause 
 to be taken," in the first and second charges of the 
 indictment, on the ground that if they were' precisely 
 equivalent to the word " administer" they were super- 
 fluous and objectionable on that ground, and that if they 
 meant anything different they were not covered by the 
 major portion of the indictment. 
 
 The XoED Advocate said the words were not material 
 in any way. They were substantially an interpretation 
 or enlargement of the word administer, and if they were 
 objected to he would strike them out. 
 
 The words having been struck out accordingly, 
 
 The prisoner was called upon to plead to the indict- 
 ment, when she pleaded " Not guilty," in a distinct and 
 unshaken tone of voice. 
 
 Owing to the absence of Dr Fenny, an important 
 witness from Glasgow, considerable delay was occasioned. 
 
 Dr Penny arrived at a quarter past twelve, and, by 
 a2 
 
the order of the Lord Juatice-dirlc, was called into 
 Court. . 
 
 The Lord 3vsno±-CLmK, addressing Dr Penny, 
 informed him that he had kept the Court waiting for two 
 hours, and inquired whether he had not been cited for 
 ten o'clock? 
 
 Dr Peniiey replied that he had heen so cited, hut was 
 not aware that it was necessary for him to be so soon. 
 
 The LoBD Justice-Clerk told him that by absenting 
 himself he had been guilty of great contempt of Court, 
 and that he had no right' to judge of' the time when he 
 would be required. Sis Lordship added that, from Dr 
 Penny's character, they could not stfppose for a moment 
 that this was anything else than a singular disregard of 
 the orders and form's ' of citation ; ' arid he trusted that 
 this exposure would be sufficient to prevent a repetition 
 of 'anything of the sort. 
 
 The following jury was then empanelled : — • 
 
 James Christie, farmer, Hailes. 
 
 James Pearson, farmer, Worthfield. 
 
 James "Walker, farmer, Kilpunt. 
 
 Charles Thomson Combe, merchant, York Place. 
 
 "William Sharp, Auckland Villa. 
 
 Archibald "Weir, bootmaker, Leith. 
 
 Charles Scott, ShakspBarB Square. 
 
 Alex. Morrison, currier, Liriliihgovr. 
 
 Andrew ."Williamson, clerk, Parkside Place. 
 
 Hugh Hunter, cabinetmaker, Circus Place. ' 
 
 Robert Andrew, cowfeeder, Wether Liberton. 
 
 George Gibb, shoemaker. Glover Street, Leith. 
 
 "William Moffat,'^ teacher, Duke Street. 
 ' David Forbes, Scotland Street. 
 
 Alex. Thomson, Torphiohen. 
 The trial then proceeded. 
 
 Mr Arehibald Smith, 'Sh^JjjJf-Sjib^stitute of Lanark- 
 shire, examined by th6"LoBD IAdVooate, was the 
 first witness called. He said — I know the panel. 
 She was judicially examined before me, and emitted 
 a declaration on the 31st March. Identified several 
 letters itnd enveloji^B hiiJKled up. There were just 
 
6 
 
 tour letters in all, She was examined on the oWge 
 of murder before her declaration was emitted. - The 
 greater part of the questions at the examination 
 were put by me. The statements made in the declara- 
 tion were all given in answer to questions. The answers 
 were given clearly and distinctly. , There was no appear- 
 ance of hesitation or reserve. There was a great appear- 
 ance of frankness and candour. The declaration is of 
 considerable length. 
 
 Mr Gem-ge Gray, clerk in the Sheriff-Clerlt's Office, 
 Glasgow, stated that he was present when the declaration 
 was emitted by the panel. 
 
 Ann Duthie or Jenkins, examined by the LoBD ADVO- 
 CATE ^~ I am the wife of David .Jenkins, and live 
 at No. 11 Franklin Place, Glasgow. I knew the 
 late M. L'Angelier. He lodged in my house. He first 
 came to me about the end of July. He remained in my 
 house a lodger until his death. His usual habits were 
 civil ; but he was in the habit of staying out at 
 night ; not very often. He enjoyed general good health. 
 Becollect his having an illness somewhere about the 
 middle of Februaiy. That was not the first serious illness 
 he had had since he came to lodge with me ; he had one 
 eight or ten days before. One night he wished a pass- 
 key, as'Jie thought he would be out late. I went to bed, 
 and did not hear liim come in. I knocked at his door 
 about eight in the morning, and got no answer. 1 
 knocked again, and was answered, "Come in, if you 
 please." 
 
 The witness was here removed, and 
 
 The JjOED Advooate preferred a request that the 
 Court would allow the medical witnesses to hear that 
 part of the evidonce^ijpscEiptive of the symptoms mani- 
 fested by M. L'-4ngeli9(;before his death. 
 
 The Dean of Faeulty said the proposal had taken him 
 by surprise, and that,- had notice been given, he might 
 have acceded to the request, but in the circumstances he 
 could not do so. .^ • 
 
 A3 
 
The Coiirt, seeing that both parties! would not consent, 
 refused to admit the medical gentlemen. 
 , Ann Duthie or Jenkins was recalled and con- 
 tinued — I went into M. L'Angelier's room. He 
 said, "I have been very unweU ; look what I have 
 vomited." I said I thought that it was bile. It 
 was a greenish substance. There was a great deal 
 of it. It was thick stuff, like gruel. I said, ""WTiy 
 did you not call upon me ?" He said that while on the 
 road coming home he was seized with a violent pain in 
 his bowels and stomach, and when he was taking off his 
 clothes he thought he should have died upon the carpet, 
 and no human eye would have seen him. He was 
 not s.bl';, he said, to ring the bell. He asked me to 
 mak? a little tea, and said he would. not go out. I 
 emptied what he had vomited. I advised him to go to a 
 doctor, and he said he would. He took a little breakfast, 
 and then went to sleep until nine o'clock — about an hour. 
 I went back to him then. He said he was a little better, 
 and he would go out. He had got some tea by this time. 
 Mr Thuau, who also lodges in my house, saw him. He 
 rose between ten and eleven o'clock. His place of 
 business was 10 Bothwell Street, at Messrs Huggins'. It 
 is two streets off. He said he was going to call on some 
 lady on his way there. After going out he returned 
 about three in the afternoon. He said he had been 
 at the doctor, and brought a bottle in with him. He 
 took the medicine, and complained of being very 
 thirsty. "When he returned at three o'clock he still 
 complained of being thirsty, but not so much as at first. 
 Tlie' illness made a great change in his appearance. He 
 looked yeEow and dull, and not what he used to be. 
 Before that his complexion was fresh. He became dark 
 under the eyes, and the red of his cheeks seemed to be 
 more broken. He complained of cold after he came in — 
 of being very cold. He lay down upon the sofa, and I 
 laid a railway rug over him. I did nothing for his feet. 
 He never was the same after this illness. He got a 
 little better. WTien asked how he felt he was accus- 
 tomed to say, "I never feel well." I have nothing by 
 which to remember the date of this first illness^ I think 
 
the second was about the 22d February. On a Monday 
 morning about four o'clock he called me. He was 
 vomiting. It was the same kind of stuff as before, in 
 colour and otherwise, but there was not quite so much of 
 it. He complained on this occasion likewise of pain in 
 the bowels and stomach, and of thirst and cold. I did 
 not know he was out the mght before. He did not say 
 anything about it, I put more blankets upon him, 
 put jars of hot water to his feet, and made him 
 ' tea. I gave him also a great many drinks — toast 
 and water, lemon and water, and such drinks. 
 That was because he was thirsty. I called again about 
 six in the morning. He did not rise until the forenoon. 
 He had bought a piece of meat for soup f rpm one Stewart 
 in St George's Bead, on Saturday the 21st. He kept a 
 pass-book into which he entered these things. The date 
 of the pass-book enables me to remember this. ^[Identifies 
 the pass-book.] I see the piece of meat of 7 lb. weight 
 entered on tlie 21st February. E«eoUeot that this meat 
 was sent home on the Saturday before this second illness. 
 Dr Thomson came to attend him. He came on Monday. 
 Thuau went for him. It was in the forenoon when the 
 doctor came, but I don't remember the hour. The 
 doctor saw L'Angelier, and left a, prescription 
 for powders, which I got. L'Angelier was about 
 eight days in the house at that time, away from his 
 office. He took one or two of the powders, but I don't 
 know whether he took the rest. He said they were not 
 doing him the good he expected. He said that the 
 doctor was always saying that he was getting better, but 
 he did not feel well. Dr Thomson came frequently 
 to see him. He used often to say that he did not 
 feel that he was getting better. Some time after this, 
 he went to Edinburgh. I don't remember the date of his 
 going. He was, I think, about eight days at Edinburgh. 
 Recollect his coming back ; it was, I think, a Tuesday. 
 Mr Thuau told me about four o'clock of the same day that 
 that L'Angelier was coming back that evening, and I 
 got in some bread and butter for him. [Identifies 
 L'Angelier's pass-book containing account with Chalmers, 
 a baker, St George's Boad.] The entry for the bread is 
 
8 
 
 on the 17th March. He returned that night about half- 
 past ten. He was in the habit of receiving a great many 
 letters, but I thought they were addressed in a gentleman's 
 hand. There were a great many letters in the same hand. 
 Sometimes they came in yellow, and sometimes, I think, 
 in white; envelopes. [Indemtifies some of the white enve- 
 lopes ; identifies, also, some of the yellow envelopes, but 
 isnot so sure of them as of the white.]! He never told me 
 whom these letters were from. Remember seeing the 
 photograph of a, lady lying about his chamber. [Identifies 
 the photograph.] I said, " Is that your intended. Sir ?" 
 He saidj "Perhaps, some day." I never thought- the 
 letters came from a lady. M. L'Angelier never said any- 
 thing jbo me about taking in these letters. Knew from M. 
 L'Angelier that he expected to be married. About the end 
 of Septeiliber 1856 he wished to engage a dining-room and 
 bed-room. He told me that he was going to be married 
 in March, and he would like me to take him in. I did 
 not agree to do so. There was one time I said it would 
 be a bad job for him to be ill if he got m&,rried, and he 
 said, "You'll not see that for a long time." When 
 he came home on the 17th March he asked if I had any 
 letter for him ; I said No. He seemed to expect a letter, 
 and to be disappointed at not finding it. He stopped at 
 that time until the 19th. Before he went away he said 
 that any letters that came were to be given to Thuau, who 
 would address them. He said he was going to the Bridge 
 of Allan. He went away about ten o'clock in the 
 morning. A letter came for him upon the 19th. It was 
 like the letters which had been in the habit of coming, 
 and 1 gave it to Mr Thuau. I don't remember of any letter 
 on the Friday, but there was one on the Saturday more 
 like a lady's handwriting. I also gave this to Mr Thuau. 
 M. Angelier said he would not be home until Wednesday 
 night or Thursday morning next week. He was very 
 much disappointed at not getting a letter before he went 
 away; and he said, "If I get a letter perhaps I will be 
 home to-night." He said he was going to the Bridge 
 of Allan. I don't know whether he went anywhere 
 else before going to the Bridge of Allan. [Identifies 
 Rn mvelope as like ths one which came on Saturday, but 
 
9 
 
 could not speak as to another which was shown.] I next 
 saw ^'Angelier on Sunday night about eight o'clock. 
 Was surprised to see him so soon. He said the letter sent 
 hadbrought him home, and on his asking when it oame I told 
 him that it oame on Saturday afternoon. He said he had 
 walked fifteen miles, but did not say where he had come 
 from. I understood he had been at the Bridge of Allan. 
 He said he intended to go back to-morrow morning, and 
 desired to be called early. Do not remember whether 
 he said he was going back to the Bridge of Allan. I think 
 I only understood that. He looked much better, and, on 
 being asked, said he was a great deal better, and all but 
 well. He went out that night about nine o'clock. 
 Before going out he said, "If you please, give me the 
 pass-key, for I am not sure but I may be late." He 
 told me to call him early in the morning to go by the 
 first train. He did not say what hour, but I thought it 
 would be between seven and eight o'clock. It was about 
 half -past two in the morning, as far as I can remember, 
 when I next saw him. He did not use the pass-key in 
 coming in, but the bell rang with great violence. I rose 
 and asked who was there, and H. L'Angelier answered, 
 " It is I ; open the door, if you please." WhenI opened 
 the door he was standing with his arms across his stomach. 
 He said, "I am very bad; I am going' to have another 
 vomiting of that bile." The first time I saw the vomitings 
 I said it was bile. He said, " I never was troubled with 
 bile." He said he thought he never would have got home, 
 he was so bad on the road. He did not say how he had 
 been iU. He did not say whether it was pain, or 
 whether he had been vomiting before he came up. 
 The first thing he took was a little water. I filled 
 up the tvimbler, and he tried to vomit. He wished a 
 little tea. I went into the room, and before ha , v^s 
 half undressed, he was vomiting very severely. It was 
 the same kind of matter as I had seen before. . There 
 was a Ught at the gas. The vomiting was attended with 
 great pain. I asked whether he had been taking 
 nothing to disagree with his stomach; he said, "No, 
 I have been taking nothing, ,and had bjeen very well 
 since I was at the Bridge of Allan." I said, " You 
 
10 
 
 never took any medicine, Sir?" He said, "I don't 
 approve of medicine." He was chilly and cold, and 
 wished a jar of hot water to his feet, and another to 
 his stomach. I got these for him, and three oi four 
 pairs of blankets and two mats. He got a little easier, 
 but. about four o'clock he became worse ; and on my 
 proposing to go for the doctor he said he was a little better, 
 and that I need not go so soon in the morning. About 
 five o'clock he again got worse, and his bowels became 
 bad. It had only been vomiting up to this time. I said 
 I would go to the nearest doctor — Dr Steven. He asked 
 what kind of a doctor he was, and told me to go and bring 
 him. I went for Dr Steven at five o'clock, I think ; he 
 said he could not come so early, bat told me to give him 
 twenty-five drops of laudanum, and put a miistard-blister 
 on his stomach, and said that if he did not get better he 
 would come. When I came home, I told M. L'Angelier 
 what the doctor had said. He answered, " I never could 
 take laudanum ;" and as for the plaster, I could not put 
 it on. But I gave hiin more hot water. He then began 
 vomiting freely, and got a little better. His bowels and 
 stomach still continued bad, and about seven o'clock I 
 noticed he was dark about the eyes. I said I would go 
 back to the doctor,' and if I did not get him to come, I 
 would go on to the next. He said he wished I would. I 
 visited Dr Steven, and he followed immediately. 
 L'Angelier was anxious to get th^ doctor by that time. 
 Dr Steven came a little after I returned, and I brought 
 the doctor into the room, and he ordered mustard isome- 
 diately. So I left the room to get the mustard. I did 
 not hear the doctor ask L'Angelier what was the matter 
 with him. When the doctor came in, I said, "Look what 
 he vomited." He said the smell was sour, and that it was 
 making him faintish. I don't remember L'Angelier 
 saying anything about his illness. I was a, good 
 deal out of the room. ' I got the mustard, and the 
 doctor said he would put it on and wait twenty 
 minutes or so to see how it would do. He gave 
 him a little morphia, too. I think the doctor 
 would be in the room with his patient about half-an- 
 hour. When I went into the room again, when I 
 
11 
 
 was putting the jar of hot water to his stomaoh, 
 L'Angelier said that was the worst attack he had 
 ever had, and I said I thought it was. " I feel 
 something here," he then said to the doctor, pointing 
 to his forehead. "It is not perceptible," replied the 
 doctor, "it must be inwardly, for I do not see any- 
 thing wrong." I asked the doctor whether there was 
 anylning else I could do for L'Angelier. He said time 
 and quietness were what were wanted. I then signed to 
 the doctor to come and speak to me. He went out of 
 the ii)om, and I asked him " "What is wrong with him?" 
 He said, " Is he a person that tipples ?" I said, " No, 
 quite the opposite — what is wrong with him? He is 
 very unlike a person that tipples, I said. Is it not 
 strange that he should go out quite well, and come back 
 badly ? Can you teU me the cause of it?" " I will give 
 you an explanation afterwards," returned the doctor. I 
 opened the door for the doctor when he went away, and 
 he said he would be back between ten and eleven. I 
 went back to L'Angelier, and when he saw me he asked 
 what the doctor had been saying to me, for he saw him 
 go out of the room with me. I said, " The doctor says 
 you win get over it." He put the question to me again, 
 and I made the same answer. " Oh," he said, " I am 
 far worse than the doctor thinks." I stayed tiU about 
 nine o'clock. I am not positive, but I think it was 
 about that hour. He looked bad. I thought he was 
 very ill. He said, " If it would not be putting you to 
 too much trouble, I would like to see Miss Perry." 
 He told me her address. I think it was Back 
 Street, but I don't remember the number ; or 
 maybe Benfield. Was it 144 Benfield Street ? 
 I don't recollect. I never saw the lady. I sent for her 
 and she came. Before she came I went in and out of his 
 room three or four times. He said, "If you please, draw 
 these curtains. Oh, it I could but get five minutes peace 
 I think I would be better." These were the last words I 
 heard him speak. I left him then, and I came back in 
 five or ten minutes. I went quietly into the room. He 
 did not speak, and I went quietly out again, thinking he 
 was asleep. The doctor came npt above five or ten 
 
12 
 
 minutes after. He said, "How is your patient." I 
 said, " He is only over asleep, it is a pity to waken him." 
 The doctor said he would like to see him. We then 
 went into the room together. Thfe doctor felt his pulse. 
 He raised his head, aud'it fell down again. "I'said, "Is 
 there anything wrong ?" He said, "Draw those cutifeins,'' 
 and i did so. M. L'Angelier was dead. Do you' think 
 you have told us all M. L'Angelier Said to you that night ? 
 — AU I can remember. I did not ask him where he had 
 been. I had no reason to know or suspect where he had 
 been ; but I knew from the time that he told me he was 
 going to be married that he was receiving private corre- 
 spondence, but I did not know from wKom. AV^as that the 
 reason why you did not ask him where he had been that 
 night?- — Yes. Miss Perry came, but she was too late. 
 I sent my little boy to Mr Clark, another lodger. Mr 
 Clark came, and Mr Chrystal, who keeps a druggist's 
 shop. Mr Stevenson came, but not at that time. Mr 
 Chrystal Went into the room and shut his eyes. The 
 body'was still lying on the bed. He said he would send 
 to his employers ; but Mr Menzies, the undertajirer, came 
 first, then Miss Perry, then Mr Stevenson, and I 
 think Mr Thuau came too, and Dr Thomson. 
 Stevenson is one of the young men in Huggins' employ - 
 ment. When he came I told him- 1 wished him to 
 look up what belonged to L'Angelier, and he did so. The 
 clothes he took off at night were laid on the sofa. He 
 took a letter out Of his pocket, and some person'-^I 
 don't remember whom — said, " This explains all." I saw 
 the letter and said, " That is the letter that came on 
 Saturday." Thuau a;nd Stevenson and, I think, Mr 
 Kennedy and Dr Thomson were there. I can't say 
 whether it was Stevenson or Thuau who said " This 
 explains all." I think it was Stevenson. I recognised 
 the letter that had come on thi? Saturday, and said 
 so. Stevenson looked Up the things. At that time I 
 don't remember anything being said as to having an 
 examination. He was coffined the night he died/ and 
 I think they examined the wardtobe that night. ' But 
 there was no examination of- his body till, I think, 
 Veduesday, Till Stevenspn locked them up, everything 
 
13 
 
 was left as L'Angelier died. .When L'Angelier oarae 
 from Bridge of AEan the night before he ied, I can't 
 say whether he wore a coat or jacket ; but it was closely 
 buttoned and «hort, and t remember seeing a handker. 
 chief in it. He wore a Glengarry bonnet on his head. 
 I did not see him go out ; he had a bonnet on when he 
 came baibk, but I can't say if it was the same. On his 
 illness when he vomited so much, he had always bowel 
 complaint. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Dean — One illness was oil the 
 22d February ; tjiere was an illness before that, but I 
 can't say its date ; it might be eight or ten days before 
 the illness of 22d February, but I cannot ,Bp6ak to it. 
 The first illness was a great deal worse than the second. 
 I think it was in January he first complained of ill 
 health ; he first complained of his tongue, then a boil 
 came. out on his neck, and shortly after that another boil ; 
 
 , that was iti January. On these illnesses I suggested that 
 it was bile that was the matter with him, I was 
 
 . troubled with that myself, and my symptoms were some- 
 thing the same as his, but not so violent. On these occa- 
 sions there was a good deal of purging as well as vomiting. 
 As to the illness of the 22d February, he dined at honie 
 
 , on the Sunday. On the Saturday night he said he did 
 not intend to go out next day ; he said he was not ve?y 
 well. He was taking fresh herring on the Saturday ; I 
 thought that was against him. I said I did not hink 
 herring good for him at that time of the year., He made 
 a sauce of vinegar and egg, and I said that was not good 
 for him. He was also, I thought, using too many vege- 
 tables. He said that when he was at college in France 
 he used a good many vegetables. I have no recollection 
 of his going out on the Sunday. I don't remember 
 his asking me for the check-key. I think I would 
 have recollected if he had done so. I can't bring it to 
 my recollection whether he was out that night. He 
 was confined to the' house eight days after that Sunday ; 
 he was only out one?, about the 23d or 24th. , I don't 
 remember him being out of tener. Dr Thomson continued 
 to visit him during these eight days that he was in the 
 house. After his first illness, he brought home medicines 
 
14 
 
 with him ; the,, doctor wrote a [prescription, and I sent 
 for the powders ; but I never recollect hiin bringing 
 more. There were eight bottles in his room 
 after his death ; in one there was laudanum, 
 and in another there was something which appeared to 
 be rhubarb. The authorities got the bottles away. I 
 think !Mr Murray was one of the parties who took them, 
 and Mr Stevenson. I don't recollect when theyfot them. 
 It was some days after his death. I think it was more 
 than a week after, but I am not sure. I was in the room 
 when they took them away. Mr Murray put some 
 questions to me, but I do not recollect what they were. 
 When L'Angelier went to the Bridge of Allan, he 
 said if there was a letter he would be back 
 perhaps that night. That was Thursday night. A 
 letter did come, and it was sent after him by Mr 
 Thuau, but he did not come till Saturday. I don't 
 remember a letter coming on Friday, but one came on 
 Saturday between three and four : it was readdresaed by 
 Mr Thuau and sent off; that would be about sis o'clock 
 when he came in to dinner. I think it came by the last 
 post before dinner. He said he was a little better when 
 he came from Edinburgh, but I knew a greater difference 
 on him when he came from Bridge of Allan ; he looked 
 very much better. When he came on Sunday evening 
 from Bridge of Allan he took some tea and a slice of cold 
 toast, but nothing else. I did not see him go out ; I 
 knew he was at the water-closet before he went 
 out ; I did not see the dress he wore when he went 
 out. I did not observe what he had on when he 
 came home at two in the morning. The gas was 
 out in the lobby, and when he went into the bed-room he 
 was half undressed. He did not say that he had vomited 
 on the way home ; he vomited a great deal the morning 
 that he died — ^the chamber-pot was quite full, and he 
 vomited a very little after I emptied it ; be was also 
 purged twice— once before the doctor came, and once 
 after. After sending for the doctor, I gave him hot 
 water that made him vomit, and he was a good deal 
 better after that ; the chamber-pot was not emptied till 
 after the doctor came. Before I went for the doctor he 
 
15 
 
 said he would go to tlie water-closet, but I would not 
 allow him, and I said I would keep what he 
 had vomited, and let the doctor see it. Among 
 the things the doctor suggested I should give him was 
 laudanum. There was laudanum in L'Angelier's press, 
 but he refused to take it, and said he never could take it ; 
 " Besides," he said, " it is not good, it has been standing 
 without a cork." After the doctor's visit, I told him the 
 doctor said he would get over it. The doctor said so to me. 
 I had asked Tiim particularly, and he said he would get 
 over it the same as before. On the morning of his death 
 I remember him complaining about his throat being sore. 
 The doctor gave him some water, and he said it 
 was choking him, or that it was going into his 
 chest. I don't know whether his throat was sore. 
 When he was in bed that morning he had his arms always 
 out on the bed-clothes; I don't remember his hands 
 being clenched ; his right hand was clenched when he 
 died. I think Miss Perry came that morning about ten ; 
 when she came in I said, " Are you the intended ?" and 
 she said " Oh, no, I am only a friend." When he asked 
 me to send for Miss Ferry, I supposed she was his 
 intended. I told her he was dead ; and she seemed very 
 sorry. Her grief was very striking ; she seemed very 
 much overwhelmed, and cried a great deal. I was 
 surprised at the excess of her grief. 
 
 By the Court — The message I sent was that M. 
 L'Angelier was very bad, and that she should come as 
 soon as convenient. > 
 
 By the Deait — I don't recollect if she asked to see the 
 body, but I took her in and showed it to her. When 
 she told me she was not the intended, I said I heard he 
 was going to be married, and how sorry the lady would 
 be. When she went into the room, she kissed his 
 forehead several times. She was crying very much. Mr 
 Scott, the undertaker, was present at this time, and I 
 think my sister also. Miss Perry said how sorry she 
 was for his mother. I don't remember her saying she 
 knew his mother. M. L'Angelier had two wooden 
 writing-desks in his room. I did not see the letters 
 taken away ; some' of the clothes I knew about, but not 
 
16 
 
 the letters. , I was not in the room when, the 
 
 oMoffs seVrohed' his ' boxes and clothe?." They rung the 
 bell,, arid said they wanted to , search, them, and then 
 said, "i'tiat is all that is required." I don't recollect 
 any ladies calling on M. L'Angelier ; one' old lady called 
 with her husband, and took tea with liim. Sometimes 
 there were messages from other ladies. When he was ill, 
 there was a jar of marmalade, sent, and some books, and 
 a card along with it. On the card was. " Mrs Overton," , 
 - About the end of August or beginning of September he 
 tolil me he had ah illness. He said his bowels had been 
 very bad, and that he had not been in bed all night. That 
 waS;the same night there wa,s'a fire in Windsor Terrace. 
 Re-examined by the LOED Advocate— ^Shown a gray- 
 coat and Glengarry bonnet— these are his clothes. ' He : 
 had two or three Glengarry caps the same as this. Shown 
 a small leather portmanteau. Witness identified it as 
 his. T'f'hen I said to Miss Perry how sorry the lady 
 wovJd be to, whom he'was to be married, she said not to 
 say much about it, or anything about it — I don't 
 reqoUect which. Shown a small morocco leather bag, 
 and identified it as having' been taken to Bridge of Allan 
 by M. L'Angelier. 
 
 By the CouBT — ^When I asked ' if he had taken any- 
 thing which had disagreed with liim, I meant, had he 
 taken anything at the Bridge of AUan which disagreed 
 with him. I did not refer to his taking anything that 
 night. I said, had he taken anything when he was away 
 that disijgreed with him ? and he said, No ; he never 
 felt better than when he was at the country. I 
 did not ask him where he had been that night, 
 because I thought he had been visiting his intended. 
 My husband was from home, and only saw him once, at 
 the New- Year time. The two letters whioh came on the ,. 
 Thursday and Saturday were readdressed by Mr Thuau. 
 I gave them to him whenever they were delivered. The 
 second letter I took into the bed-room, and put it on the 
 glass. I noticed that it was very nte a lady's hand- 
 writing. Could not identify which letter it was that 
 came ,qn Saturday. I paid no attention to the one that 
 caiBe on Thursday. , , 
 
17 , 
 
 By the Dean of FAonLTT— Wliile IVAngelier was 
 lodging with me, I was from home for six weeks— the end " 
 of August and the whole of September. 
 
 By the Coubt— M. Thuau had been away in Edinburgh ' 
 from the Saturday before L'Angelier's death. 
 
 James Heggie, examined by the Lord Advocate— I 
 am salesman to Mr Chalmers, balcer, Sb George's Boad. 
 Shpwn pass-book between Mr Chalmers and L'Angelier ; 
 und6r date 17th March there is an entry of some bread 
 and butter got for L'Angelier on that day. 
 
 Jdhn Stewart, flesher, St George's Eoad, examined by 
 the Lord AIjvooaiIe — ^Identified his pass-book with M. 
 L'Angelier. On 21^t February there is an entry of 7 lb. 
 of beef, which was sent to M. L'AngeUer on that day. 
 
 Catherine Bohertson, Ibdging-house keeper. Elm Row, 
 Edinbiirgh, by the Lord Advocate — I remember about 
 the 10th March a gentleman coming to my house for 
 lodgings. He was a foreigner. He did not tell me his 
 name, but I saw " Mr L'Angelier" on his portmanteau. 
 He came on the 10th March, and left on the 17th. He 
 said he had come from Glasgow, and that he was going 
 to the Bridge of Allan. He appeared to be in very good 
 health, but he told me he had been an invalid. He was* 
 in good health when he left me. 
 
 Peter Pollock, stationer, Leith Street, Edinburgh, 
 examined by the Lord Advocate — I knewM. L'Angelier. 
 I remember seeing him on the 19th March last. He had 
 come from Glasgow that day. He called at my shop in 
 Leith Street. He said he had come from Glasgow for a 
 letter which he expected to find at the Post Office in 
 Edinburgh. Iknewhdhad been living in Mrs Kobertson's 
 for a week before ; he told me so. He did not find the 
 letter. He left Edinburgh on the day I saw him, about 
 a quarter past four, for the Bridge of Allan. 
 
 By the Dban-^I saw him about two o'clock. He said 
 he had come straight from Glasgow, and for the purpose 
 of receiving a letter. He said there was no letter— he 
 
18 
 
 told me this again. I saw him first at two ; and then in 
 about half-an-hour afterwards he returned and said there 
 was no letter. He left my shop about three o'clock, and 
 said he was going to the Bridge of AUan. This was on 
 a Thursday. 
 
 Mrs Jcme Bayne, Bridge of Allan, examined by the 
 LoED Advocate — I recollect M. L'Angelier coming to 
 my house on Thursday the 19th March between five and 
 »ix o'clock in the evening. He wanted lodgings, a.nd took 
 them in my house ; he stayed till Sunday. I recollect his 
 having a small leather bag with him ; he seemed to be in 
 good health and spirits, and took his meals well. He 
 left on Sunday just after two o'clock. I did not hear 
 him say why he left. He had intended staying longer. 
 
 C!ia/rles Neil Snalierfotrrd, Bridge of Allan, examined 
 by the Loed Advocate — I was postmaster oi Bridge of 
 Allan in the beginning of the year. Shown envelope 
 addressed " M. L'Angelier, Post OfSce, Bridge of Allan." 
 I don't recollect this letter ; but it must have come to 
 the office on the 22d March. 1 don't remember to whom 
 it was delivered. 1 recollect a gentleman leaving a card 
 with the name L'Angelier upon it ; that was about the 
 2(Uh. I gave that letter to him when it was called for. 
 
 By the Dean — I can say nothing about the letter 
 except from the postmark ; it has the Glasgow postmark, 
 and the Bridge of Allan postmark ; all that is on it is 
 "Bridge of Allan, 22d March 1857;" the letters on the 
 stamp signify that it arrived at half-past ten in the 
 morning ; that letter would leave Glasgow about seven A, u. 
 
 WUlia/m Fairfowl, guard of the Caledonian Bailway — 
 1 was the guard of the train which left Stirling in the 
 afternoon of the 22d March last ; it left Stirling at half -past 
 three. A gentleman, apparently a foreigner, travelled 
 by that train to Glasgow, I did not know his name at 
 the time, but I »know it now. Shown a photograph of 
 M. I/Angelier. I recognise this as a likeness of the 
 gentleman. He went in the train from Stirling to 
 Coatbridge, the nearest part to Glasgow. I asked if he 
 
19 
 
 wanted a machine, and he said Ko, he was hungry and 
 wanted to be shown a place where he could get 
 something to eat ; he said he was in no hurry to 
 Glasgow, if he got in at night. There was a Mr Boss, 
 an auctioneer, who came from Stirling. I showed M. 
 Ii'Angelier and he the road to Glasgow, and they 
 started together. I saw him get some roast-beef before 
 leaving ; he ate it very heartily. I was with him all the 
 time. He took some porter with the beef. 
 
 By the Loed Jubticb-Clbkk — I stopped at Coatbridge. 
 I don't go beyond that. 
 
 By the Dean — There were only about eight passengers 
 ,of all classes in the train. If one except Ross and this 
 gentleman stopped at Coatbridge. I am quite certain of 
 that. I had never seen B,oss before that day, and have 
 never seen him since. Mr Miller, from Glasgow, told me 
 his name. Mr Miller was engaged in the defence. 1 
 never saw either Ross or L'Angelier before or since, and I 
 did not know theiyiames or anything about them. I was 
 first examined about this matter four or five days after 
 the occurrence. I was told at GreenhiU that I was 
 wanted by the Fiscal at Stirling ; and I was examined 
 by him. Deceased got the food in M'Donald's, at Coat- 
 bridge. I saw him take the beef. He ate a good deal ; 
 but neither Ross nor I ate. Witness identified Ross. 
 
 Thomas Moss, auctioneer, Govan Street, Hutchesontown, 
 Glasgow, examined by the LoKD Advocate — I recollect 
 being in Stirling on the 22d March, and leaving by the 
 train in the afternoon for Glasgow. I went by the train 
 to Coatbridge. I did not observe a foreign gentleman in 
 the train, but I saw him when he got out. I did not 
 know his name. The guard said he was going to walk to 
 Glasgow, and I was going to do the same. Before start- 
 ing, he had some roast-beef and a smaU bottle of porter. 
 I saw him take it. "We then started for Glasgow, and I 
 think we took a little more than two hours to get there. 
 It was twenty minutes past five when we left, and it was 
 rather more than half-past seven when we reached 
 Glasgow. The distance is .eight miles. He had a Balmoral 
 bonnet on his hesid — ^lik? one shown to witness. Po 
 
20 
 
 walked well, and did not appear tired when he got to 
 Glasgow. He smoked several times on the ro^d. He 
 did not tell me who he was. He appealed in good health 
 and spirits when we parted. We parted at the top of 
 Aberoiomby Street, GaUowgate. He said he was going 
 to the Great Western ,Epad. 
 
 , By the Dean — He said he had come from Alloa that 
 morning, and that he had walked from Alloa to Stirling, 
 He said the distance was eight miles. He said nothing 
 that I remember about the Bridge of Allan, Our con- 
 versation was chiefly. abont local affairs, such as the 
 scenery around us. He did not eat a great deal^t 
 Coatbridge. He told me he had presented a cheque at 
 ,the bank at Stirling either the ,day before or some other 
 day, and that they would not cash it, he being a stranger. 
 Abercrbmby Street is about the middle of the Gallowgate. 
 
 I I was in no house with him on the way from Coatbridge 
 to Glasgow, ,and in no shop. 
 
 By the LoBD Advocate— Ve left^oatbridge at twenty 
 minutes past five. 
 
 William, Stevenson, warehouseman, Abercrpmby Street, 
 New City Eoad, Glasgow, examined by the SOLiqiTOB- 
 Gen]3EAL^-I am in the employment, of Huggins & Co., 
 Bothwell Street. The late M. Angelier was in our 
 war^ltou^e, in the same department under me. He was 
 , unwe^ in March last, and got leave of absence. I under- 
 stood he was going'tp Edinburgh. He afterwards went 
 to the Bridge of Allan. I did not see him between ias 
 going to Edinburgh and his going to the Bridge of Allan. 
 I got ^ letter from him from the Bridge of Allan ; it 
 bears the postmark "Bridge of Allan, March 20," I 
 think. It is as follows : — 
 
 "Bridge of Allan, Friday. — Dear "William,— I am 
 happy to say that I feel much J)etter, though T f ear 
 I slept in a damp bed, for my limbs are all sore, 
 and scarcely able to bear me, but a day or two 
 VfiJI put all. to rights. What ' a dull place this is. 
 I ,went to Stirling , to-day; but it was so cold and 
 ■damp that I soon hurried Home again. Are you very 
 Am I wanted? If so, I am ready to oops 
 
21 
 
 home at any time. Just drop me a line at the Post 
 Office. You were talking of taking a few days to your- 
 self ; so I shall come up whenever you Uke. If any 
 letters come, please send them to me . here, I intend to 
 be home not later than Thursday morning. — I am, &c., 
 "P. Emile L'Angelieb." 
 This is M. L'AngeHer's handwriting. He was generally 
 addressed Emile. I answered that letter. Identify 
 the answer which I sent, acknowledging the receipt 
 of the foregoing letter. I recovered this letter in 
 reply in the Post Oifice at Bridge of Allan. I was 
 sent to Bridge of AUan to take possession of ^. 
 L' ingelier's property, and I got the letter at the same 
 time. This was on Friday the 27th, He had been in 
 the employment of Messrs Huggins about four and a half 
 years. I got notice of his death on the 23d March, and 
 went on receipt of that intelligence to the Erench 
 Consul's oifice. I saw there Mr Thuau, who told me that 
 L'Angelier's medical attendant was Dr Thomson, and I 
 sent for him. I saw L'Angelier's corpse. Was told 
 that Dr Steven also had attended, and sent for him. 
 They said tliat an examination of the body was the only 
 way of explaining his death. There was then no suspicion 
 about it. I authorised them {b make a post mortem 
 examination the following day. In consequence of what 
 I learned at that examination I informed the Procurator- 
 Fiscal on Tuesday, I saw them commence the post mortem 
 examination. I did not expect L'Angelier in Glasgow on 
 the Sunday night ; that was inconsistent with his letterto 
 me. When I went to his lodgings on the Monday, his 
 clothes were lying on the sofa in his room, I examined 
 them, and found various articles — a comb, tobacco, three . 
 finger-rings, 5s, 7|d,, a bunch of keys, and a letter. 
 The letter was in his vest pocket in an envelope. I 
 identify the letter. It was read as follows : — 
 
 "Why, my beloved, did you not come to me? Oh, my 
 beloved, are you Ul ? Come to me. Sweet one, Iiwaited 
 and waited for you, but you came not. I shall wait again 
 to-morrow night — same hour and arrangement. ■ Qh, 
 come, sweet love, my own dear love of a sweetheart. 
 Come, beloved, and clasp me to your heart ; come, and 
 
22 
 
 we shall be happy. A kiss, fond love. Adieu, with 
 tender embraces. Erer believe me to be your own ever 
 dear, fond "MiNlE." 
 
 The letter was addressed "M. E. L'Angelier, Mrs 
 Jenkins, 11 Franklin Place, Great 'Western Boad, Glas- 
 gow." I made some remarks on getting that letter, 
 but I don't exactly recoUeot what they were. I said 
 the letter explained why he was in Glasgow, and not in 
 Bridge of Allan. 
 
 By the Lord Justicb-Clebk— I did not knojy who 
 " Minie" meant. 
 
 By the Bolicitob-General — I was intimate with 
 him in business, but not otherwise. I found a bunch 
 of keys in his pocket, which I took with me, and 
 ' I kept them. I put them into the possession of 
 Mx T. E. Kennedy, our cashier. I knew that H. 
 L'Angelier had a memorandum-book. I remember 
 having it when coming from bis lodgings after seeing the 
 body. I got it in his lodgings, but cannot tell when. 
 Identify the memorandum-book (a pocket note-book), and 
 also the handwriting. I made it into a parcel, and sealed 
 it up. i subsequently gave it up to police officer 
 Murray, and, not then, but afterwards, marked it with a 
 label attached. I know the memorandum-book. 
 
 By the Dean — The label attached, stating that the 
 book was found in a desk in Huggins &, Co.'s, was signed 
 by me and two officers on the 30th March. I testified 
 that the book was found in the warehouse, but I 
 originally got it in his lodgings. I put it into 
 L'Angelier's desk. It was not sealed up when I 
 put it into the desk, I did not take it out of the 
 desk at any time after putting it in. I am not certain 
 which of the officers took the book out of the desk. 
 I mean to certify by that label that they found it 
 there; they took it that day; it was there when they 
 came ; I saw it when I opened the desk on the day they 
 came. I am not aware that anybody saw me find it in 
 his lodgings. I found it on Monday. Dr Steven 
 and Dr Thomson, and Mr Thuot and Mr Wilson, 
 and perhaps Mrs Jenkins, were in the room. I am 
 not aware if any of them knew that I had found 
 
23 
 
 the book in his lodgings. I can't tell how long after I 
 found it I put it into the desk. I can't say if it was the 
 same day. It was the same week. I carried it in my 
 pocket from the house to the office ; but I can't tell how 
 long time elapsed before I put it in the desk. I sealed it 
 and laid it down on the desk. I found it there again. I 
 can't tell how long it lay. I came in with it in the after- 
 noon to the warehouse, and I think it remained till next 
 day (Tuesday.) I don't mind of putting it into the desk, 
 so that I can't speak definitely to that. I saw it eeveral 
 times oh the Monday afternoon on the desk, and it was 
 opened once or twice that afternoon by me. Others 
 might open it. It was sealed and opened and sealed 
 again, I don't recollect when I saw it next. I saw it 
 after that in the desk. I think upon the Wednesday 
 morning, the Fiscal requested me to bring some letters 
 to him, and on going' into the desk for them I saw it. 
 I took some of the letters to him ; I did not take the 
 book. It was not sealed then. I had the key of the 
 desk ; it was on the bunch I got in his pocket. I was 
 aware that the lock of the desk was in a frail state. I 
 did not know that the back of it v/as in a frail state. He 
 had complained to me that lads about the office got into 
 it. I saw the book repeatedly in the desk, but I can't 
 say when I saw it out of the desk in the Fiscal's office. 
 I saw it when I signed the label. I had seen it before 
 • finding it in his lodgings. When he complained that his 
 desk was in a frail state, I looked at his desk, and saw a 
 book lying in it like this. I never saw him write in this 
 book. Between the ' Monday and the time I signed the 
 label, it was opened frequently. I was always present, 
 but there were others looking at the letters. There were 
 Mr T. F. Kennedy, cashier ; Mr Wilson, the invoice-clerk ; 
 and Mr Miller, one of the warehousemen. There may have 
 been others belonging to the same department, but none 
 who were strangers to the establishment. The Rev. Mr 
 Miles was in the warehouse several times after M. 
 L'Angelier's death, but I don't think he saw any of the 
 letters. He came to ask about M. L'Angelier. I stated 
 at one time that I ^as under the impression that I found 
 the book in the desk in the warehouse, and not in the 
 
24 
 
 lod^gs. I stated so in my precognition, A few days 
 ago, I wrote to Mr Hart, the Tisoal, fcorreoting the mis- 
 take. I never made any inyeritory of the clothes or other 
 things found in his lodgings', or of the Igtters. 
 
 By the SolioitOk-G-kneeal— On the Monday when I 
 found the book I turned over the pages; I did not take 
 notice of any of the entries. Under date 11th JFehruary 
 I see an entry ; that is L'Angelier's handwriting, and the 
 book is in his haildwritmg from that date onwards. I 
 see an entry on Saturday, 14th March ; and that seems to 
 te the last. All the entries from 11th February to 14th 
 March inclusive are in L'Angelier's handwriting. • 
 
 By thei DeaS — They are in pencil, and some of them 
 very faint. 
 
 Byjhe Solioitoe-General— I was accustomed to see 
 hini write in pencil. 
 
 The Solicitok-Genbeal then proposed to read the 
 entries, to which the Dean objected; and the Witness was 
 removed. 
 
 The Dean held that this was no evidence that the book 
 was a journal at all. It might be a memorandum-book, 
 but he understood it was proposed to use it as a journal. 
 
 The LOED Advocate said they proposed to prove that 
 these memoranda were in the handwriting of L'Angelier. 
 They bore to be written on certain days. "Whether it 
 was proved that they were written on these days was 
 E^nother matter. They would prove that many things 
 happened on the days on wliich they were written. 
 
 The Court retired for consultation, and on their return. 
 
 The Lord JtJstioe-Clerk said they were of opinion 
 that, in the present state of the case, and with the 
 information the Court had, they could not allow these 
 entries all to be read. At present they did not know the 
 individual'by the name in the entries, or by the blank 
 that occurred in one or two of them. They gave, no 
 opinion as to whether it would bo competent to have 
 the entries read when a foundation was laid, for them. 
 
 Tte witness recajlled — When I was at Mrs Jenkins's on 
 the Monday I did not see two desks. I did not examine 
 his repositories at aU on the Monday. I saw no letters 
 except the one I found in his vest pooKet. On that day 
 
25 
 
 I examined bis desk in the office. I saw a great many 
 letters there. Some of them I examined. They were 
 primoipalty in the same hand. I looked the desk. I 
 went to the Bridge of Allan on Friday. I went to his 
 lodgings there, and Mrs Bayne showed me la, leather 
 portmanteau, hat, cigarette case, a little travelling-bag, a 
 little dressing-case, and a travelling-rug belonging to the 
 deceased. "Witness identided these articles. I desired 
 her to send them to Huggins's office, and they arrived 
 there next day or on Monday. The portmanteau and 
 bag were locked. I found the keys in L' Angelier's clothes. 
 On opening the bag I found a small leather case for holding 
 letters. There were several letters in it. In thp port- 
 manteau I found clothes and a prayer-book, but no letters. 
 I locked the leather bag, leaving the papers inside. 
 Murray, the officer, came on the Monday afternoon, and I 
 sent the bag and portmanteau to Mrs Jenkins's house. I 
 gave Murray the letters and papers that were in the desk 
 on the Monday ; they were put into a box. I sealed the 
 box in Murray's presence, and it was taken to the Fiscal's 
 Office. I initialed a number of the letters several days 
 afterwards. I believed them to be the same from the 
 handwriting. I went with Murray to Mrs Jenkins's, and 
 opened the small leather bag ; he took it away, and I 
 afterwards saw it opened in the Fiscal's Office, and the 
 letters taken out. I took the key there for that purpose. 
 I saw Murray examine L' Angelier's desks in Mrs Jenkins's 
 that Monday, and he took possession of the letters found 
 there. Some of them seemed to be in the same handwriting 
 as the others previously got. I saw him take all the letters 
 found in Mrs Jenkins's ; they were put in a piece of 
 brown paper. I could not say afterwards which letters 
 had been found in Mrs Jenkins's, and . which in 
 the office. [Shown four letters.] Depones — These arc 
 in M. L' Angelier's handwriting. I was at the funeral of 
 the deceased. It took place in the burying-ground of 
 St David's C^xxick'. The funeral was on Thursday; 
 and I SMf the body exhumed ; on Tuesday the 30th I 
 saw the body in the hands of Dr Steven and Dr Corbett, 
 and recognised it as that of M. L'Angelier. I read some of 
 the letters which were in the small bag, Shown letiex 
 
26 
 
 commencing " Wednesday— Dearest sweet Emilie, I amso 
 sorry to hear you are ill." That letter was in the small 
 bag ; I marked " bag" upon it when I initialed it. Shown 
 letter commencing — " My sweet dear pet, I am so sorry you 
 should be so Texed," and with an envelope bearing "For 
 my dear and ever-beloved sweet Emile." That was in 
 the bag. It is marked by me in the same way. The 
 envelope of letter commencing "My own best loved pet, 
 I hope you are well," was in the bag, but I have not 
 marked the letter ; but if this is its envelope it was there 
 too. The letter commencing " Dearest and beloved, I hope 
 you are well ; I am very well and anxious," I can't speak to. 
 Witness also spoke to other three letters as being found 
 in the bag. So far as I examined the documents in the 
 bag I kept the letters in their original envelopes and 
 delivered it locked to the officer. I did not shift the 
 letters andenvelopes to my knowledge. 
 
 It being now after six o'clock, the Court adjourned till 
 nexit morning at ten. 
 
27 
 
 SECOND DAY.— Wednesday, July 1. 
 
 The Court met at ten o'clock this moTning, when Hiss 
 Smith was again placed at the bar, looking quite as cool 
 and collected as yesterday. 
 
 WffliamStevenson, whose evidence was not concluded last 
 night, was again examined by the Solioitoe-GbnebaIi — 
 Before the great mass of the letters were taken possession 
 of by Murray, I had handed some of them to the Ksoal 
 on Wednesday morning the 25th. I handed them per- 
 sonally to Mr Young. I did not mark them, but I took 
 a note of the dates at the time. I have not that note 
 with me ; but I have the numbers which I saw after- 
 wards put on the same letters. 
 
 By the Coitet — The Fiscal^did not mark them when I 
 gave them, I took the note when the numbers were put 
 on. 
 
 By the Dean — I had a note of the postmarks, and 
 they corresponded; I think there was one without a 
 postmark. I have not my note' of the postmarks. 
 
 The Dean — It is extremely loose, this sort of evidence. 
 
 The LosD Jtjstice-Clebk — Nothing can be looser or 
 more singularly unsatisfaotcry than that there should be 
 the slightest deficiency in the proof in such a case. 
 
 By the -Dean — Mr Vilson, Mr Young's clerk, I 
 think, was present at the time. To my knowledge, the 
 Sheriff was never present at any precognition, or at any 
 other time. Mr Hart has been present. I understand 
 
2a 
 
 Mr Yomig is a Proeurator-Kscal. I destroyed the note 
 of the postmarks. 
 
 By the Lord Justioe-Cleek— 1 think thoKsoal knew 
 I had taken that note. He never told me to preserve it. 
 
 By the Dean— He saw it, but I don't think he 
 examined it. 
 
 By the Solioitob-Gkneeal— On that "Wednesday I 
 think I gave the Procurator-Fiscal seven or eight letters. 
 Shown letter No. 75. This is one of the letters. I know 
 it by the number, and by my initials on it. I recognised 
 it at the time from the postmarks,' of which I had a note, 
 and then I put my initials on 4t. .T^gword " desk" is 
 written on it by me ; that means 'that I ^oi it in the desk 
 in the office. Shown letter No. 93. This is one of them 
 too; it is niarked "desk" by me, indicating the same 
 thing. Shown No. 97, 107, and 109. These are also letters 
 which I gave to the Fisckl, and they are marked by me as 
 having been found in the desk. 1 can't speak to No. 79, 
 As to the letters I gave up on the "Wednesday, I read 
 portions of some of them. I did not read them when I 
 marked them afterwards. I first communicated with the 
 Fiscal on this< subject on Tuesday afternoon. That was 
 after the. doctors had made their post mortem examination. 
 At that time, I entertained no apprehension that this 
 was to be a criminal charge ; on the "Wednesday I felt 
 uncomfortable about it, but nothing further. My feelings 
 at that time of discomfort pointed to a particular quarter 
 where he was likely to have been. , 
 
 By the Dean— The entry in the memorandum-book as 
 to the numbers of the letters I made when the letters 
 were numbered. My own numbers in that book are 
 3, 31, 45, / 53, 54, and 5S ; they are six in number ; I 
 can't speak to No. 56. The letters which I gave to the 
 Fiscal on the 25lh were seven in number> including the 
 letter I got in his vest pocket. I am not aware that I 
 haie, seen No. 56 since I wrote that memorandum. The 
 numbers they now bear I saw put on in the Fiscal's 
 office. I can't say how these particular numbers came to 
 be put on these particular letters. These five letters 
 have all envelopes, and the postmark is on the envelope 
 only, "When I oheoked the postmarks fwm the note I 
 
29 
 
 had made, I believed -them to be the same lett6l:a as were 
 in the envelopes before. I bad no means of identifying 
 the letters themselves, but only the envelopes. There is 
 no date in this memorandum-book enabling me to tell ' 
 the date when these numbers were put on. There is a 
 date— 24th April 1856. • 
 
 The LOKD ADTOoilE— Eead the item. 
 
 "Witness— No. 86, 100 wool shawls at 3s. 6d.— 
 Macdonald. 
 
 By the Dean — There is no other date on that page ; on 
 the preoelding page there is a date "22d April, signed 
 precognition." Before that there is " Saturday,18th 
 April, eight bottles, bundle of powders, and alErraed^to 
 their being the same as those found in Mrs Jenkins's." 
 On the preceding page there is the following entry : — 
 " Monday, 30th Ma};oh. — Gave up L'Angelier's papers 
 
 and letters from Tiis desk to Murray and ." In the 
 
 immediately preceding page, before the first entry spoken 
 of, there are tluree dates— 17th AprU, 18th April, and 
 22d April— and on the page immediately before these are 
 three dates— 28th, 30th, and 31st March. The entiy 
 under 17th AprU is—" "Was at Mr Hart's, and gave a 
 second evidence." I am not aware of the date of the 
 last time I wasprebognbsced. The entry before the 17th 
 April is — " Signed precognition ;" there is no date to that. 
 I was precognosced several times ; I have not been ' pre- 
 cognosced since I came to Edinburgh. I have 'seen 
 parties connected witli the Crown yesterday or the day 
 before, and this morning. This morning I saw Mr 
 ■Wilson and Mr Gray, of the Fiscal's office in Glasgow. 
 They did not ask me about the letters. I told them 
 I was in a most uncomfortable position about 
 this matter; that I had got quite a suificiency in ■ 
 the Court ; and that I wanted to be done with it. 
 Was that ih' consequence of anything said by those 
 gentlemen? No. It was because I felt exceedingly 
 uncomfortable and very unwell. I saw them this 
 morning. I don't know whether it was this morning or 
 yesterday afternoon that I said so, but I said S(^ 
 repeatedly. As to the entry about the six letters, I 
 cannot say when it was made. The entry is, " letters 3 
 
30 
 
 31, 45, 53, 64, and [56" in desk 25th March, and can 
 Birear to them. 
 
 By the Lobd Justiob-Cierk — The entry was not 
 made on the 25th March. I can't say when it was 
 made. That was the day on which I got the letters. 
 
 By the Dean — It appears in the book after an 
 entry on the 24th April. I found letters belonging 
 to. L'Angelier in the tourist's bag in the desk in the 
 warehouse, in a leather portmanteau at his lodgings, and 
 also in the desk in his lodgings, and one in his vest 
 pocket. I can't say how many letters there were in the 
 desk at the warehouse. They were numerous. Part of 
 them were wrapped in two brown paper parcels, and 
 part were lying loose. The two parcels were sealed 
 with the Company's stamp. They had been sealed 
 by L'Angelier himself, apparently. As to the seven 
 letters I gave to the Fiscal, I don't know whether they 
 were in a sealed packet or lying loose. I could not 
 identify any of the letters found in the desk, except the 
 six in the desk which I have spoken to, and the one 
 found in the vest pocket. I don't know how many 
 letters I found in the travelling-bag. They were not 
 very numerous — I should say under a dozen. I did not 
 count them. I read a portion of them. In the port- 
 manteau, I have no idea how many I found. They were 
 numerous. I think they were partly loose and partly 
 tied with twine or tape. I saw them in the Fiscal's 
 oflSce. I presumed them to be the same, but I could not 
 distinguish those found in the portmanteau, nor those 
 found in the desk at the lodgings, I can't tell how many 
 of them there were. Shown No. 137, and, after looking 
 at memorandum-book — this is marked as found in the 
 bag. — ^Tell me what you referred to your memorandum- 
 book for just now ? Is it by reference to this entry that 
 you are enabled to say now that this was one of the 
 letters found in the bag ? Tes ; and also I marked it 
 " bag." Why did you refer to this ? I was requested to 
 take a note of them at the time. This entry immediately 
 follows the other enti? before spoken of. I don't know- 
 when I wrote the word " bag" on the letter. I have 
 not the slightest idea of what has become of the 
 
31 
 
 letter attached to the envelope. I can't say if it con- 
 tained a letter. I made no inventory of the letters fonnd 
 in the bag, and I saw none made. I saw a note of letters 
 in the Fiscal's ofSce. I am not aware of seeing an 
 inventory of the letters found in' the bag. I made a list 
 of the sue or seven which I have before referred to. I 
 made no other list. I think I saw only one desk at 
 L'Angelier's lodgings. I recollect L'Angelier going to 
 Edinburgh. I never saw him after he went there. Ho 
 was not back to the warehouse, to my knowledge. 
 Shown twenty-four letters in the third inventory for the 
 prisoner, and asked if he ever saw them before. 
 Beponed — ^I have seen a number of letters in that -hand- 
 writing from this individual among the letters given up, 
 but I can't say I saw any one of them. The signature is 
 " M. A. P. ;" it is Miss Perry's signature. I found 
 portions of this handwriting in aU his repositories. I 
 can't say as to the smaU bag. I can't say how many in 
 this handwriting I may have seen. There were a 
 good many: I think not so many as in the other 
 handwriting — not nearly so many. I can't give 
 ■you any notion how many there were in the other 
 handwriting. My impression is that there would 
 not be one-half of them in this handwriting. I 
 could not say if they would be a third, but there were a 
 good many of them. I could not say if there were 100 
 in the first handwriting I have spoken to. There are 199 
 letters in the prisoner's second inventory. I should ba 
 inclined to say, speaking roughly, that there were 250 to 
 300, of all the letters found, in all handwritings. I 
 understood that L'AngeUer corresponded with a number 
 of parties in the south and in Prailce. I have seen 
 letters addressed to ladies in France and in England. I 
 have heard him speak about parties in England. He was 
 a vain person — ^vain of his personal appearance— very 
 much so. He ne/er spoke of himself to me as vfery 
 successful among ladies. He was of » rather mercuiial 
 disposition— changeable. His situation in Huggins' ware- 
 house was packing derk. T am not aware what money 
 he had when he went to Bridge of Allan or to Edinburgh. 
 I Bnw the first medioal»report made by Dr Thomson. It 
 
32 
 
 wo? sia:de, upon Tuesday the 24tli. Shown seven medical 
 repoiit^, and asked to find it. 
 
 The jDDGB^you had better show it to him. 
 ' The Dean — ^It is nojt there — that is the point. 
 "Witnes&^Need Iflook for it then ? 
 
 » lihe DEAHhrlfeij but you saw a report. 
 
 Witness — Yes ; it was on a smaE slip ,of paper. There 
 is a report here by Dr, Stevenson and Br Thomapn dated 
 "28th March." The report I speak of was made on the 
 24th Maroh. It was given to me ; and I gave it to Mr 
 Young, the Fiscal. I don't think I have seen it since. 
 
 ; Shown: No. 1 of second inventory for prisoner — a port- 
 monnaie. This was got I think in the ve^t he wore when 
 
 .became from the Bridge of Allan. There were three 
 rings in it, which I hare already spok^p to as having been 
 found on him. .1 did not give this up to the Fiscal with 
 the other things. It was found on the Monday that he 
 died,; it was locked up in one of his drawers ; it was not 
 taken out till all the articles of dress were packed up a 
 considerable time afterwards ; it was then packed up in 
 one of the portmanteaus ; I have no note of when it was 
 :giy»n up, hut I recollect giving some articles out of the 
 portmanteau to Mr MUler and Mr Forbes, agents for the 
 prisoner. I am not sure whether this was one of them, 
 
 ■ I don't know whether it was got out of his lodgings or 
 out of the trunk it was sent in here. Shown two letters, 
 1 and 2 of the first inventory for the prisoner. These 
 are in the handwriting of L' Angelier. 
 
 By the LORD Jtistioe-CLbek — I was several times 
 preoqgnosced ; at the time of the first precognition I 
 understood there was a criminal charge, against some one 
 on account of the death of L'Angelier ; and it was known 
 I was the first person who had seen any of the articles in 
 his repositories. I have not the date of the first precogni- 
 tion. , I think it , was after giving up the ,aTtioles to 
 Murray on the SOfch. On ncjne of these occasions am X 
 aware that thq Sheriff was present during my precogni- 
 tion. I understood at the time that it was known and 
 understood who tl^e letters iiv the first handwjiting were 
 from, and;; I knew that the ^rge was murder. The 
 party was in custody at that time, Murray is an officer 
 
33 
 
 belonging to the Fiscal. I did not see the Sheriff or the 
 Piaoal at the desk or repositories while I was there. The 
 letters were put into a bag by me, and no inventory 
 made. Everything was given up. The box containing 
 the letters found in Huggins' office was sealed up. I am 
 not aware whether the bag was sealed up. The letters 
 found in the lodgings were put into a brown paper parcel. 
 I am not aware whether it was sealed. There was 
 another officer with Murray. 
 
 The LoED Justicb-Clbrk — Tou seem to have done all 
 that you thought necessary, and with much propriety, in 
 the way of making memoranda, though not in the way 
 that the Fiscal would have done it. ' But during any of 
 your precognitions, were you asked to go over the letters 
 and put any marks on them to enable you to say where 
 they were found ? ' 
 
 Witness — Not when they were delivered up. After- 
 wards I was requested to put my initials on some of 
 them. 
 
 The Loud Justiob-Cleek — I think it right to say that 
 I know of no duty so urgent, so impressive, and so 
 imperative as that of the sheriff superintending and 
 directing every step in a precognition for murdpr ; and 
 that, in the experience of myself as an old Crown officer, 
 and of my two brethren as sheriffs, the course which 
 this case seems to have taken is unprecedented. I must 
 say that your memoranda (addressing witness) were not 
 made artistically or scientifically ; but I think you have 
 done the best according to your judgment and experience ; 
 nor do I suppose that there is any imputation against 
 you. 
 
 The Dean of Faculty — Oh ! dear no, on the contrary. 
 
 The LoED Advocate — ^I think it right to say that 
 perhaps before the end of the case, in some respects the 
 obseirations of your Lordship will be modified. 
 
 The Lord Justice-Clerk — I only speak to what 
 occurred in reference to the examination of one witness, 
 who apparently received all the letters founded on 
 to support a charge of murder, I presume. 
 
 The Lord* Advocate— With regard to the first 
 stage, unquestionably there was very great looseness. 
 
34 
 
 The witness then left the Court, on tihe underaiandin^; 
 that he was to hold himself in readiness for being recalled. 
 
 i)r Thomson, examined by the Loud Advocate — I am 
 a physician in Glasgow. I knew the late M. L'Angelier 
 for folly two years. He consulted me professionally ; the 
 first time fully a year ago. He had a bowel complaint. 
 He got the better of that. Next time he consulted me on 
 3d February of this year. He had a cold and cough, and 
 a bail at the back of his neck. He was very feverish, 
 and the cough was rather a dry cough. These are all the 
 particulars I have. I prescribed for him. I saw him 
 next about a week after the 3d February. He was better 
 of his cold, but I think another boil had made its appear- 
 ance on his neck. I saw him again on the 23d February. 
 He came to me. He was very feverish, and his tongue was 
 furred and had a patchy app^rance, from the fur being off 
 in various places ; he complained of nausea, and said he 
 had been vomiting; he was prostrate, his pulse was 
 quick, and had the general symptoms of fever. I pre- 
 scribed for him. J took his complaint to be a bilious 
 derangement, and I prescribed an aperient draught ; he 
 had been unwell I think for a day or two, but he had 
 been taken worse the night before he called on me ; it 
 was during' the night of the 22d and morning of the 23d 
 that he was taken worse. He was confined to the house 
 for two. or three days afterwards. I am reading from 
 notes I made on the 6th April. I made them from 
 recollection, but the dates of my visits and the 
 medicines were entered in my books. I visited him 
 on the 24th February, and on the 25th, and on the 26th, 
 and on the 1st of March I intended to visit him, but I 
 met him on the Great 'Western Eoad. The aperient 
 draught I prescribed for him on the 23d contained 
 , magnesia and . ,soda ; on the 24th I prescribed some 
 powders containing rhubarb, soda, chalk of calomel, 
 and ipecacuanha. These were the medicines I prescribed 
 on the 23d February. I have described his |tate. On 
 the 24th he was much in the same state. He had 
 vomited the draught that I had given him on the 23d, 
 and I observed that hia skin was considerably jaundiced 
 
35 
 
 on the 24th ; and from the whole symptoms I called the 
 disease a bilious fever. On the 25th he was rather better, 
 andhadrisen'from his bed to the sofa, buthewasnot dressed. 
 On, the 26th he felt considerably better and cooler, and I 
 did not think it necessary to repeat my visits till I 
 happened to be in the neighbourhood. It did not occur 
 to me at the time that these symptoms arose from the 
 action of any irritant poison. If I had known he had 
 taken an irritant poison, these were the symptoms which 
 I shouldhave expected to follow. I don'tthinklaskedhim 
 when he was first taken ill. I had not seen him for 
 somelittle time before, and certainly helooked very dejected 
 and ill ; his colour was rather darker and jaundiced, and 
 round the eye the colour was rather darker than usual. 
 I saw him again eight or ten days after the 1st March. 
 He called on me, and I have no note of the day. He was 
 then much the same as on the 1st March. He said that 
 he was tliinking of going to the country, but he did not 
 say where. I did not prescribe medicines for him then. 
 About the 26th February, 1 think, I told him to give up 
 smoking ; I thought that was injurious to his stomach. 
 I never saw him again in life. On the morning of the 
 23d March, Mr Stevenson and Mr Thuau called on me, 
 and mentioned that M. L'Angelier was dead, and they 
 wished me to go and see the body, and see if I 
 could give any opinion as to the cause of death. They 
 did not know that I hq^d seen him alive during his 
 last illness. I went to the house; The body was 
 laid out on a stretcher lying' on the table. The 
 skin had a slightly jaundiced hue. (I made the notes 
 from which I read on the sane day.) I said it was 
 impossible to give any decided opinion as to the cause of 
 death, and I requested Dr Steven to be called, who had 
 been in attendance. I examined the body with my hands 
 externally, and over the region of the liver the sound was 
 dull — the region seemed fall ; and over the region of the 
 heart the sound was natural. I saw what he had 
 vomited, and I made inquiry as to the symptoms before 
 death. When Dr Steven arrived he corroborated the 
 landlady's statements as far as he was concerned. There 
 '^as no resolution come to on the Mondajjr as to a po^t 
 
 B a 
 
36 
 
 movtern examination. On the afternoon of that day I 
 was called dn by Mr Huggins and another gentleman, and 
 I said the symptoms were such as might have been 
 produced by an irritant poison. I said it was such a case 
 as if it had loocurred in England, a coroner's inquest 
 would be held. Next morning Mr Stevenson called 
 again and said that Mr Huggins requested me to make an 
 inspection. In consequence of that I said' I would 
 require a colleague, and Dr Steven was agreed on. I 
 called on him, and he went with me to the house, and 
 we made the inspection on Tuesday forenoon about 
 twelve o'clock. "We ' wrote a short report of that 
 examination to Mr Huggins immediately. "We after- 
 wards made an enlarged report. ,, Witness was then 
 shown this report, , and read it as follows' : — " At the 
 request of Messrs "W. B. Huggins & Co., of this city, we, 
 the Undersigned, made a post mortem examination of the 
 body of the late M. L'Angelier, at the blouse of Mrs 
 Jenkins, 11 Great "Western Bead, on the 24th March 
 current, at noon, when the appearances were as fojlow : — 
 The body, dressed in grave clothes and coffined, viewed 
 externally, presented nothing remarkable, except a 
 tawny hue of the surface. The incision made on opening 
 the belly and chest revealed a considerable deposit of 
 sub-cutaneous fat. The heart appeared large for the 
 individual, but not so large as, in our opinion, to amount 
 to disease. Its surface presented, externaBy, some 
 opaque patblies, such as are frequently seen on this 
 organ without giving rise to any symptoms. Its right 
 cavities were filled with dark fluid blood. The lungs, 
 the liver, and the spleen, appeared quite healthy. The 
 gall bladder was moderately ; full of bile, and con- 
 tained no calculi. The stomach and intestines, exter- 
 nally, presented nothing abnormal. The stomach, being 
 tied at both extremities, was removed from the body. 
 Its contents, consisting of about half-a-pint of dark fluid 
 resembling coffee, were poured into a clean bottle, 
 and the organ itself was laid open along its great 
 curvature. The jmiicous membrane, except for a slight 
 extent at the lessei: curvature, was then seen to be deeply 
 injected with blood, presentipg an appearance of dark 
 
37 
 
 red mottling, and its substance was remarked Ijo be salt , 
 being easily torn by scratching witb the finger nail. The 
 other organs of the abdomen were not examined. The 
 appearance of the mucous membrane, taken in connec- 
 tion with the history as related to us by witnesses, being 
 such as, in our opinion, justified a suspicion of death 
 having resulted from poison, we considered it proper to 
 preserve the stomach and its contents in a, sealed bottle 
 for further investigation by chemical analysis, should 
 such be determined on. We, however, do not imply 
 that, in our opinion, death may not have resulted from 
 natural causes ; as, for exampli?, severe internal conges- 
 tion, the effect of exposure to cold after much bodily 
 fatigue, which we understand . the deceased to have 
 undergone. Before closing this report, which we make 
 at the request of the Procurator-Fiscal for the county of 
 Lanark, we beg to state that, having had no -legal 
 authority for making the post mortem examination above 
 detailed, we restrict our examination to the organs in 
 which we thought we were likely to find, something to 
 account for the death. Given under our hands at 
 Glasgow, the 28th day of March 1857, on soul 
 and ■ couscienoe. (Signed) Hdqh Thomson, M.D. ; 
 James Steven, M.D."— I afterwards received insti-uc- 
 tions from the , Procurator-Fiscal in regard to the 
 stomach ; I was summoned to attend at his office before 
 I wrote that report ; that was on the 27th March. The 
 contents of the stomach, and the stomach itself, sealed 
 up in a bottle, were handed to Dr Penny on t]>e 27th ; 
 they were in my custody till then., On the 31st I 
 received instructions from the Procurator-Fiscal to attend 
 at the Ramshorn Church, by order of the Sheriff, to make 
 an inspection of L'Argelier's body. Dr Steven, Dr 
 Corbet, and Dr Penny were there. The coffin was in 
 a vault, and was opened in our presence, and the body 
 taken out. I recognised- it as L'Angelier's body. It 
 presented much the same appearance generally as 
 when we left it ; it was particularly well pre- 
 served, considering the time that, had elapsed. On 
 that occasion we removed other parts of the body for 
 analysis. Shown report of that examination, ai)d re^d 
 b3 
 
38 
 
 it as follows :— " Glasgow, 3d April 1857.— By virtue of 
 a warrant from the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, we, the under- 
 signed, proceeded to the post mortem examination of the 
 body of Pierre Emile L'Angelier, within the vault of the 
 Ramshorn Church, on the 31st of March ult., in presence 
 of two friends of the deceased. The body being removed 
 from the cofSn, two of onr number, Drs Thomson and 
 Steven, who examined the body on the 24th ult., remarked 
 that the features had lost their former pinched appearance, 
 and that the general surface of the skin, instead of the 
 tawny or dingy hue observed by them on that occasion, 
 had become rather florid. Drs Thomson and Steven 
 likewise remarked that, with the exception of the upper 
 surface of tlie liver, which had assumed a purplish colour, 
 all the internal parts were little changed in appearance ; 
 and we all agreed that the evidences of putrefaction were 
 much less marked than they usually are at such a date — 
 the ninth day after death and the fifth after burial. The 
 duodenum, along with the upper part of the small 
 intestine, after both ends of the gut had been secured by 
 ligatures, was removed and placed in a clean jar. A 
 portion of the large intestine, consisting of part of the 
 descending colon and sydmoid flexure, along with a 
 portion of the rectum, after using the like precaution of 
 placing ligatures on both ends of the bowel, was 
 removed, and placed in the same jar with the duodenum, 
 and portion of small intestine. A portion of the liver, 
 being about a sixth part of that organ, was cut off and 
 placed in another clean jar. We then proceeded to open 
 the head in the usual manner, and observed nothing 
 calling for remark beyond a greater degree of vascularity 
 of the membranes of the brain than ordinary, A portion 
 of the brain was removed, and placed in a fourth clean 
 vessel. "We then adjourned to Dr Penny's rooms, in the 
 Andersonian Institution, taking with us the vessels con- 
 taitiing the parts of the viscera before mentioned. The 
 duodenum and portion of small intestine were found to 
 measure, together, 36 inches in length.* Their contents, 
 poured into a clean glass measure, were found to amount to 
 four fluid ounces, and consisted of a turbid, sanguinolant 
 fluid,' having suspended i^ it much flooiilerit matter, 
 
which settled towards the bottom, whilst a few mucous- 
 like masses floated on the surface. The mucous mem- 
 brane of this part of the bowels was then examined. Its 
 colour was decidedly redder than natural, and this 
 redness was more marked over several patches, portions 
 of which, when carefully examined, were found to be 
 eroded. Several small whitish-.and somewhat gritty 
 particles were removed from its surface, and, being placed 
 in a clean piece of glass, were delivered to Dr Penny. A 
 few small ulcers, about the sixteenth of an inch in 
 diameter, and having elevated edges, were observed on it, 
 at the upper part of the duodenum. On account of the 
 failing light, it was determined to adjourn till a quarter 
 past eleven o'clock forenoon of the following day — all the 
 jars, with their contents, and the glass measure, with its 
 contents, being left in the custody of Dr Penny. Having 
 a^ain met at the time appointed, and having received the 
 various vessels, with their contents, at Dr Penny's hands, 
 in the condition in which he had given them to him, we 
 proceeded to complete our examination. The portion of 
 the largest intestine, along with the portion of the 
 rectum, measuring twenty-six inches in length, on being 
 laid open, was found empty. Its mucous membrane, 
 coated with an abundant, pale, slimy mucous, presented 
 nothing abnormal, except in that part lining the rectum, 
 on which were observed two vascular patches, about the 
 size of a shilling. On decafating the contents of the glass 
 measure, we observed a number of crystals adhering to its 
 interior, and at the bottom a notable quantity of whitish 
 sedimentary matter. Having now completed our exami- 
 nation of the various parts, we finally handed them all 
 over to Dr Penny. The above we attest on soul and 
 conscience." Signed by Dr Thomson and Dr Steven. — 
 The appearance of the mucous membrane of the 
 duodenum denotec^he action of an irritant poison. The 
 patches of vascularity in the rectum might be also consi- 
 dered the effects of an irritant poison. But they were 
 not very characteristic of that. There were ulcers there. 
 We could not form any opinion as to their duration. All 
 these substances removed from the body were left in 
 charge o£ Dr Penny. The ulcers might have resulted 
 
40 
 
 from an irritant poison, but I am not aware that thej^ 
 are oharaoteristio of that. They might have been 
 produced by any cause which would have produced 
 inflammation. 
 
 By the Dean— On the 24th March the contents of the 
 stomach were poured into a clean bottle. The meaning 
 of the statement that the stcmach was tied at both extrcr 
 mities is that that was done before the contents were 
 taken out. Am sure that the entire contents were 
 poured into this bottle. The stomach itself 
 was put into the same bottle. We took none of the 
 intestines out of the body. When we put 'the stomach 
 and contents into this bottle, we secured it well with oil- 
 skin and a cork. We did that in the lodgings. The 
 oil-silk was put under the cork to make it fit the bottle, 
 and partly to make it more secure, and over the whole a 
 double piece of oil-silk. We went to Dr Steven's house, 
 where Dr Steven affixed his seal, and I took it with me, 
 and it remained in my possession, locked into my con- 
 sulting table. , On the Monday of the deceased's death I 
 was shown by Mrs Jenkins the matter which had been 
 vomited.! It was not preserved, so far as I know. We 
 made a short report on the-24th to Mr Huggins. It was 
 delivered to him. At the time I attended M. L'Angelier 
 in February there were i>o symptoms that I could defi- 
 nitely say which were not due to a bilious attack. They 
 were all the symptoms of a bilious attack. There was 
 an appearance of jaundice. I have heard of that as a 
 symptom of irritant poison. It is in Dr Taylor's work 
 on poisons. 
 
 By the Lobd Justice-Clerk — It was in the appear- 
 . ance of the skin. 
 
 The Dean — Show me the passage in Dr Taylor's work 
 (handing it to witness.) 
 
 Witness — I can't find the particular passage. It is in 
 the case of Marshall. 
 
 The Dean — What was the poison in the case of 
 Marshall ? 
 
 Witness — jVrsenic. 
 
 The Dean — WeU, see if you can find it. 
 
 Lord HANDYsroB — ^Perhaps he has made a mistake on 
 
41 
 
 the subject, and refers to Marshall as a writer on the 
 subject. He is referred to in " Taylor's Medical Juris- 
 prudence." 
 
 Witness — Yes (shown "Taylor's Medical Juris- 
 prudence") ; at page 62 Marshall is quoted—" Strangula 
 and jaundice have been noticed among the secondary 
 symptoms" — ^that is, under chronic poisoning. 
 
 The Dean — Do you know any case in which jaundice 
 has been observed as a symptom of arsenical poison ? 
 
 Witness — That is the only case. 
 
 The Dbau — That is not a case. Are you acquainted 
 with Marshall's work ? 
 
 Witness — No. 
 
 The Dbait— You never saw it ? 
 
 Witness — No. I never saw it. 
 
 The Dean — You were under the impression that 
 Marshall's was the name of a case ? 
 
 Witness — ^Yes; from the manner in which I had noted 
 it down I made that mistake. 
 
 By the Dean — The jaundice I saw in L'Angelier's 
 case was quite consistent with the idea that he was 
 labouring under a bilious attack, and could easily be 
 accounted for in that way. 
 
 By the Lord ADVOCiTB— Identifies jar in which the 
 stomach and its contents were placed. 
 
 Dr Steven, examined by the LoED Advocate — I am a 
 physician in Glasgow, and live in Stafford Place, near to 
 Franklin Street. Was applied to by Mrs Jenkins early in 
 the morning of the 23d March last. She asked me to go to 
 a lodger of hers who was iU. I did not know her or her 
 lodger. I was myself iU that morning, and was unwilling 
 to go. It Was named to me as a severe bilious attack. I 
 advised Mrs Jenkins to give him hot water and drops of 
 laudanum. She came to me again that morning; I 
 think about seven. I went, thinking that as he, was a 
 Frenohmauhe might not be understood. I found him inbed. 
 He was very much depressed. His features were pinched 
 and his hands. He complained of coldness and pain over 
 the region of the stomach. By pinched I mean shrunk 
 and cold, or inclimsd tp become cold. He complained of 
 
42 
 
 general chilliness, a<nd bis face and bands were oold to 
 tbe touch. He was physically and mentally depressed, 
 I spoke to him. I observed nothing very peculiar in bis 
 voice. I did not expect a strong voice, and it was not 
 particularly weak. That was when I first entered the 
 room. But bis voice became weaker. He complained 
 that his breathing was painful, but it did not seem 
 hurried. I dissuaded him from speaking. I bad extra 
 clothes put on the bed. I gave, him a little morphia to 
 make bim vomit, and be seemed to have vomited all he 
 could. He had a weak pulse ; I felt the action of the 
 heart corresponding to it. That imported that the 
 circulation was weaker at tbe extremities.. The feet 
 were not cold. Hot bottles were put to thpm, and also 
 above his body for his bands. ^ He was not urgently 
 complaining of thirst. He seemed afraid to dtink large 
 quantities in case of making him vomit, He asked 
 particularly for cold water; and was unwilling to take 
 whisky, which his landlady talked of giving him. He 
 said he had been vomiting and purging. I saw a utensil 
 filled with tbe matter vomited and purged ; I ordered it 
 to be removed, and a clean vessel put in its place, that I 
 might see what he had vomited. I did not afterwards 
 see it ; I bcUeve it was kept for some time, but I said it 
 might be thrown away ; that was after his death. He 
 said " tiiis is the third attack I have bad ; the landlady 
 says it is the bile, but I never was subject to bile." 
 These were bis words. He seemed to get worse while I 
 was there. While I was sitting beside bim he several 
 times said, " My poor mother," and remarked how dull 
 he felt at being so ill and away from friends. I ordered 
 a mustaa-d poultice to the stomach;.! stayed I suppose 
 about half-an-hour. It was about seven when I went 
 there, and I got home at twenty minutes to eight. I 
 applied the poultice myself. I called again at a quarter 
 past eleven ; his landlady met rae in the lobby and told 
 me be bad been quite as bad as in tbe morning. I went 
 into the bedroom and found him dead. He was lying on 
 his right side, with his back towards the light, hfs knees 
 a little drawn up, one arm oiutside the bedclothes and 
 another in. They were not much drawn up — not unnatu- 
 
43 
 
 rally drawn up. He seemed in a comfortable position, as 
 if he was sleeping. About midday I was sent for again ; 
 Dr Thomson was there when I went. I asked him if there 
 was anything in his previous illness, with the symptoms 
 I mentioned, which could account for the cause of death, 
 but we were entirely at a loss to account for it. I declined 
 giving a certificate of death unless I made an examina- 
 tion; and Dr Thomson and I made one next day. 
 Identifies report of that examination ; that is a true 
 report. Subsequently we made a second post mortem 
 examination, after the body was exhumed. Identifies 
 that report. The stomach and its contents were put into 
 a pickle-bottle on the first examination. The bottlfi had 
 been several times washed out by myself and other .. It 
 was sealed up. The portions of the body remved on 
 the second examination were handed to an officer, 
 who went with Dr Penny and myself to Dr Penny's 
 laboratory. On the second post mortem examination I 
 noticed that the body was remarkably well preserved. I 
 had never attended any case in which there had been 
 poisoning by arsenic. 
 
 Dr Permy, examined by the Lohd Advocate — I am 
 Professor of Chemistry in the Andersonian University, 
 Glasgow. On 27th March last I was communicated with 
 by Dr Thomson. He came to the University and delivered 
 a bottle. It was securely closed and sealed. I broke ther 
 seal and made an examination of the contents. They 
 were a stomach and a reddish-coloured fluid. I was 
 requested to make the examination for the purpose of 
 ascertaining if those matters contained poison. I com- 
 menced the analysis on the following day, the 28th. One 
 of the clerks of the Fiscal called with Dr Thomson, and 
 it was done at his request, 'rill I made the analysis the 
 jar and its contents remained in the state in which I 
 received it. Shown report of first analysis and read it 
 as follows : — 
 
 I thereby certify that on Fjiday the 27th of March last 
 Dr Hugh Thomson, of Glasjjow, delivered to me, at the 
 Andersonian Institution, a. glass bottle containing a 
 stomach and a reddish-colou red tiirbid liquid, said to be 
 
44 
 
 the contents of. the etpmach. , The bottle was securely 
 closed and duly sealed, and the sei^l was unbroken. 
 
 In compliance with the request of William Hart, Esq., 
 one of the Procurators-Fiscal for the Lower "Ward of 
 Lanarkshire, I have carefully analysed and chemically 
 examined tlie said stomach and its contents, with a view 
 to ascertain whether they contained any poisbnous 
 substance. 
 
 1. Contents of the Stomach. 
 
 This liquid measured eight and a-half ounces. On 
 being allowed to repose it deposited a white powder, 
 which was found on examination to possess the external 
 characters and all the chemical properties peculiar to 
 arsenious acid-^that is, the common white arsenic of 
 the shops. It consisted of hard, gritty, transparent, 
 colourless, crystalline particles ; it was soluble in 
 boiling water, and readily dissolved in a solution of 
 caustic potash ; it was unchanged by sulphate of ammo- 
 nium, and volatilised when heated on platina foil. 
 Heated in a tube, it gave a sparkling white sublimate, 
 which, under the microscope, was found to consist 'of 
 octaedral crystals. Its aqueous solution afforded, with 
 ammonio-nitrate of silver, amraonio-srdphate of copper, 
 sulphuretted hydrogen, and bichromfite of potash, the 
 highly characteristic results that are produced by arseni- 
 ous acid. On heating a portion of it in a small tube with 
 black-fluXj a brilliant ring of metallic sjsenic was obtained 
 with all its distinctive properties. Heated with diluta 
 hydrochloric acid and a slip of copper foil, a steel-gray 
 coating was deposited on the copper ; and this coating, by 
 further examination, was proved to be metallic^arsenic. 
 
 Another portion of the powder, oni being treated with 
 nitric acid, yielded a substance havin g the peculiar cha- 
 racters of arsenic acid. A small poijtion of the powder 
 was also subjected to what is commonly known as 
 "Marsh's process," and metallic arsenic was thus 
 obtained, with all its peculiar physical and chemical 
 properties. 
 
 These results show, unequivocally,! that the said white 
 powder was arsenious acid — that is,, the preparation: of 
 arsenic which is usually sold in comtnerce, and adminis- 
 
45 
 
 tered or taken as a poison, under ths name of arsenic, or 
 oxide of arsenic. 
 
 I then examined the fluid contents of the stomach. 
 After the usual preparatory operations, the fluid was 
 subjected to the following processes : — 
 
 First, To a portion of the fluid Reinsch's process was 
 applied, and an abundant steel-like coating was obtained 
 on copper foil. On heating thcbcoated copper in a glass 
 tube, the peculiar odour of arsenic was distinctly per- 
 ceptible, and a white crystalline sublimate was produced, 
 possessing the properties peculiar to arsenious acid. 
 
 Secondly, Another portion of the prepared fluid was 
 distilled, and the distillate subjected to Marsh's process. 
 The gas produced by this process had an arsenical odour, 
 burnad with a bluish-wtite flame, and gave with 
 nitrate of silver the characteristic reaction of arseniuretted 
 hydrogen. On holding above the flame a slip of bibulous 
 paper moistened with a solution of ammonio-nitrate of 
 silver, a yellow colour was communicated to the paper. 
 A white porcelain capsule depressed upon the flame was 
 quickly covered with brilliant stains, which, on being 
 tested with the appropriate re-agents, were found to be 
 metallic arsenic. By a modification of Marsh's apparatus, 
 the gas was conducted through a heated tube, when a 
 lustrous mirroi:-like deposit of arsenic in the metallic 
 state was collected;; and this deposit was afterwards 
 converted into arsenious acid. 
 
 Thirdly,' Through another portion of the fluid a stream 
 of sulphuretted hydrogen gas was transmitted, when a 
 bright yellow precipitate separated, having the chemical 
 peculiarities of the tri-sulphide of arsenic. It dissolved 
 readily in ammonia and in carbonate of ammonia ; it re- 
 mained unchangedinhydrochloric acid; anditgave,on being 
 heated with black-flux, a brilliant ring of metallic arsenic. 
 
 Fourthly, a fourth portion of the prepared fluid, being 
 "properly acidified with hydrochloric acid, was distilled, 
 and the distillate subjected to Fleitmann's process. For 
 this purpose, it was boiled with zinc and a strong solution 
 ef caustic potash. Arseniuretted hydrogen was disengaged, 
 and was recognised by its odour, and by its characteristic 
 action upon nitrate of silver. 
 
46 
 
 I examined in the next place the stomach itaelf. It 
 \ras cut into small pieces, and bailed for some time in 
 water containing hydrochloric acid ; and the solution, after 
 being filtered, was subjected to the same processes as those 
 applied to the contents of the stomach. The results in 
 every case were precisejy similar, and the presence of a 
 considerable' quantity of arsenic was unequivocally 
 detected. 
 
 Qubcmtity of Arsenic. 
 
 I made, in the last place, a careful determination of 
 the quantity of arsenic contained in the said stomach 
 and its contents. A stream of sulphuretted hydrogen gas 
 was transmitted through a known quantity of the prepared 
 fluids from the said matters, until the whole of the arsenic 
 was precipitated in the form of tri-sulphide of arsenic. 
 This sulphide, after being carefully purified, was collected, 
 dried, and weighed. Its weight corresponded to a quantity 
 of arsenious acid (common white arsenic) in the entire 
 stomach and its contents, equal to eighty-two grains and 
 seven-tenths of a grain, or to very nearly one-fifth of an 
 ounce. The accuracy of this result was confirmed by 
 converting the sulphide of arsenic into arseniate o{ 
 ammonia and magnesia, and weighing the product. The 
 quantity here stated is exclusive of the white powder 
 first examined. 
 
 The purity of the various materials and re-agents 
 employed in this investigation was most scrupulously 
 ascertained. 
 
 OonclviSions. 
 
 Having carefully considered the results of this investi- 
 gation, I am clearly of opinion that they are conclusive 
 in showing — 
 
 First, 'ih&t the matters subjected to examination and 
 analysis contained arsenic ; and. 
 
 Secondly, That the quantity of arsenic found was 
 considerably more than sufficient to destroy life. 
 
 All this is true on soul and conscience. 
 
 (Signed) Febderick Penny, 
 Professor of Chemistry. 
 
 Glasgow, April 6, 1857. 
 
47 
 
 Examinatioa resumed-^Ho'w much arsenic would destroy 
 life ? It is not easy to give a precise answer to that ques- 
 tion ; oases are on record in which life was destroyed by two 
 and four grains ; four or six grains are generally regarded 
 as sufficient to destroy life, and the amount I determined as 
 ejdsting in the stomach was eighty-two grains. On the 
 31st March I attended at the exhumation of M. L'Angelier's 
 body. I saw the coffin opened, and portions of the body 
 removed. These portions were carefully preserved and 
 submitted to a chemical analysis by myself. They 
 were placed in jars which I never lost sight of. I made 
 an analysis of the contents, aiid prepared the following 
 report : — 
 
 On Tuesday the 31st March last, I was present at a 
 post mortem examination of the body of Pierre Emile 
 L'Angelier, made by Drs Corbet, Thomson, and Steven, 
 in a vault of the Kamshorn Church, Glasgow. 
 
 At my request, portions of the following organs were 
 removed from the body and properly preserved for 
 chemical analysis and examination : — 
 
 1. Small intestine and contents. 
 
 2. Large intestine, 
 
 3. Liver. 
 
 4. Heart. 
 
 5. Lung. 
 
 6. Brain, 
 
 These articles were taken direct to the laboratory in the 
 Andersonian Institution, and were there delivered to me 
 by the parties before named. I have since made a careful 
 analysis and chemical examination of all the said matters, 
 with the following results : — 
 
 1. Small imtestme and its contents. 
 
 The portion of small intestine contained a turbid and 
 reddish-coloured liquid, which measured ■ four ounces. / 
 On standing for several hours in a glass vessel, this liquid 
 deposited numerous and well-defined octoedral crystals, 
 which, on being snbiected to the usual chemical processes 
 for the detection of arsenic, were found to be arsenious 
 acid. 
 
 Arsenic was also detected in the small intestine. 
 
2. La/rge Intbstme, 
 This organ yielded arsenic, but in less proportion than 
 in the small intestine. 
 
 3. Liver, Brain, and Heart. 
 Arsenic was separated from the liver^ heart, and brain, 
 but in much less proportion ihan from the sm^ and 
 large intestine. . 
 
 4; Lang. 
 The lung gave only a slight indication of the presence 
 of arsenic. 
 
 ConcVusions. 
 
 1. That the body of the deceased Pierre Bmile 
 L'Angelier contained arsenic, 
 
 2. That the arsenic must .have been taken by or 
 administered to him while. living. 
 
 All this is true on soul and conscience. 
 
 (Signed) Feedeeiok Penny, 
 Professor of Chemistry. 
 Examination continued — The sictual quantity was not 
 ascertained. The presence of arsenic in the brain does 
 not enable me to say when tjie arsenic was taken. I 
 can see no physiologicid reason why the arsenic should 
 not make its appearance at the same time in the other 
 textures of the body. 
 
 By the LOED Justiob-Clbbk — ^Purging would account 
 for a smaller portion of arsenic being found in the large 
 intestine. ' 
 
 By the LoBD Advocate— "When my analysis was 
 completed, on the 11th April, I removed the portions of the 
 body to Edinburgh. They were delivered to Dr Christison. 
 These were powder from contents of stomach, fluid from 
 contents of stomach, fluid from stomach, portions of 
 small and large intestines, liver, heart, lung, &c. They 
 were in my custody till delivered toDr Christison. They 
 were portions of L'Angelier's body; I was asked to 
 make investigation as to arsenic at the shops of Mr Currie 
 and Mr Murdoch, to 'ascertain if the substance sold by 
 them as arsenic really contained that proportion. The 
 following is the report on this matter : — ■ 
 
 On the 18th inst., I purchased from James Dickie, at 
 Mr Murdoch's drug-shop, in SawliiehaU Street, Glasgow, 
 
one ounce and a-half of arsenic, said is be nnzed with 
 soot, and in the state in which it is usually sold retail at 
 that establishment. 
 
 On the same day, I purchased also from George 
 Carruthers Halliburton, at Mr Currie's drug-shop, 
 Sauohiehall Street, Glasgow, one ounce of arsenic, said 
 to be mixed with indigo. 
 
 I hare since made a careful analysis and chemical 
 examination of each of these quantities of arsenic, and I 
 find that they contain respectively the following propor- 
 tions per cent, of arsenious acid — that is, of pure white 
 arsenic : — 
 
 Arsenious Acid. 
 Mr Mutdffloh's arsenic, . . 95.1 per cent. 
 Mr Currie's arsenic, . . 94.4 per cent. 
 (Signed) Fbedebiok Penny, 
 Professor of Chemistry. 
 The other substances were inorganic matter, and. in Mr 
 Murdoch's carbonaceous matter, and in Currie's particles 
 of indigo and carbonaceous matter, with ash or inorganic 
 matter. The arsenic bought at Mr Currie's contained an 
 extremely small portion of colouring matter of indigo. 
 The greater part of that colouring matter, by peculiar and 
 dexterous manipulation, could be removed, and the arsenic 
 would afterwards appear white to the unassisted eye. If 
 a sufficient portion of that arsenic was administered to 
 cause death, and prior to death great vomiting had taken 
 place, I would not have expected to find any portion of 
 the indigo. The indigo would show a blue colour in 
 solution. 
 
 By the Loud Justice-Clerk — Tlie quantity of indigo 
 was so small that it would not colour wine of any sort. 
 
 By the LoBD Advocate — In regard to the arsenic 
 purchased from Mr Murdoch, that was mixed with car- 
 bonaceous particles. . If that had been administered, and 
 if the arsenic had settled down from the conteutii of the 
 stomach, as in this case, I should have expected to find 
 carbonaceous particles. Suppose there had been prior 
 administration of arsenic a month before, similar to what 
 was purchased from Murdoch's, I would not have 
 expected to have found traces of that carbonaceous 
 
50 
 
 matter. Varioue articles were delivered to me by Hr 
 Wilson, said tp have been found in M. L'Angelier's 
 lodgings ; they were fifteen articles — viz., twelve 
 bottles, two paper packages, and a cake of cho- 
 colate. I examined them, specially for arsenic, 
 and to ascertain their general nature. No. 1 (a 
 bottle) contained a brown liquid, containing magnesia, 
 epsom salts, soda, and rhubarb ; No. 2, sugar and 
 ammonia ; No. 3, camphorated oil ; No. i, laudanum ; 
 No. 5, bottle containing colourless liquid, a very weak 
 solution of aconite ; No. 6, bottle containing whitish 
 powder, chalk, sugar, and cinnamon chiefly ; No, 7, 
 olive oil ; No. 8, a brown liquid and brown sediment 
 containing chalk, cinnamon, and an astringent matter ; 
 No. 9, fpur packages of powders, consisting exclusively 
 of sulphate of quinine ; No. 10, Eau de Cologne ; No. 
 11, camphorated chalk ; No. 12, cake of chocolate ; No. 
 13, paper package — a dried plant ; No. 22, empty phial, 
 labelled glycerine ; No. 23, small bottle containing a 
 resinous cement. Witness then identified the various 
 bottles which contained the stomach, &c. None of these 
 substances, excepting that containing solution of aconite, 
 are poisonous. It was extremely weak, and the 
 quantity I found was not sufficient to destroy life. 
 There were nearly two ounces in the phial, and it was 
 more than half full ; if the whole quantity taken out had 
 been swallowed, itwould not havebeen sufficient todestroy 
 life. I cannot speak to the effects of a dose of aconite. 
 I never heard of prussic acid being used externally as a 
 cosmetic ; I should think it highly dangerous to' use it in 
 tl^t way. I am not aware of any beneficial action that it 
 exerts, I should say it would be very dangerous to use 
 arsenic for a similar purpose ; if rubbed on the skin it 
 might produce constitutional symptoms of poisoning by 
 arsenic ; it would produce an eruption on the skin. I 
 have heard of its being used as a depilatory, to remove 
 hairs from the skin, mixed, however, with other matters, 
 lime generally, solid. It is not arsenious acid that is so 
 used ; it is usually the yellow sulphide. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty— In the 
 entire stomach and its contents there was arsenic equal to 
 
61 
 
 82 7-lOth grains. That was exolusiTe of the White 
 powder which I first examined. The white powder that I 
 examined after being dried weighed 5 2-lOth grains, and 
 that was arsenious acid. I did not determine the quantity 
 of arsenic in the lungs, liver, brain, or heart ; I can give 
 no notion of the quantity that might be in these organs ; in 
 the small intestine it must have been considerable, because 
 when its contents were allowed to repose, arsenious acid 
 crystallised out of that liquid and deposited abundantly 
 on the sides of the vessel. That indicated the liquid 
 had as much arsenic as it could hold in solution 
 at the temperature. I, can't give any idea of the 
 quantity in the small intestine. It was decidedly 
 appreciable. Might it be several grains? It would 
 be a mere matter of guess, and I should not like 
 to guess in so serious a matter. If the deceased, when 
 attacked by the symptoms of arsenical poisoning, vomited 
 a great deal, and in large quantities, it would depend on 
 the mode of administration whether a quantity would 
 be carried off. If given with solid food and in a 
 solid state, a large portion of the arsenic 
 would be ejected from the stomach if all that food 
 were vomited ; but if the arsenic were stirred up 
 with a liquid, and thereby thrown into a state of 
 mechanical suspension, I should not expect that so con- 
 siderable a portion shoiild be ejected by vomiting. By 
 solid food I mean bread and the like. In the case 
 of the arsenic being taken in a fluid, I could not say 
 what proportion might be ejected. I should not be 
 sutprised to find that as much had been ejected as 
 remained. Judging from what I found on the examina- 
 tion of the body, the dose of arsenic must have been of 
 very unusual size. There are cases on record in 
 which very large quantities of arsenic have been 
 found in the stomach and intestines. I know them as 
 a matter of reading. There are examples of larger 
 quantities beii)g found than in the present. I think 
 there is a ease in which two drachms were found — that 
 is, 120 grains. That is the largest quantity which occurs 
 to my mind at this moment as having been found. The 
 cases in which a very large quantity of arsenic was found 
 
S2 
 
 did not turn put to be cases of intentional murder by a, 
 third party. In the cases to which I refer, 
 the arsenic was taken by the party voluntairily, 
 with the intention to obmmit suicide. It would be very 
 diflScult to give a large dose of arsenic in a liquid ; by a 
 large dose of arsenic you exclude many vehicles in which 
 arsenic might be administered. Nothing which I found 
 in my investigation indicated the time when the arsenic 
 must have been taken. The ordinary period that 
 elapses between the administration of this poison and the 
 symptoms being manifested is eight or ten hours in the 
 cases on record ; that is the extreme time ; there are 
 some cases which show themselves in less than half- 
 an-hour; we have cases in which death has resulted 
 in a few hours, and cases in ^hich death has been 
 delayed for two or three days. As to the arsenic 
 obtained from Carrie's shop, the greater part of the 
 colouring ^ matter might be removed by dexterous 
 manipulation ; if you were to throw water on the arsenic 
 and agitate the two together, and after the arsenic has 
 subsided, you throw off the liquor, a portion of 
 colouring, matter is thrown oif; but if you keep 
 the vessel shaken in a particular way you may 
 coax the greater part of the colouring matter away. 
 Murdoch's arsenic was coloured with carbonaceous 
 matter ; it had the odour of coal soot, I cannot tell 
 from examination whether the arsenic found is admi- 
 nistered in one dose or in several. It would be very 
 dangerous to use arsenic externally in any way. There 
 are cases in which it has been applied to the entire or 
 whole skin, and in which symptoms of poisoning have 
 been produced — vomiting, pain, but not death. In one case 
 it was rubbed on the head, I think ; but I don't 
 remember the details of the case. From the remem- 
 brance of "general reading, my impression is that it 
 produces eruption on the sound skin. If cold water were 
 used ? I should not like to wa^h in Buoh water myself. 
 You cannot give me any other answer? No, I cannot. 
 
 By the IiOED Jdstiob-Clbek — There are cases in which 
 inflammation of the intestines has been produced by 
 external application of arsenic. 
 
53 
 
 By the Dban — Arsenic is an irritant poison ; it ia 
 absorbed iato the blood, I presume, ,with great rapidity, 
 and through the blood it reaches all the organs in which 
 we find it. ' 
 
 By the LORD Advocate — In administering large doses 
 of arsenip many vehicles are excluded ; cocoa or coffee 
 is a vehicle in which a large dose might be given ; 
 , there is a great difference between giving rise to suspi- 
 cion and actaal detection ; I have found, by actual 
 experiment, that when thirty _jj forty grains of arsenic 
 are put into a cup of warm chocolate, a large 
 portion of the arsenic settles down in the bottom 
 of the cup, and I think a person drinking such 
 poisonous chocolate would suspect something when the 
 gritty particles came into his mouth; but if the same 
 quantity, and even a larger quantity, was boiled 
 with the chocolate, instead of merely l)eing stirred 
 or mixed, none of it settles down, I could not 
 separate the soot by washing from Murdoch's arsenic ; 
 but a very large quantity of it might be separated. 
 Suppose a person the subject of repeated doses of 
 arsenic, I have no evidence on which to form an 
 opinion whether the last dose would be fatal more 
 rapidly. I delivered to Dr Christison some of the 
 arsenic I got at Currie's and Murdoch's. 
 
 By the Dean — In case of chocolate being boiled with 
 arsenic in it, a larger proportion dissolves and does not 
 subside. That is what I find to be the case from actual 
 experiment. Coffee or tea could not be made the vehicle 
 of a large dose of arsenic. 
 
 By the Lord Justice-Clerk — The period in which the 
 arsenic produces its effect varies in different individuals, 
 and according to the mode of administration. Fain in 
 the stomach is one of the first symptoms, and vomiting 
 usually accompanies the pain, but it may be very severe 
 before vomiting actually begins. Ten, fifteen, or twenty 
 grains might be given in coffee. 
 
 The Lord Jdstioe^Glbbk— Certainly, Dr Penny, 
 more satisfactory, lucid, or distinct evidence I never 
 heard. 
 
M 
 
 Dr Christison, examined by the LoED AdvOOATK 
 — Dr Penny of Glasgow delivered to me portions 
 of the body of L'Angelier on 10th April. I made 
 a chemical analysis of the subjects so delivered 
 ■with the View of ascertaining if they contained 
 poison ; and I prepared the following report : — 
 
 I certify on soul and conscience that I received on the 
 11th ultimo, for chemical examination, from the hands 
 of Dr Frederick Penny, of Glasgow, u, box containing 
 various articles connected with the case of Pierre Emile 
 L'Angelier, who is supposed to have died of poison. The 
 articles, nine in number, were all duly sealed and 
 labelled. 
 
 No. 1 was a "small tube containing powder from 
 contents of stomach." 
 
 This powder was a coarse, ' gritty, white, shining, 
 orystalliform powder,, which (1) sublimed at a gentle 
 heat ; {2) condensed in sparkling octaedral ci^ystals ; (3) 
 was slowly soluble in boiling distilled water ; and when so 
 dissolved gave (i) s, sulphur- yellow precipitate with 
 sulphuretted hydrogen water ; (5) a lemon - yellow 
 precipitate with solution of ammoniaoal nitrate of 
 silver; (6) an apple-green precipitate with ammoniacal 
 sulphate of copper; and on being mixed with hydro- 
 chloric acid, and then boiled on copper-gauze, yielded (7) 
 a dark grayish-black encrustation on the gauze^ which, 
 on being heated in a small glass tube (8), became again 
 of bright copper-red ; and at the same time yielded a ring 
 of white sparkling sublimate in octaedral crystals, or forms 
 derived from the octaedre. 
 
 The powder was therefore oxide of arsenic. 
 
 No. 2 was a " bottle containing prepared fluid from 
 contents of stomach." 
 
 This fluid was colourless and nearly transparent. (1.) A 
 stream of sulphuretted hydrogen threw down from it an 
 abundant sulphur-yellow precipitate. (2.) Hydrochloric 
 acid being added to a portion of it, copper-gauze was 
 subjected to a boiling heat in the mixture ; upon which 
 in a few seconds the gauze became encrusted with a 
 grayish-black coat. (3.) This gauze, when washed, dried, 
 and heated in a glass tube, was restored to its original 
 
55 
 
 bright copper-red appearance ; and at the same time a 
 ring of sparkling crystals was obtained, the form of which 
 was the regular octaedre, or some form derived from it. 
 
 The fluid prepared from the contents of the stomach 
 therefore contained oxide of arsenic and in considerable 
 quantity. 
 
 No. 4 was a " bottle containing portion of contents of 
 small intestine.'' 
 
 This was a turbid opaque dirty-gray liquid, holding 
 much insoluble matter in suspension ; and white glitter- 
 ing particles were seen on the bottom of the bottle. 
 
 The contents were poured out so as to leave the 
 powder behind. Hydrochloric acid being added to the 
 portion poured off, the mixture was boiled for a little, 
 and copper-gauze was subjected to its action at a boiling 
 temperature. In a few seconds the gauze was encrusted 
 with a grayish-black film, which was proved to be 
 arsenic in the same way as in the experiments prenonsly 
 described. 
 
 The powder was cleaned by washing it with cold 
 distilled water, and was found to be oxide of arsenic by 
 the tests to which the powder from the contents of the 
 stomach was subjected. 
 
 The contents of the small intestine therefore contained 
 oxide of arsenic. 
 
 No. 7 was a common gallipot " jar containing portion 
 of liver." 
 
 The contents, being about four ounces of a liver, were 
 subjected to a modification proposed in 1852 by Dr 
 Penny of the process of Beinsoh for detecting arsenic in 
 such matter. The liver having been cut into smalj 
 pieces, and boiled in hydrochloric acid and distilled water 
 in a glass flask, to which a distilling apparatus of glass 
 was connected, the whole texture was gradually reduced • 
 to a fine pulp, and a distilled liquor was obtained which 
 was collected in divided portions. These liquors were 
 colourless and nearly clear. The two first portions 
 obtained did not contain any arsenic, the third gave faint 
 traces of it, the fifth and six portions, when separately 
 subjected to the action of copper gauze, gave charac- 
 teristically the usual dark gray encrustation ; and this 
 
• 66 
 
 again was drlyen off as usual by heat and a small glass 
 tube, and yielded in each case a white, sparkling ring | of 
 ciystals which were regular ootaedres, or forma derived 
 from the octaedre. 
 
 The liver therefore contained oxide of arsenic. 
 
 Having obtained unequivocal proof of the presence of 
 arsenic in the contents of the stomach, in the contents 
 of the small intestine, and in the livei-, it does not 
 appear to me necessary to ezamine the other articles 
 delivered to me by Dr Penny. These are — 3. Prepared 
 fluid from the textures of stomach ; 5. Portions of the 
 small intestine ; 6. Portion of the large intestine ; 8. 
 Portions of the heart and lungs ; 9, Portion of the brain, 
 
 (Signed) R. Christison, M.D., &c. 
 The fluid from the stomach ^rppeared to indicate 
 a considerable quantity — more than sufficient to 
 destroy life. I have had great experience in 
 regard to poisons, and published a work on the 
 subject. At pages 301 and 303 I state the usual 
 effects of poisoning by arsenic. If I found all these 
 effects in a case, it would lead me to suspect the presence 
 of arsenic or some other acrid poison. I have' not seen 
 Dr Thomson and Dr Steven's reports on the post mortem 
 examination of the body. Supposing, from between th e 
 19th and 22d February to 22d March, the symptoms I 
 would expect to find would be variable. Sometimes they 
 pass off quickly, and sometimes continue for weeks or 
 months. When they continue, they are indigestion, loss 
 of strength, emaciation, sometimes diarrhoea, lassitude of 
 the limbs. If there appeared erosions with elevated 
 edges in the intestines, I should have been led to Suspect 
 the existence of some aficotion of the intestines previoug 
 to the final attack. 
 
 The Lord Advooatb read the description of the post 
 W/oHem examination of the body, and asked — ^Was this 
 what witness would have expected to find after the 
 administration of arsenic? "Witness deponed that it 
 would be very natural to expect such appearances from 
 arsenic. I would have thought them the natural resul t 
 of arsenic if I had known it had been administered. 
 
 The LoBi) Advooati — If you had been consulted 
 
sr 
 
 in a case of this kind, that on the 18th or 19th of 
 February a person, having gojie out in good health, 
 returns, is attacked during the night with great 
 pain in the bowels, severe vomiting of a green visoou s 
 fluid, accompanied by intense thirst and purging, and 
 after the lapse of two or three days and partial recovery 
 the patient is again seized with the same symptoms, 
 though in a somewhatmodiiied form, if after the second 
 attack he had continued affected with great lassitude, 
 change of colour, low pulse, and after going from home 
 for ten days or a forbnight, had again returned and been 
 attacked the same night with these symptoms in an 
 aggravated form, that he died within eight or ten hours 
 of his return to his house, and that on a post mortem. 
 examination the results were found of which you are aware 
 in this case, I wish you to give me your opinion as a 
 man of science and skill what conclusion you would draw 
 as to the cause of the previous illnesses and death ? — 
 I could have no doubt that the cause of his death was 
 poisoning with arsenic ; and such being the case, I should 
 have enterbained a strong suspicion in regardi to his 
 previous illnesses, but only a- suspicion, because his death 
 would have prevented me from taking the means of 
 . saEsfying my mind on the subject by a careful examina- 
 tion of all the circumstances. 
 
 The ' symptoms are consistent with what you would 
 expect if continuous poisoning were taking place ? — 
 
 They are those which have occurred in parallel cases of 
 the administration of repeated doses singly insufficient 
 to cause death. 
 
 Shown reports of examination of the portions of the 
 body, arsenic, &c., and read them as follows :— 
 
 Edinburgh, May 26, 1857. 
 I certify that, since the delivery of my first report on 
 the case of Pierre Emile L'Angelier, I have examined 
 
 No. §, being ,a portion of the great intestine, by the 
 same process employed in the instance of _the liver, and 
 that I obtained from it unequivocal evidence of the 
 existence of arsenic ; and 
 
 No. 8 also, being a portion of the brain. This was 
 dried up, and amounted to about a quarter of an ounce 
 
88 
 
 only. , I obtained from it, by the same process, traces of 
 arsenic, but not satisfactory evidence. That result might 
 have been owing to the small quantity of material I had 
 to analyse. 
 
 I farther certify that on 6th May Dr Penny jjut into 
 my hands two small paper packets, duly sealed, one 
 supposed to be arsenic mixed with soot, the other arsenic 
 mixed with indigo, according to the directions of the Act 
 for the sale of arsenic. 
 
 The one marked "Murdoch's arsenic" I found to 
 contain soot. Judging from the depth of colour I infer 
 that it contains the due proportion of soot. 
 
 The other, marked "Carrie's arSenic," and supposed 
 to contain indigo, does not contain the indigo directed 
 to be used in the Act for the sale of arsenic. 
 It may contain a little of the colouring matter of indigo. 
 But when the whole colouring matter is detached it does 
 not give the peculiar reactions of indigo, neither does it 
 impart a blue colour to the arsenic as good indigo does 
 i characteristically-; for the colour is a pale grayish black. 
 The ooloui-ing matter in this article is also imperfectly 
 mixed. It may be easily removed, in a great measure, 
 by washing the powder with cold water ; which is not to 
 be accomplished easily, or so perfectly, when good indigo 
 is used. The proportion of the admixture amounts to a 
 36th part. This is a little less than the proportion which 
 the Act directs — viz., a 32d — when indigo is used. 
 
 All this I certify on soul and conscience. 
 
 (Signed) K. Cheistison. 
 
 By the Dean — My attention was not directed to 
 colouring matter in the arsenic from the dead body. I 
 got only one article in which it might have been found, 
 if my attention had been directed to it — viz., the 
 contents of the small intestine; the others had been 
 subjected to previous preparation. I was not asked 
 ti attend to colouring matter. I did not see it, 
 and- I did not search for it. Supposing soot or 
 indigo to have been administered with the arsenic, 
 I think itl might have been found in the intestines 
 by casual examination. I can't say it would have 
 been found, even by oaieful examination; many 
 
59 
 
 circumstances go to the possibility of its being found. 
 Many of the component parts of soot are insoluble; 
 and it might have been partially removed by 
 frequent vomiting. It is very difficult to remove soot 
 from arsenic entirely. Indigo would have been found 
 more easily from the peculiarity of the colour, 
 and the chemical ingredients being so precise. Currie's 
 arsenic is not coloured with true indigo ; it is waste 
 indigo, or what has been used for the purposes of the 
 dyer. I don't know how it is prepared. I did not analyse 
 the colouring matter of Currie's arsenic. I ascertained 
 that it was not the indigo directed by the Act to be used, 
 and I ascertained the quantity. I separated the colouring 
 matter from the arsenic, and subjected it to the action of 
 sulphuric acid. Charcoal is one of the chief constituents 
 of good indigo, and necessarily of waste indigo. The 
 chief constituent of soot is charcoal also. I was informed 
 by Dr Penny of the quantity he found in the stomach — 
 more than eighty grains. There was also a white powder 
 found in addition. If there was great vomiting and 
 purging, the quantity of arsenic administered must have 
 been much greater than was found in his stomach 
 and intestines. But much would depend on whether 
 means were taken to facilitate vomiting. If hot 
 and cold water were freely given, that would facilitate 
 the discharge of the poison. It is impossible to 
 say the proportion ejeotedj I think it would be 
 reasonable to suppose that as much would be vomited 
 as remained ; it might, without any extravagant supposi- 
 tion, be taken at four or five times as much. There was 
 nothing in the symptoms mentioned in the last illness in 
 this case inconsistent with death being produced by a single 
 dose of arsenic. The ordinary symptoms in' a case of this 
 kind are not unlike the symptoms of malignant cholera. I 
 think all the symptoms in this case described to me might 
 have occurred from malignant cholera. If there were a 
 sense of choking and soreness of the throat, I think these 
 are more symptoms of arsenic ; I don't think they have 
 occurred in cholera. I think the ulcers in the duodenum 
 might indicate the previous existence of inflamma- 
 tion of the duodenum, called duodenitis, It is a. 
 
60 
 
 ctisease which might present the outward symptoms 
 of bowel complaint or cholera. The ordinary time that 
 elapses between the adihinistration of arsenic and death 
 is from eighteen hours to two and a-half days. The 
 exceptions to this are numerous ; some of them are very 
 anomalous as to the shortness of the interval. The 
 shortest are two or two and a-half hours ; these have 
 been ascertained ; but it is not silways possible to ascer- 
 tain when it is administered. The time between which 
 the poison is administered and the manifestation of the 
 symptoms is about two hours. I had a case in which 
 it was five hours. There are also cases in which it was 
 said to be seven and even ten hours. It does not appear 
 that the size of the dose affects this ; it does not 
 depend on the amount taken, within certain bounds of 
 course ; but I speak of the case as arsenic is usually 
 administered. There are a good many cases of large 
 doses. I think the dose in this case must have been 
 double, probably more than double, the quantity found 
 in the stomach. A dose of 220 grains may be considered 
 a large dose. I can't say if, in cases of as large a 
 dose as this, they were intentionally administered ; in 
 the greater proportion of cases of suicide, the dose 
 is generally found to be large. That is easily accounted 
 for by the desire of the party to make certaiq* of 
 death. 
 
 The Dean— In a case of murder no such large quantity 
 would be used ? It is in oases of suicide that double- 
 shotted pistols are used and large' doses given. 
 
 Witness — ^But murder, even by injuries, and also by 
 poison, is very often detected by the excessive violence- or 
 dose. In all cases of poisoning by arsenic there is more 
 used than is necessary. I cannot recollect how much 
 has been used, but I know very well that what is found 
 in thestomachin undoubted casesof poisoning by others has 
 been considerably larger than what is necessary to occasion 
 death, because the very fact of poison being found in the 
 stomach at all. In the case of arsenic, shows that more 
 has been administered than is necessary, as it is not what 
 is found in the 'stomach that bauseis death; ^i^t whiat dis; 
 appears from the stomach, 
 
61 
 
 The Dean — ^But do you know any case in which so 
 great a dose as the present was administered ? 
 
 Witness — I cannot recollect at the present moment. 
 In cases of charges of murder by arsenic, it is scarcely 
 possible to get any information as to the actual quantity 
 used. 
 
 The Deau — You have information here in this charge 
 of murder ? 
 
 Witness — You, have information as to what was in the 
 stomach. 
 
 The Dbak — ^And you are enabled to draw an inference ? 
 
 Witness — Of course, my inference is drawn by a sort 
 of probability, but that is not an inferonos on which I 
 am entitled to found any positive statement. 
 
 The Dean — Well, let me put this question. Did you 
 ever know of any person murdered by arsenic having 
 eighty-eight grains of it found in his stomach and 
 intestines ? 
 
 Witness — ^I don't recollect at the present moment. 
 
 The Dean — Or anything approaching to it 2 
 
 Witness — I don't recollect, but I would not rely on my 
 recollection as to a negative fact. 
 
 The Dean — You are not, at aU events, able to give me 
 an example the other way ? 
 
 The Vitness — Not at present. As far as my own 
 observation goes, I can say that I never met with eighty 
 grains in the stomach of a person who had been poisoned 
 by arsenic, t can't say what is the largest quantity I 
 have found. 
 
 The Dean — If a person designs to poison another, jthe 
 use of a very large quantity of arsenic, greatly exceed- 
 ing what is necessary, is a thing to be avoided ? 
 
 Witness — It is a great error. [Examination continued.] 
 In some articles of food it is easy to administer a large 
 quantity of arsenic, and in others it is difficult to do so. 
 It is very rare for persons to take meals after arsenic has 
 been administered ; but there is a case of a girl who took 
 arsenic at eleven o'clock forenoon, and at two o'clock sho 
 made a pretty good dinner. It was a French case ; and 
 the words as translated are that she made " a very fair 
 (^ner," though it was observed that she was uneasy 
 
previously. The author who notices that ease notices it 
 as a veiy extraordinary one. She died, I think, in 
 thirteen or fourteen hours after the administration. It 
 was a rapid case. 
 
 By the LoKD Advocate — The amount of matter 
 vomited is sometimes very little; and sometimes very 
 large doses have been thrown off by vomiting. There is 
 one case in which half an ounce was taken and no 
 vomiting ensued. I think chocolate or cocoa would be 
 a vehicle in which a considerable dose might be given. 
 Active exercise would hasten the effects of arsenic ; a 
 long walk would do so. Exercise accelerates the action of 
 all poisons except narcotic poisons. That a man should 
 take poison at Bridge of Allan, come to Coatbridge, walk 
 eight miles to Grlasgow, and reach Glasgow in good health 
 and spirits, I should think very unlikely ; cases of protrac- 
 tion for five hours have occurred in persons who had gone 
 to sleep after taking it. From halE-an-hour to an hour is 
 the usual time between administration and the symptoms 
 manifesting themselves. In my analysis the colouring 
 matter of the arsenic might. have been there without 
 my observing it. The administration of previous doses 
 predisposes the system to the effects of poison, and 
 makes the action of the poison more rapid and violent. 
 If the individual had recovered entirely, this would not 
 be so much the case; but if he still laboured under 
 derangement of the stomach, I should look for violent 
 effects. 
 
 Amadee Thuam, examined through an interpreter — I 
 am a clerk in Glasgow, and lodged with Mrs Jenkins in 
 March last. I knew M. L'Angelier, who aUo lived there. 
 We took our meals together in the same room. Being 
 shown a photograph, witness identified it as one seen in 
 L'Angelier's room. It was the portrait of his intended. 
 I am not sure whether L'Angelier ever told me her name, 
 I did hear it, I do not know exactly from whom, but I 
 think it was from the French Consul. I was in the habit 
 of speaking with L'Angelier about her. We also spoke 
 aboqt the correspondence. I knew in the end of 
 December last that he was to marry a young 
 
63 
 
 lady. I knew of some letters, but read none ot 
 them. In one of the letters about which M. 
 L'AngeUer spoke to me, the lady claimed back some of 
 her letters. This is a pretty long time ago. Kemember 
 the French transport Neuve, at the Broomielaw. 
 Bemembers going with M. L'AngeUer aboard. I do not 
 remember when exactly. I think that on the way 
 there he delivered a letter, but I do not know the name 
 of the street. I know Blythswood Square in Grlas- 
 gow, and it was in a street close by. When M. 
 L'AngeUer got to the house he made a sUght 
 noise on a pane of glass of the window. "Witness was 
 waiting at a short distance. I walked on while 
 L'AngeUer deUvered the letter. It ip the second window 
 from the corner. I have since shown, that window to a 
 police officer. L'AngeUer was sometimes in the habit of 
 going out at night. I knew where he went on these 
 occasions — to his intended's house. Recollect one 
 morning finding that L'AngeUer had been out, and very 
 iU in the night. I asked whether he had seen the lady ; 
 he said that he saw her. I also asked if he had been 
 unwell after seeing her. He said that he was unweU 
 in her presence. I recollect a second iUness of 
 L'AngeUer. Do not think L'AngeUer was out the 
 night before that. I did not ask him any questions. 
 L'AngeUer insisted to go for a doctor — ^for his own 
 doctor. I went to lodge at Mrs Jenkins at the 
 end of December, and all that I have said about 
 L'AngeUer took place after I went to lodge there. On 
 the occasion of his two iUnesses he was ill at nigjit and 
 vomited. I don't remember if he said anything on the 
 occasion of his iUness about the letters. I went for Dr 
 Thomson at L'Angelier's request. I did so on the second 
 occasion. I think I remember L'Angelier's coming home 
 from' Edinburgh. I recollect getting a letter from 
 L'AngeUer. Identify 131 as the letter : — 
 
 " MtDeabSib, — Ihave just received yours of Saturday. 
 I thank you for your attention. I intend to come to 
 sleep in Glasgow to-morrow, so I beg of you to detain my 
 letters after this evening. I feel a little better, but it 
 doea not go on as I would Uke, I have no letter from 
 
64 
 
 Mr Mitchell ; I wantyery much to know what he wanted 
 with me, 
 
 " Monday, Eleven o'clock." 
 The datf is Monday, eleven o'clock, and that the address 
 is to M. L'Angelier, at Mrs Jenkins', Great "Western 
 Bead. March 16th is the date of the post-mark. ,!Recol- 
 lect L'Angelier going to Stirling. Before going he left 
 instructions about his letters. Shown a letter ; identified 
 the same as the instructions in question. The instruc- 
 tions were only for one day — two dftys perhaps. Two 
 letters came when he was away ; one I sent to Stirling, the 
 other to Bridge of Allan. Shown an envelope, but could 
 not identify it as like that of one of the letters which 
 caifie, Shown envelope in Which he sent the letter to 
 Stirling, and identifies it. Shown another envelope, and 
 identifies it as that in which he sent the letter to the Bridge 
 of Allan. Would not know the letter I sent to the Bridge 
 of AUan if I saw it. In conversing with L'Angelier about 
 the lady, does not think her name was mentioned. The 
 correspondence was carried on against the wish of the 
 family. The house where L'Angelier delivered the letter 
 was the house where she lived. Left town on the Satur- 
 day before L'Angelier died, and did not expect him to 
 return so soon from the Bridge of Allan. A gentleman 
 called upon L'Angelier, and think his name was Mitchell. 
 I wrote to L'Angelier to say this gentleman had called. 
 
 By the Dean — I saw L'Angelier take laudanum. 1 
 saw him take it several times. I once told him that he 
 took too much. L'Angelier said that he could not sleep ; 
 and that he took it because he could not sleep. Do not 
 know when this was. L'Angelier once said to me that 
 he had ta&en much laudanum. He told me that the 
 morning after he had taken it. I have seen L'Angelier 
 take laudanum four or five times. 
 
 By the Lokd Justice-ClebK— I mean by saying that 
 L'Angelier took much laudanum that he did so when 
 suffering a godtl AeiX. 
 
 A.ugvMe , Vwrnert de Mecm, examined by the LoKD 
 Advocate — I am chancellor to the French Consul. I 
 was acquainted with the late M. L'Angelier, I was 
 
acquainted with him for about three years. I know Mies 
 Smith. I was acquainted with her family. I knew that 
 in 1856 there was a correspondence going on between" 
 L' Angelier and Miss Smith. L'Angelier confided to me 
 tliis circumstance. Mr Smith liad a house at Row, and I 
 lived at- Helensburgh..- L'Angelier stayed a night or two 
 with me. When he asked my advice I told him that he 
 ought to go to Miss Smith's family and teE them of his 
 attachment. I told him that that was the most 
 gentlemanly way. He said that Mr Smith was opposed 
 to it, and he did not think it was necessary to apply to 
 him ; and that Miss Smith had spoken to her father, and 
 that he was opposed to it. That is more than a year ago. 
 I am aware from what L'Angelier said that there was a 
 correspondence |oing on between them. I remember 
 that L'Angelier came to my office a few weeks before his 
 death, and he spoke about Miss Smith. I said that Miss 
 Smith was to be married to some gentleman ; and vAien 
 I mentioned the public rumours, he said that it was not 
 true, but that if it was to come true, he had documents 
 in , his possession that would be sufficient to forbid 
 the bans. I don't recollect whether he said that 
 Mr Smith had written to him on the subject of her 
 reported marriage. I did not see him after that time. 
 I thought that,- having been received by Mr Smith in his 
 house, I did not think that I was at liberty, to speak to 
 Mr Smith; but after L'Angelier's death I thought it 
 my duty to mention the fact- of the correspondence 
 having been carried on between L'Angelier and his 
 daughter, in order that he should take steps to exonerate 
 his daiughter in case of anything coming out. I knew 
 that he had letters from Miss Smith in his possession.- 
 I called on Mr Smith on the evening of the death of M. 
 pAngelier, and toldhim that M. L'Angelier had in his 
 possession a great number of letters from his daughter, 
 and that it' was high time to let him know this tha* 
 they might not fall into the ha;nds of strangers ; I said 
 numbers of people might go to his lodgings and read them. 
 I went to Mr Huggins ;- he was not in, but I saw two, 
 gentlemen, and told them what I had been told to ask ; 
 they said they were not at liberty to give the letters 
 '■ ' ■ c 
 
66 
 
 without Mr Huggins' consent. I then asked them to 
 keep them sealed up till they jwere disposed of. ' I think 
 that was on the Tuesday after his death. I went back 
 to Mr> Smith n?xt day. Shortly after I saw Mr Smith, 
 I went, in consequence of rumours, to Miss Smith's house, 
 and saw her in presence of her mother. I apprised 
 her of the death of L'Angelier. She' asked me 
 if it was of my own will thai I came to tell her, and I 
 told her it was not so, but that I came at the special 
 request of her father. I asked if she had seen L'Angeliar 
 on Sunday night ; she told me that sh« did not see hiin. 
 I asked her to put me in a position to contradict the 
 statements which were being made as to her relations 
 with L'AngeUer. I asked her if she had seen L'Angelier 
 on Sunday evening or Sunday night, and she told me she 
 did not see him. i observed to her that M. L'Angelier 
 had come from the Bridge of Allan to Glasgow 
 on a special appointment with her, by a letter 
 writlfci to him. Miss Smith told me that she was not 
 aware that L'Angelier was at the Bridge of Allan before 
 he came to Glasgow, and that she did not give him an 
 appointment for Sunday, as she wrote to him on 
 Friday evening giving him the appointment for the 
 following day — for the Saturday. She said to me 
 that she expected him on Saturday, but that he did 
 not come, and that she had not seen him on Sunday. I 
 put the question to her perhaps five or six different times 
 and in different ways. I told her that my conviction at 
 the moment was that she must have seen him on Sunday ; 
 that he had come on purpose from the Bridge of Allan on 
 a special invitation by her to see her ; and I did not think 
 it likely, admitting that he had committed suicide, that 
 he had committed suicide without knowing why shS ' 
 asked him to come to Glasgow. 
 
 The LoED Justice-Clerk — Did you know of this 
 letter yourself ? 
 
 Witness — I heard that there was such a letter. I 
 said to Miss Smith that the best advice that a 
 friend could give to her in the circumstances was 
 to tell the truth about it, because the case was a very 
 grave one, and would lead to an inquiry on the part of 
 
67 
 
 the authorities ; and that if she did not. say the truth in 
 these circumstances, perhaps it would be ascertained by 
 a servant, or a policeman, or somebody passing the house, 
 ■who had seen L'Angelier — that it would be ascertained 
 that he had been in the house, and that this would cause 
 a very strong suspicion as to the motive that could have 
 led her to conceal the truth. Miss Smith then got up 
 from her chair and told me, " I swear to you, Mj Mean, 
 that I have not seen L'Angelier," not on that Sunday 
 only, but not for three weeks, or for six weeks, I am not 
 sure which. ' 
 
 The LOED Justick-Clebk — And the mother was 
 present ? 
 
 Witness — The mother was present. This question I 
 repeated to Miss Smith five or six times, as I thought it 
 of great importance ; and her answer was always the 
 same. I asked her — in regard to the letter by wliich 
 L'Angelier was invited to come to see her — how it was 
 that, being engaged to be married to another gentleman, 
 ' she could have carried on a clandestine correspondence 
 with a former sweetheart. She told me that she did it 
 in order to try to get back her letters. , 
 
 The LoED Advocate — Did you ask her whether she 
 was in the habit of meeting L'AngeUer ? 
 
 "Witness — Yes. I asked if it was true that L'Angelier 
 was in the habit of having appointments with her in her 
 home; and she told me that L'Angelier had never 
 entered into that house — meaning the Blythswood Square 
 , house, as I understood. I asked her how then she had 
 her appointments to meet with him. She told me that 
 L'Angelier used to come to a street at the corner of the 
 house (Main Street), and that he had a signal by knocking 
 at the window with his stick, and that she opfened the i 
 window and used to talk with him. 
 
 The LoED Advocate — Did she speak about the former 
 correspondence with him at Sll ? 
 
 "Witness— I asked her if it was true that she had signed 
 letters in L'Angelier's name, and she told m'e that' she 
 had done so. 
 
 The LoED Jcstice-Cleek— Do you mean that she 
 added his name to hers ? 
 
 02 
 
.fig 
 
 Witness— I meant whether she signed her letters witt . 
 L'Angelier's, name, and she said yes. 
 
 The LoED Advocate— Did she say why she did so ? 
 
 Witness^: did not ask ier. 
 
 By Mr Young — I went in 1855 tg live in Helensburgh. 
 M. L'Angelier visited me there, and once he came on 
 a Saturday to my lodgings there, and on Sunday we went 
 on the Luss £oad. I went up to my room, and 
 L'Angelier not coming in for his dinner, I called 
 for him out of temperj and asked why he did 
 not come in, and was keeping me from my dinner. I 
 then found that he was ill, and was vomiting down 
 the staircase. He once complained to me 'of being 
 bilious. This was a year ago. "He complained , of 
 once having, had cholera. Last year he came to my 
 office and told me that he had had a violent attack of 
 cholera, but I don't know whether that was a year or two 
 years ago. I think it was a journey he was to have made 
 that led him to speak of having had the cholera. I 
 don't recollect whether he was tinweU at the time. I 
 know that when L'Angelier came to my house he always 
 had a bottle of laudanum in his bag, but I don't know if he 
 used it. I once heard him speak of arsenic ; it must have 
 been in the winter of 1854. It was on a' Sunday, but I don't 
 recollect how the conversation arose ; 'it lasted about half- 
 an-hour. Its purport was how much arsenic a person 
 could take without being injured by it. He maintained 
 that it was possible to do it by taking small quantities ; 
 but I don't know what led to the conversation. I would 
 be afraid to make any statement as to the purpose for 
 which he said it was to be taken. I have seen some- 
 thing about it in a French dictionary on chemistry and 
 other .subjects. lam afraid of making a mistake — con- 
 founding this book with others I have, read.' L'Angelier 
 stated to me that he had once been jilted by an English 
 lady, a rich person ; and he said that, on account of that 
 deception, he was almost mad for a fortnight, and ran 
 about, getting food from a farmer in the country. He 
 was easily excited ; when he had any cause of grief, he 
 was affected very much. 
 
 By the Lokd Justiok-Cleek— After my marriage I 
 
69 
 
 iiad little intertourse with L'Angelier. I thought that 
 he might be led to take some harsh steps in regard to 
 Miss Smith, and as I had some young ladies in my house 
 I did not think it was proper to have tire same intercourse 
 with him as when I was a bachelor. 
 
 The LoKp ADVOOATE^What do you mean by " harsh 
 .steps?" 
 
 Witness-— I was afraid of an elopement with Miss 
 Smith. By harsh I mean rash. This was after 
 L'A^ngelier had given me his fuU confidence as to what 
 he would do in the event of Miss Smith's father not 
 cpnsenting to the marriage with his daughter. 
 
 The LoKD Jdstioe-Glebk — Did you miderstand that 
 Miss Smith had engaged herself to him ? 
 
 Witness^ — I understood so from what h^ said. 
 
 The Lord JnsTiOE-CLEnK— When you used the 
 expression, " You thought it right to go to Mr 
 Smith about the letters, in order that he might 
 take steps to vindicate his daughter's honour or 
 prevent it from being disparaged," did you relate 
 to him her engagement and apparent breach of 
 engagement ? , Had you in view that the letters might 
 contain an engagement which she' was breaking, or that 
 she had made a clandestine engagement ? 
 
 Witness — I thought that these letters were love-letters, 
 and that it would be much better that they should be in 
 Mr Smith's hands than in the hands of strangers. 
 
 The LoED Advocate — What were L'Angelier's usual 
 character and habits ? 
 
 The Lord Justice-Clerk — ^Was he a steady fellow ? 
 
 Witness — My opinion of L'Angelier's chaijaoter at the 
 moment of his death was, that he was a most regular 
 young man in his conduct, religious, and, in fact, that he 
 was most exemplary in all his conduct. The only objec- 
 tion which I heard made to him was that he was vain 
 and a boaster, boasting of grand persons whoin he knew. 
 For example, when he spoke of Miss Smith he would 
 say, "I shall forbid Madeline to do such a thing, or 
 such another thing. She shall not dance with such a 
 one or such another." 
 
 03 
 
70 
 
 T^e LOED Jcstioe-Clebk — Did he boast of any success 
 ■with females ? 
 
 "Witness — Never. 
 
 ,The Lord Justioe-Cleiik— Did he seem jealous of 
 Miss Sniitli paying attentions to others ? 
 
 Witness — No ; of others paying attentions to lliss 
 Smith. 
 
 The LoED Jdstioe-Cleek — It T/as not on account of 
 , any levity in his character that you discouraged his 
 visiting you after' your marriage ? 
 , ; Witness — No ; I thought that his society might be fit 
 for a bachelor, but not for a married man. 
 
 The Dean — Do you understand the word " Jeyity." 
 
 Witness — Yes ; lightness, irregularity. 
 
 The LoKn Justice-Olerk — How long was it since you 
 had seen him when he came to you a short time before 
 his death ? Had there been a long cessation of inter- 
 
 course 
 
 Witness — Yes ; tliere had been a long cessation. 
 
 The Lord Advocate — (Showing witness a daguerreo- 
 type of L'Angelier)— Is that like L'Angeliet? 
 
 Witness — Yes ; it is a good likeness. 
 
 The Lord JasiiOE-CLEEic-^About what age was he ? 
 
 Witness — Between twenty-eight and thirty, I think. 
 
 The Lord Justice-Clerk — Did he bring recommenda- 
 tions to you, or did you get 'acquainted with him aociden-' 
 tally? 
 
 Witness — I think I got accidentally Acquainted with 
 him in a house ill Glasgow, but I do not recollect. 
 
 The Court adjourned shortly after six o'clock till 
 next day. 
 
71 
 
 THIED DAY.— Thursday, July 2. 
 
 The Court met at ten o'clock tliis morniug, when the 
 following evidence for the prosscution was proceeded 
 with: — 
 
 Oharles Ci^ciH, 'civil-engineer and architect, Glasgow, 
 examined by the SoUoiTOK-GENBEAr.— I was employed 
 by the public authorities to malte a plan of the house - 
 No. 7 Blytli^wood Square, which wr.<! dooupied by Mr 
 James Smith, the father of the panel. [Shown plan.] 
 This is tlie plan which I made, and it is an accurate one. 
 The house is at the comer of Blythswood Sq'.'are and 
 Mains Street, entering from Blytliswood Square. It 
 coiisists of two floors — a street floor and a sunk floor. 
 The lobby, as you go in, runs along the .side wall of the 
 house to the left-hand side ; thereare no rooms to that side. 
 On the right-hand, side there is first the drawing-room, 
 then the dining-room, then a space occupied by the stairs 
 entering from Mains Street to the houses above, but which 
 are no portion of Mr Smith's house. The passage takes 
 a turn a little to the right there, and becomes narrower 
 than the lobby. After it turns, there is a small pantry 
 facing the lobby, and beyond that there are three bed- 
 rooms. Down stairs there is an area-door to Blyths- 
 wood Square, and a door at the back of the house, 
 leading into an inner area which opens into a lane. 
 Going in at the front area-door, on the left hand there 
 is a small bed-room, and to the right is the kitchen. 
 Beyond the bod-room, to the left, there is a closet and 
 wine-cellar. Beyond the kitchen, to the right, there is 
 
72 
 
 another bed-room, with two windows looking to Mains 
 Street. That is marked, " No. 5, Madeline's bed-room." 
 The lower sill of these windows is about eighteen 
 inches below Mains Street, and there are iron gi'atings and 
 stanchions over them. The glass of the windows is about 
 six inches from the street, so that a jlerson standing in 
 the street and putting their arm through the railings can 
 easily touch the windows ; and anything let fall inside 
 the railings would fall on the level of the sill of the 
 window. Anything so let fall could be picked up by a 
 person opening the window. "W here the passage passes 
 that room there are stairs, then a pantry, and beyond 
 that a bed-room, marked on the plan " C. H. 7." That 
 is the room nearest to the back-door. On the right- 
 hand side of the passage there, there is no accommodation 
 in Mr Smith's house. It belongs to other houses. The 
 height of the room- No. 5, from thefloor to the sUl of 
 the window, is about three or four feet. It is just an 
 ordinary, window. The lane at the back of the house 
 leads from Mains Street, and opens into Mains Street, 
 so that a person has no difficulty in getting from Main 
 Street to the door of the back area. The house next to 
 the lane in Mains Street is occupied by Mr Minnoch and 
 Mr Douglas. That is a common stair. 
 
 By Mr YoUNd — The door in Mains Street is the door of 
 the common stair leading to the houses above ; that is, 
 the door leading to Mr Minnoch's house. The plan shows 
 six windows altogether in the sunk floor; threelookintothe 
 area in front, to Blythswood Square, two to Mains Street, 
 and one into the area behind. I can't say whether all of 
 these windows are stanchioned outside with iron bars ; 
 those in Mains Street are. I took no note as to the other 
 windows. The sUl of the windows in the bed-room No. 
 5 is three or four feet above the floor; I did not measure. 
 There are. eight steps leading up to the front door of the . 
 house ; I can't say how many lea^ down to the area ; it 
 is an area of about six feet deep, I did not measure the 
 distance between the sill of the window and Mains Street, 
 Mains Street inclines towards the lane ; it is lower towards 
 the lane ; it declines towards the lane. 1 did not try the 
 gradient ; there is a fall of about six feet between Blyths- 
 
73 
 
 wood Square and tlie lane ; that is in a distance of about 
 ninety-eight feet. Tliere is a wall between the back 
 area and the lane. I did not measure its height. 
 
 The LoBD Justioe-Cleek — You might have as well 
 not made a plan at all, Sir. 
 
 By the Solioitok-G-eneeal— I was asked to make a 
 ground-plan of each floor. 
 
 The prisoner's declaration was then read as follows. 
 It was dated the 31st March ; — " My name is Madeline 
 ' Smith. I am a native of Glasgow ; twenty-one 
 years of age, and I reside with my father, James 
 Smith, arohiteob, at No. 7 Blythswood Square, Glas- 
 gow. For about 'the last two years I havo been 
 acquainted with. P. Emile L'Angelier, who was in 
 the employment of "W". B. Huggins & Co., in Bothwell 
 Street, and who lodged at 11 Franklin Place. He 
 recently paid his addresses to me, and I have met with 
 him on a variety of occasions. I learned about his 
 death on the afternoon of Monday the 23d March 
 current from mamma, to whom it had been 
 mentioned by a lady, named Miss Parry, a friend 
 of M. L'Angelier. I had not seen M. L'Angelier for 
 about three weeks before tis death, and the last time I 
 saw him was on a night about half-past ten o'clock. On 
 that occasion he tapped at my bed-room window, which 
 is on the ground floor and fronts Main Street. I talked 
 to him from the window, which is stanchioned outside, 
 and I did not go out to him nor did he come in to me. 
 This occasion, which, as already said, was about three 
 weeks before his death, was the last time I saw him. 
 He was in the habit of Writing notes to me, and I was in 
 the habit of replying to him by notes. The last note I 
 wrote to hini was on the Friday before his death — ^viz., 
 Friday the" 20th March current. I now see and identify' 
 that note and the relative envelope, and they are each 
 marked No. 1. In consequence of that note I expected 
 him to visit me on Saturday night the 21st cm'rent, at 
 my bed-room window in the same way as formerly 
 mentioned, but , he did not come and sent no notice. 
 There was no tapping at my window on said 
 Saturday night or on the following night being Sunday. 
 
1 went to bed on Sunday night about , eleven 
 o'clook, and remained in bed till the usual time of 
 getting up next morning, being eight or nine o'clock. 
 In the course of my meetings with M. L'Angelier 
 he and I liad arranged to get married, and we had at one 
 time proposed September last as the time the marriage 
 wasto take place, and subsequently the present ijipnth of 
 March was spoken of. It was proposed that we should 
 reside in furnished lodgings ; but Tire, had not made any 
 definite arrangement as to time or otherwise. He was 
 very unwell for some time, and had gone to the Bridge 
 of Allan for his health, and he complained of sickness, 
 but I have no idea what was the cause of ii;. I rejuiember 
 giving him some cocoa from my window one night some 
 time ago, but I cannot specify the timeipartioularly. He 
 took the cup in his hand and barely tasted the contents, 
 and I gave him no bread to it. I was taking some cocoa 
 myself at the time, and had prepared it myself. It was 
 between ten and eleven P.M. when I gave it to him. lam 
 now shown a note or letter and envelope which are marked 
 respectively No 2, and I rdoognise them as a note a^id 
 envelope which I wrote to M. L'Angelier, and sent to 
 the post. As I .had attributed his sickness to want of 
 food, I proposed, as stated in the note, to give him a loaf 
 of bread,, but I said that merely in a joke, anil, in point 
 of fact, I never gave him any bread. I have bought 
 arsenic on various occasions. The last I bought was 
 a sixpenceworth which I bought in Currie the apothe- 
 cary's in Sauohiehall Street, and, prior to that, I bought 
 other two quantities of arsenic, for which I paid sixpence 
 each — one of these in Currie's, and the other in Murdoch 
 .the apothecary's shop, in Sauchiehall Streeii. I used it 
 all as a cosmetic, and applied it to my face, neck, and 
 arms, diluted with water. The arsenic I got in Carrie's 
 shop I got there on 'Wednesday the ISth March, and I used 
 it all on one occasion, having put it all in the basin where 
 I was to wash myself. I had been advised to the use of 
 the arsenic in the way I have mentioned by a young lady, 
 the daughter of an actress, and I had also seen tho 
 use of it recommended in the newspapers. The young 
 lady's name was Guibilei, and I had met her at school at 
 
75 
 
 iton, near London. I did not wish any of my 
 father's family to bo aware that I was using the arsenic, 
 and therefore never mentioned ib to any of them, and I 
 don't suppose they or any of the servants ever noticed 
 any of it in the hasin. Wiien I bought the arsenic in 
 Murdoch's, I am not sure whetlier I was asked or not 
 what it was for, but I think I said it was for a gardener 
 to kill rats or destroy vermin about flowers, and I only 
 said this because I did not wish them to know that I 
 was going to use it as a cosmetic. I don't remember 
 whether I was asked as to the use I Was going to make of 
 the arsenic on the other two occasions, but I likely made 
 the same statement about it as I had done in Murdoch's ; 
 and on all the three occasions, as required in the shops, 
 I signed my^ name to a book in which the sales were 
 entered. On the first occasion I was accompanied by 
 Mary, a daughter of Dr Buchaiian of Dumbarton. 
 For several years past Mr Minnooh, of the firm 
 of 'WilEam Houldsworth & Co., has been coming 
 a good deal about my father's house, and about a 
 month ago Mr Minnooh made a proposal of marriage to 
 me, and I gave him my hand in token of acceptance, but 
 no time for the marriage has yet been fixed, and my 
 object in writing the note No. 1, before mentioned, was 
 to have a meeting with M. L'Angelier to tell him that I 
 was engaged in marriage to Mr Minnooh. I am now 
 shown two notes and an envelope bearing the Glasgow 
 postmark of 23d January, which are respectively marked 
 No. 3, and I recognise these as in my handwriting, and 
 they were written and sent by me to M. L'Angelier. On 
 the occasion that I gave; M. L'Angelier the cocoa, as 
 formerly mentioned, I think that I used it must 
 have been known to the servants and members of my 
 father's family, as the package containing the cocoa was 
 lying on the mantelpiece in my room, but no one of the 
 family used it except myself, as they did not seem to like 
 it. The water which I used I got hot from the servants. 
 On the night of the 18th, when I used the arsenic last, I 
 was going to a dinner-party at Mr Minnoch's house. I 
 never administered, or caused to be administered, to M. 
 
76 
 
 L'Angelier arsenic or anything injurious. And this I 
 declare to be truth. 
 
 (Signed) " Madelinb Smith." 
 
 Miss Mary Buchanan, examined by the SOLICITOK- 
 Geneeal — Dr Buchanan of Dumbarton is my father. 
 I am acquainted with Miss Sihith. One day last spring, 
 I wont iiito a chemist's shop in Sauchiehall Street with 
 her ; it was Currie's shop. I don't remember if she, told 
 me what she lyas going in for. I heard her ask for arsenic. 
 She was told by the shopman that she must sign her , 
 name to a book. He did not ask her what she wanted 
 with it. I asked her that -in the hearing of the shopman, 
 and she said it was to kUl rats. She got the arsenic. I 
 am not sure, but I think she got sixpenoeworth. She 
 brought it away with her. "When I asked what she was 
 going to do with it, and when she said, to kill rats, the 
 shopman suggested phosphorus, but she said she had tried 
 that before, and was unsuccessfur; but she said that the 
 family was going to the Bridge of Allan, and there was 
 no danger in leaving it lying about in the town-house as 
 it would be put down in the, cellars. I think I had no 
 further conversation with her about it. I think she 
 asked sixpenoeworth. I think she asked the shopman 
 something about what was a dose, and he said such 
 a quantity as she ■ named would kUl a great ^ many 
 people. ' She turned to me and said she only 
 wanted it for rats. I said nothing more, leaving 
 the shop, I laughed at the idea of a young lady buying 
 arsenic ; she said nothing, but laughed too. That was on 
 the 6th March. 1 knew that she was going that day to 
 Bridge of Allan. I was at school with Miss Smith at 
 Clapton, near London ; she came after I was there two 
 years, and I think she was there a year along with me. 
 I have been acquainted with her ever since. I have 
 frequently seen her write, and am well acquainted, with 
 her handwriting. I have been shown by the Procurator- 
 Fiscal a number of lettfers, and I examined them care- 
 fully with the view of ascertaining if they were in her 
 handwriting ; and I came to the conclusion that they 
 were her's, I marked the letters with my initials. I 
 
77 
 
 think it was in the autumn of 18S2 or 1853 that Miss 
 Smith came to school at Clapton ; it must have been 
 1853, I think. Her fall name is Madeline Hamilton 
 Smith. In the course of last spring she wrote to me, 
 telliiig me she was engaged to be married ; that was in 
 the very end of Pebruary. She said she was engaged to 
 Mr Hinnoch. She afterwards spoke to ine on the 
 subject on the 6fch and 31st March. On both these 
 occasions she spoke of herself as engaged to be married to 
 Mr Minnpch, and of the marriage as likely to take place 
 in June. She spoke of no doubt or difficulty about it 
 at all. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr TouNG — -I stay at Dumbarton, 
 but I had come up to Glasgow on the 6th. I visited Mr 
 Smith's .house at Eow, and when I came to Glasgow I 
 caUed at Blythswood Square. I called there on the 6th 
 of March. Miss Madeline was not in when I called, but 
 she came in before I left. We went out together. 
 She said she wished to talk to me of her marriage, t 
 had ho time to wait, and she then said she would walk 
 so far on the way home. "We went out together, and 
 went along the street. There had been an old promise at 
 school that whichever of us was engaged to be married 
 first, should ask the other to be bridesmaid. We went to 
 SanchiehaU. Street, and along that street. Carrie's shop is 
 in that street. When we came to it she said, " Oh, just 
 stop a minute, I want to go iiltp this shop ;, will you go 
 with me ?" and we went into the shop together. I think 
 there were two young men behind the counter. We 
 both went forward to the counter. Miss. Smith asked for 
 arsenic, and the shopman said, " You must sign your 
 name." She said, " Oh, I'll sign anything you like." She 
 signed, " M. Smith," and asked if that would do. Before 
 this I remember Miss Smith asking the shopman how 
 arsenic was sold. She .said, /'How do you sell arsenic?" 
 and I think she said, " Would sixpenoeworth be a large 
 quantity?" I did not sign the book. Everything was- 
 done very openly. She paid for it. When we were at 
 scjiool at Clapton, I remember, whether in a lesson or. 
 when reading in the evening, I forget, that an account 
 was given of Styriah peasants taking arseni'c_to give then( 
 
78 
 
 breath, to climb steep hills, and about their haying a 
 peculiar plumpness and rosinefes of complexion. I'think 
 it was in the course of reading in the evenings. I cannot 
 remember -who the governess was. I remelnber a Miss 
 GuibUei. She was a pupU-teacher. She gave her services 
 as a teacher of music in exchange for being taught other 
 things herself. She was there I think at the time of the 
 reading. I suppose Miss Smith was there. I don't 
 remember, but we were always obliged to be present at 
 these readings, and so I should think Miss Smith was 
 there. The rest of Miss Smith's family went to Bridge 
 of Allan on the 6th March, the day I called. 
 
 By the LoBD Jdsticb-Clbbk — I met Miss Smith by 
 appointment on that day at half -past one ; she had 
 written to me at Dmnbarton. On the 31st I was with 
 her from about three to hilf-past four in her own house. 
 I had been visiting in Glasgow at that time for a week or 
 two. I was staying with Mr Dickson, Woodside Terrace. 
 Nothing particular passed between us on the 31st. She 
 talked of her marriage ; but she did not begin about it, I 
 asked her. This was on a Monday ; so that it was on 
 the 30th, not the 31st, that I saw her. 
 
 The LOKD Justice-Clebk suggested that, to save tinie, . 
 jimior counsel on each side should retire to have the 
 letters which witness had been shown identified by her. 
 This was accordingly done, and witness retired along ' 
 with her father, who had accompanied her into Court. 
 While giving her evidence Miss Buchanan wept bitterly. 
 
 Augusta ChiiiUei or Walcot, examined by Mr Ma&- 
 KENZIE — I was a pupil-teacher at a school at Clapton, at 
 which Miss Smith was, in the year 1852. I never advised 
 her to use arsenic as o, cosmetic, or to apply it to her ' 
 face, neck, or arms, mixed with water, nor to use it in any 
 way. I had no.conversationwith her, that I recollect of, 
 about the use bf arsenic. I believe I had no conversation 
 with her about thejuse of cosmetics in their external 
 application to the sSm. I recollect one evening, in the 
 couise of reading, it was mentioned that Swiss 
 mountaineers took arsenic to improve their breathing iii 
 aicending hills, and that those who took it were 
 
79 
 
 remarkable for plumpness, and a general appearance o £ 
 good health. I beliero I had no oonrersation with Miss 
 Smith. about this passage. My mai^an name was Augusta 
 GuibUei. 
 
 WilUam Murray, a young boy, examined by the Lord 
 Advocate— I was servant with Mr Smith ia Blythswood 
 Square. I went to his service at the November term. I 
 slept in the room on the right-hand side going in at the area 
 door, looking into Blybhswood Square. Miss Smith slept 
 in the room next the kitchen, on the right-hand side. 
 That room has two windows to Mains Street. There 
 were in the house besides me a cook and housemaid, 
 Christina Haggart and Charlotte M'Lean ; they slept in 
 the room ,at the other end of the .passage from the 
 kitchen, close by the back-door. Miss Madeline sent 
 .me to an apothecary about four months ago. I never 
 heard of M. L'Angelier's death till I was examined 
 by the Procurator-Fiscal. I recollect Miss Madeline 
 being missed from home one morning ; it would 
 be six weeks or two months before tliat, that she 
 asked me to go to the apethocary's. I was told 
 to get prussio acid. She gave me a line with "a 
 smaU phial of prussic acid" written on it. I took it to 
 Hie apothecary's. He did not give me the prtsiioacid. 
 I want, back and told Miss Smith so ; she said, " Very 
 well, never mind." She said she Wanted it for her hands. 
 I can't recollect whether I gave her back the line. I 
 don't remember if I got it back from the man in the 
 shop. I did not know M. L'Angelier by sight. I have 
 posted letters for Miss Smith. I have observed some 
 letters with an address like L'Angelier, but I could not 
 make out what it was. It was my duty to look the area 
 gate at night ; sometimes I forgot to do it. I remember 
 Sunday, ,22d March. I went to bed at ten, or there- 
 abouts. I slept very soundly. I heard no noise before 
 the morning. Miss Smith had not gone to her room 
 before I went to . bed. The , day that she was 
 missing was. on the Thursday after the 22d of March. 
 I heard about ten o'clock that she had gone away. Mrs 
 Smith told me ; slie came back that night. On the 22d , 
 
80 
 
 March Christina Haggart was ill. She kept her bed till 
 about six o'clock that evening. I parted from her on the 
 stair after coming down from worship, and went into the 
 kitchen^ Miss Smith did not tell me what shop to go 
 to for the prussio acid. I went into Dr Teaman's surgery 
 in Sauchiehall Street. 
 
 By the DeaN' — It was the nearest shop. It was at the 
 corner of Cambridge Street. Miss Smith did not tell 
 me to go to any particular shop. It was at her 
 bed-room door she gave me the line. She called to 
 me. I was in the kitchen. She spoke quite loud. 
 I don't know that anybody heard her. The servants 
 were in the kitchen. They could hear her if they 
 were listening. She said she wanted a small phial 
 of prussio acid, and she told me to take care of it for it 
 was poison. The shopman asked who it was for, and I 
 told him. He said to tell her that she cotild not get it 
 without a physician's line, and that it was very rank 
 poison. I had been once or twice in the shop. They 
 knew where I came from. Last winter, Mr and Mrs 
 Smith, Mr John Smith, Miss Bessie Smith, Miss Janet, 
 and Miss Madeline Smith, were members of the family 
 living in Blythswood Square. Miss Madeline is the eldest, 
 Bessie the second, and Janet the youngest. Miss Janet 
 looks like a girl of thirteen. Miss Janet always slept with 
 Miss Madeline — in the same room and in the same bed. 
 I had no charge of the back-door. I had charge of the 
 area gate and the upper front-door, not of the area door. 
 I believe the cook, Charlotte M'Lean, generally looked the 
 back-door and the front area door. On the eveningof Sunday 
 the 22d March all the family and servants were atprayers. 
 Miss Madeline was there also. Nine o'clock is the usual 
 hour for prayers, and they were about the usual hour that 
 night. "When I came down stairs I went into the kitchen 
 and stopped about five minutes, and then went to bed. 
 I waited at breakfast next morning as usual. Miss 
 Smith was there just as usual. At this time ayoung man 
 named Mackenzie was visiting Christina Haggart ; she is 
 married to him now. Miss Smith and Miss Janet 
 sometimes get hot water before going .to bed. They 
 got it from the kitchen in a jug, not in a kettle. I 
 
(lid not see Mackenzie visiting Cihristlna tliat Sunday 
 night. There are two windows in the kitchen, one in 
 my room, two in Miss Smith's room, and one iii the 
 housemaid's room ; they are all secured with iron 
 stanchions; I am not sure ahout the housemaid's, but 
 all the others have. 
 
 By the Lord Advooatb— There are two windows in 
 Miss Madeline's, room ; they look to Main Street ; the 
 sill of one of the windows of her bed-room is a little 
 below the street, nearly flush with the pavement. I heard 
 no noise in the house on the night of the 22d. I heard 
 nohody go out or come in ; the key of the area gate was 
 sometimes'kept in my room, and sometimes in the kitchen, 
 there were two keys ; one of them hung on a nail in the 
 kitchen; very. seldom both were in the kitchen. The 
 key of the front area ^oor was hanging near my room ; 
 the key of the back gate was taken charge of by the 
 housemaid ; any person could have got it. There is a 
 gate and a door opening to the lane ; I spoke of the key 
 of the gate ; the key of the door is generally left in the 
 door, and also the key of the front-door. 
 
 By the Dean — There is no gate at the back ; it is a 
 wooden door. There is a wall about six feet high ; there 
 is broken glass on ,the top of it. There are two keys for 
 the area gate. 
 
 Gewge YeOimem, examined by the Lobd Advocate — I 
 am a medical man in Glasgow, and have a laboratory in 
 SauchiehaU Street. Irememberhearingof M. L'Angelier's 
 death. On hearing of it I recollected the circumstance 
 of a paper containing writing having been presented to 
 me by my assistant, on which was written the words, 
 " Half an ounce of prussic acid." I have no means of 
 saying with any d^ree of certainty how long that woiijd 
 be before L'Angelier's death. I should say it would be 
 from four to eight weeks. I went "into the' shop when 
 the line was brought to me. I saw k boy, who said he 
 " came from Miss Smith, Blytliswood Square. . I asked 
 whether he knew what he, wanted, and he said he thought 
 it was poison. I then said that if Miss Smith would call 
 herself I would see whether ' or not she should' have it. 
 
82 
 
 I did not give it to him. Miss Smith did not come, so 
 far as I saw or heard of.' 
 
 James StewcCrt—l heard of Miss Smith being appre- 
 hended. I was then in , the service of Dr Yeaman. I 
 reooUeot a boy coming to the shop for prussio acid. To 
 the best of my recollection, it was six dr eight weeks 
 before I heard of Miss Smith's apprehension. 
 
 Cross-examined — I knew the boy. Ho had been at the 
 laboratory before. 
 
 Miss Buchanan recalled — I have had shown to me a 
 number of letters marked With my initials. I satisfied 
 myself they are in Miss Smith's handwriting. Mr 
 Moncrieff (one of the counsel for the prisoners) showed 
 me a number of letters and envelopes, and I satisfied 
 myself they were in Miss Smith's handwriting, excepting 
 some envelopes. I have initialed a sheet of paper 
 containing the numbers of these letters. With the 
 exception of some envelopes, all the documents are in 
 Miss Smith's handwriting. 
 
 The sheet of paper containing the numbers was here 
 handed in. 
 
 Getyrge Murdoch, examined' by the Lokd Advocate^ 
 I am partner in the firm of Murdoch Brothers, druggists, 
 Saiiohiehall Street. "We keep a registry-book of the 
 poisons sold by us. [Shown book.] This is the register 
 that I keep. In it Js entered all the arsenic which we sell 
 by retail. Under date 21st February we have an entry 
 here — "February 21 — Miss Smith, 7 Elythswood Square, 
 6d. worth of arsenic for garden and oountry-hoase. — 
 M. H. Smith." This is also initialed by me. I rocol- 
 le(;t that purchase . being made. It was made by Miss 
 Smith iierself. As far as I reinember she was alone. I 
 was engaged in one of the back rooms when our assistant 
 called my attention to a lidy who wished to purchase 6d. 
 worth of arsenic. I went forward and saw Miss Smith ; she 
 recognised me, and bowed. I named the form that was 
 required in the sale of it, and requested to Imow for 
 what purpose it was needed, and she answered " For the 
 garden and country-house." I was aware Mr Smith had 
 
83 
 
 a country-housB on the Garelooh, and I directed my 
 assistant to put up the arsenic ; while he did so, I made 
 the entry in, the book,, whicli Miss Smith signed, and I 
 signed it as a witness. I don't remember seeing the parcel 
 made up ; but the usual mode is to put it in a double 
 parcel. It was common white arsenic, mixed with soot 
 in the proportion reqi^ired by the Act. I saw her again 
 some three days after; she called and iiiquired if 
 arsenic should not be white. I said it re'quired to be' 
 sold mixed with something else. She did not purchase 
 any more on Jhat occasion. Some time afterwards my 
 assistant delivered to Dr Penny some arsenic, from the 
 same bottle. I was there when my assistant Dickie gave 
 it. Shown phial labelled and sigjied by Dickie. 
 
 By Mr YoUKO^My shop is about three or four 
 minutes' walk, from Blythswood Square. Miss Smith 
 and her family were in the habit of dealing in my shop. 
 Miss Smith got 1^ oz. of arsenic for the 6d. I don't 
 remember it she paid it, I have seen an entry in the 
 journal of sales on that day to Mr Smith — ' ' Two dozen 
 soda water, 6d. worth of arsenic, send and charge," with 
 a mark that the arsenic was sent. The journal is kept 
 daily, and the entry is posted into the day-book and 
 ledger in Mr Smith's account — all in the regular course of 
 our bookkeeping. I understood the quantity of soot 
 used in the arsenic v/as an ounce to the poimd. That is , 
 more soot than the statute requires, but that was the 
 proportion we used. 1 don't recollect the date that Dr ■ 
 Penny got arsenic from the same jar. 
 
 By the ,Lobd Advocate— I can't say with certainty if 
 Miss Smith paid for the arsenic. My impression when' 
 first called on to speak in reference to this matter was 
 that it ,had been paid, but qp seeing this entry I felt 
 certain in my own mind that it had not been paid. 
 
 By Mr. Young — As soon as I saw this entry in the , 
 book I communicated the fact to the Fiscal. , , 
 
 James Dickie, examined by the Lobd Advocate — 1 ■ 
 was assistant to Mr Murdoch last February. I knew 
 Miss Smith at that time by sight. I recollect her coming 
 to purchase arsenib. She Sfiid she wanted to send it to 
 
8i 
 
 the gardener at the country-house. I can't recollect if 
 she mentioned the purpose. She got it. [Shown phial.] 
 This contains arsenic from our shop prepared in 
 the same manner as that furnished to Miss Smith. 
 The arsenic sold to her was duly registered in the 
 registry-book, and signed by Miss Smith. I can't 
 recollect if it was paid for at the time ;. it was entered in 
 the account-book as unpaid ; the account has not been 
 renderfed ; she took the arsenic with her. I delivered 
 some arsenic to Professor Penny on the 18th April; it 
 was from the same bottle as that from which the arsenic 
 Miss Smith got was tajien. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Young — I have been six years 
 in Mr Murdoch's employment. Tlie Smiths dealt in the 
 shop, and on the 21st February Mr Smith had an account 
 standing in our books. I made the entry about the 
 arsenic at the time ; I entered it first in the scroll-book 
 at the counter, as iinpaid; and though I have no recollec- 
 tion on the subject, that satisfies me it was not paid. 
 The entry was entered up in the other books. There is 
 some soda water entered on tlie same day for Mr Smith. 
 I have no recollection of Miss Smith giving the order 
 for it. 
 
 George Saliburton, examined by the Lord Advooatb 
 — I am assistant to Mr Carrie, chemist, SauchiehaU 
 Street. [Shown book.] This is our registry-book for the 
 sale of poisons. Under date 6th March 1857' I see an 
 entry — " March 6, Miss Smith, 7 Blythswood Square — 
 arsenic, one ounce, kill rats." It has my own signature, 
 andit is also signed "M. H. Smith." I knew her by sight 
 before that. She wasi accoSapanied by a lady on that 
 occasion. She asked for 6d. worth of arsenic. I asked 
 her what it was to do, and she told me it was to kill rats. 
 I told her we were not fond of selling arsenic for that 
 purpose in consequence of its dangerous properties ; I 
 recommended phosphorus paste, which I said would 
 answer very well.- She told me she had used that, but it 
 had failed. She said the rats were in the house 
 in Blythswood SqUare. She told me that the family 
 were going from home next day, and that she would 
 
83 
 
 be careful to see it put down herself. She got 
 the arsenic. It was mixed, with indigo. [Shown phial.] 
 This was given to me by Dr Penny in April last, 
 and it contains arsenic taken .from the same bottle 
 as that sold to Miss Smith. Miss Smith paid for the 
 arsenic she got, and too^ it away.. In the registry-book 
 thero is also an entry under date 18th March ; there are 
 no other entries this year excepting these two ; that entry 
 is — " Miss Smith, 7 Blylhswooi Square — arsenic, one 
 ounce, to kill rats ;" it is signed in the same way as the 
 other. I recollect her coming for that, She asked for 
 other 6d. worth ; and said that in consequence of the 
 , first being so effectual — she having found eight or nine 
 large rats lying dead — she had come back to get the dose 
 renewed. -Mr Currie was in at that time. He made 
 some objections ; he said that we never sold it except 
 to parties we knew and to parties of respecta- 
 bility, and he was about to refuse it when I told 
 him that she had got it on a. former occasion, and 
 then we gave it her ; it was from the same bottle. 
 A young lady, who, I suppose was her sister, was with 
 her. I never heard of arsenic such as I gave Miss 
 Smith being used as a cosmetic. A prep,i,ration of 
 arsenic is used as a depilatory for taking hairs off the 
 face; that is the yellow sulphurate of arsenic. She 
 paid for tlie arsenic. . ' 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr YouNG^-Both purchases were 
 made quite openly. I don't know who accompanied Miss 
 Smith on the first occasion. Tiiey were speaking 
 together at the counter while I was putting up the 
 arsenic. The young lady, with Miss Smith remarked that 
 she thought arsenic was white, and I said we had to 
 colour it according to the Act of Parliament. I had never 
 seen the young lady who accompanied her on the second 
 occasion, before. She was .a grown-up young lady ; not 
 the lady who was with her on the former occasion. I 
 mixed the arsenic myself with the colouring matter. It 
 was indigo. I put in the proper quantity ordered by the . 
 Act of Parliament. 
 
 By the Lord JusftOE-CLERK— The yellow sulphurate 
 is quite a different thing from the white arsenic. If ig 
 
86 
 
 used as a depilatory, because it so affacts the skin as to 
 bring out the roots of the hair. That , is the very oppo- 
 < site aotipti from that of a oosmetio. ' I think any prepa- 
 ratiort of arsenic as •» ootoetio would be extremely 
 dangerous ; it is not a thing that we Sell for that purpose. 
 Fowler's preparation i? four grains of arsenic to an ounce 
 of fliud. 
 
 By the Lord Advooatb— Mis! Smith said on the 
 first ooaasion that rats were to be killed in the Blyths- 
 wood Square house ; and she spoke of these rats on the 
 second occasion. 
 
 John Currie, examined by the Lokd Advocate — I am 
 a chemist and druggist in Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow. 
 I remember a lady, who gave the name of Miss Smith, 
 being in my shop on the 18th March last. [Shown 
 ' registry-book.] I see ah entry under date 18tli' March, 
 of one ounce of arsenic, sighed " M. H. Smith," and 
 also by my assistant. He was dispensing at the counter ; 
 bnt seeing she was not being served, I^went forward and 
 asked what she 'wanted. He said " Poison to kill rats.'> 
 I suggested phosphorus paste. He said she had got some 
 before. I said to Miss Smith that we would much rather 
 give her something else than arsenic. She did not insist' 
 on having it, but she said she would prefer having it. I 
 then stated another objection, that we never sold arsenic 
 to any one witjjout entering it in a book, and that she 
 must sign her name in the book if she got it, and state 
 tlie purpose to which it was to be applied. She said she 
 had no objection to do tliat, and from her apparent 
 respectability and her franlmess I had no suspicion, and: 
 told the young man to give it to her. She got an ounce 
 of the same kind that Dr Penny got. I did not hear her 
 say where the rats were. I think she said it had. 
 answered very well for the purpose for which she had 
 .got it before, but I could not be positive. She paid for 
 it. I think there was a young lady with her. 
 
 William Campsie—l am in the service of Mr Smith. 
 He has a country-house at Eowaleyn, at Row. I have' 
 been i;i Jiia service sin^e 1855, I nejer got any arsenic 
 
87 
 
 or poison from Miss Smith to kill rats. I don't recollect 
 of having any conversation witli her on the subject. I 
 never had any arsenic there for that purpose. 
 
 By Mr YoUNa — "We were very M,uch troubled witli 
 rats, and we had used phosphorus j)aste for them. Vo 
 found it to be effectual, and we got quit of them partly, 
 but not altogether. 
 
 Eohert OHphant, examined by the Lobd Advooate— 
 I am a stationer at Helensburgh. I know the prisoner. 
 She used to deal in our shop for envelopes and note-paper. 
 I have seen her handwriting. I was shown a number, of 
 letters by the Procurator-Fiscal; they were in Miss 
 Smith's handwriting. I recognised some of the envelopes 
 as having been bought at my shop. They were stamped 
 with the initials " M. H. S." They -v^ere stamped for 
 her by, me. [Shown No. 67 of the inventory.] This, is 
 one of these envelopes. 
 
 William Harper Minnpch, examined by the SOLIOITOE- 
 Genekal,— I am a merchant in Glasgow, and a partner 
 of the firm of John Houldsworth & Co. I live in Mains 
 Street, above the hojzse of Mr James Smith. J have 
 been intimately acquainted with his family for upwards 
 of four years. In the course of last winter I paid my 
 addresses to Miss Smith, and I made proposals of marriage 
 to her on the 12th March. She accepted, ^he time of 
 our marriage was fixed between us. Previously to that, 
 I had asked her generally, without reference to any time. 
 That was on the 28th January. I did so personally. 
 My attentions to her, I understood, had been such as to 
 make her q;uite aware that I was, paying my addresses 
 to her. She accepted me on the 28th January, and we 
 arranged it more particularly on the 12th Mai'ch,. From 
 tho-28th January to the end of March there was notliing 
 which suggested any doubt to my mind as to the engage- 
 ment continuing. I had no idea that she was engaged to , 
 any other person, and I was aware of ijo attachment or 
 peculiar intimacy between her,and any other man.,. The 
 maiTiage was fixed to be on the 18th June. Last season 
 I made Miss Smith a present of a necklace ; it was some 
 
tii^ie in January, before the 28th. She went along with 
 her family to the Bridge of Allan on the 6th March ; she 
 remained there till the 17th. I visited the famijy 
 while they were there. After leaving I receive^ a letter 
 from Miss Smith ; shown No. 133— that is the letter; it is 
 dated " Monday" merely. After she came home from 
 Bridge of Allan, she dined in my house with her father 
 and mother; that was on the 19th March. I met her 
 at dinner again at Mr Middleton's on the 25bh March ; 1 
 was not aware of anything wrong at that time. I called on 
 Thiu'sday morning, the 26th, at her father's house. She 
 was not in the house ; I was informed she had left the 
 house. I went to Eowaleyn in company with her brother 
 Mr John Smith to look for her. "We went by train to 
 Greenock, and then on board the steamer, and 
 we found her on board ; it was going to Helens- 
 burgh, and then tb Row; it called at' Eoseneath, 
 and then returned to Greenock. We found her in the 
 steamer a ' little after two o'clock. She said she was 
 going to Eowaleyn. I went on to Eowaleyn with her 
 and her brother ; and then we ordered a carriage and 
 drove her up to Glasgow to her father's house. On 
 reaching Glasgow I had no conversation with Miss Smith; 
 I saw her again on the Saturday following. I had heard 
 a rumour that something was wrong ; she told me on the 
 Saturday that she had written a letter to M. L'Angelier, 
 the object of which was to get back some letters which 
 she had written to him previously. She made no 
 further statement at that time. I saw her again on 
 the Sunday ; there was no conversation on the subject 
 then. I saw her on Monday and Tuesday ; on Tuesday 
 morning she alluded to the report that L'Angelier had 
 been poisoned, and she remarked that she had been in 
 the habit of buying arsenic, as she had learned at 
 Clapton School that it was good for the complexion. I 
 had heard a, rumour Jhat he had been poisoned. She 
 said nothing further, and that was the last time I saw 
 her. Before she made these statements to me I was not 
 aware that she was acquainted with L'Angelier. I was 
 not acquainted with him myself. 
 Cross-examined by the Dean— On the evening of the 
 
89 
 
 19th February I do not recollect where I was. I remem- 
 ber being at the opera about that time — [referring to 
 book] — yes ; I was at the opera on that night. I was 
 accompanied by my sister and Miss Smith. My sister 
 and myself called for Miss Smith. "We went to the opera 
 about half -past seven o'clock ; we got home about eleven 
 o'clock. Miss Smith returned with us. She had been 
 with us all the evening. The cab stopped at her door, 
 and she went into her house. I did not observe who 
 received her on that occasion ; somebody opened the door. 
 On the 26th March I suggested the probability of Miss 
 Smith having gone to Kow ; her father had a house there, 
 in which a servant was living at the time, and I thought 
 she might be there. In consequence, I and her brother 
 went down. When we met her in the steamer I asked her 
 why she had left home, leaving her friends distressed 
 about her ; but I requested her not to reply then, as 
 there were too many people present. I renewed the 
 inquiry at Rowaleyn, and she said she felt distressed that 
 her papa and mamma should be so much annoyed at 
 what she had done. Mr Smith told me that she had left 
 the house that morning ; and I asked him the reason, 
 and he said it had been some old love affair. I under- 
 stood her to refer to that in the answer she made to me. 
 She gave me no further explanation. She said, not to 
 press her and she Vould tell me all again. We were 
 only about three-quarters of an hour at Eow. We took 
 her back to her father's house and left her there. 
 On the 31st March it was she who introduced the subject 
 of L'Angelier's death, referring to the report of his having 
 been poisoned ; that was about half -past nine in the 
 morning. I called and inquired for Mrs Smith. I had 
 heard she was unwell. My meeting with Miss Smith was 
 accidental. I have mentioned all that passed on the 
 occasion. On the 28th I reminded her of the promise she 
 made to me at Row that she would tell me by-and-by. 
 I had not heard anything of L'Angelier then. She 
 did not mention his name. I think she said she had 
 written to a Frenchman to get back her letters. I did 
 not know who the Frenchman was. On the 25th I called 
 before going to Mr Middleton's. I called for Mr Smith, 
 
90 
 
 but I did not seo Mm, He was unwell and in bed. I 
 
 tookMissSmifch to MrMiddleton's.- He is the minister 
 of the U. P. Church which tiiey attend. 
 
 Mrs Clark, wife of Peter Clark, Curator of the Eoyal" 
 Botanic Garden, Glasgow, examined by the SOLIOITOK- 
 General — The late M. L'Angelier lived with us for 
 two years. He went from my house to Mrs Jenkins'; 
 Franklin Place. I was very intimately acquainted with 
 him when he lived in my house. I formed a very good 
 impression 9^ his character. He seemed very steady anil 
 temperate ; he never was late out while he lived in my 
 house. I was led to believe that he attended church 
 regularly ; I was told so by himself, and by others who 
 saw him; he" attended St Jude's Episcopal Chapel ' 
 (Mr Miles'.) His general health was good. ' He 
 oo'oasionally visited my house after he went to Mrs 
 Jenkins', I observed that a month or two before his 
 death his health became affected. He has spoken to me 
 > about a lady. I don't, exactly remember when he did so ; 
 it was while he lived in my house ; I think in the first 
 year that he lived with me. He told me her name ; it 
 was Miss Smith. He spoke of her by her first name, 
 "Madeline," and by "Himi." He gave me to under- 
 stani that there was a mutual atta(;hiiient betweeh, him 
 and this lady. He said they corresponded by ' letter. 
 He said they were in tho "way of meeting. He told me 
 of an interruption to the correspondence. I don't 
 remember when that was ;' it was while he lived in my 
 house. He said the intimacy was afterwards resumed. 
 I understood that it was interrupted because of 
 Miss Smith's father's displeasure. I understood' 
 from him that the correspondence subsisted while 
 he was living with Mrs Jenkins. He told me that 
 Miss Smith and he were to be married, but he did not 
 say when thiS marriage was to be. I last saw hitn on the 
 5th or 6th of March. He called at my house. He did 
 not speak of IGss Smith that day. He left my house 
 about the beginning of July 1856, and went to Mr^ 
 Jenkins'. Shortly before his death, he spoke of a second' ' 
 inten-uptioii to his intimacy with Miss Smith ; it was 
 
91 
 
 within two months of his death. He told me that he 
 was afraid they would net get their end accomplished, as 
 Miss Smithfs father was putting stronger obstacles in the 
 way than ever. He said nothing further at' that time. 
 He afterwards spoke on the subject, and said something 
 to the same effect. He spoke of no coolness between 
 Miss Smith and himself. Last time he was at the 
 Botanical Gardens he got some sUver-fish. That was 
 about the 5th or 6th of March. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr YouNG— He came to my house 
 first in May 1854. He complained of the climate not 
 agreeing with him. He did not say particularly how it 
 disagreed with him. He said that he was occasionally 
 troubled with symptoms approaching to diarrhoea. I 
 understood from himself that on one occasion when he 
 visited Helensburgh he had been attacked with something 
 like cholera. He had gone to visit M. De Meau there. 
 He told me he was iiot in the practice of taking a cholera 
 medicine, but he told me that he took it at that time. I 
 saw the cholera medicine in his room. It was so 
 labelled. I understood from him that he was not 
 acquainted with Miss Smith's family. I understood his 
 correspondence with her was clandestine. "When he said 
 he was to be married to her, he said his intention was to 
 have the banns secretly proclaimed — I mean by that, 
 unknown to her parents ; and that he intended on the 
 MoUday following to have a carriage ready, and to drive 
 to chapel and be married. He did not say that he 
 ' arranged with any particular person to marry them, nor 
 did he mention the chapel. 
 
 By the Somoitok-Genbeal — He had a very great 
 horror of taking medicine, and did not take it while in 
 my house. 
 
 Thomas Fleming Kenriedy, examined by the Lobd 
 Advocate^ am cashier to Huggins & Co., Glasgow. 
 I knew L'Angelier for about four year's and a-half, 
 during which he was in Huggins & Co.'s employment. 
 He was in the. habit of coming frequently to my house ; 
 he was a well-behaved, well-principled, religiQus young 
 man. I had a great regard for him. I had the means 
 
9§ 
 
 of judging of his charaptor and conduct. He enjoyed 
 general good health while in pur warehouse. I never 
 thought him very strong. He was not off duty from bad 
 health tiU latterly. I think his health first became 
 affected in February. I am not sure if he was ill in 
 January ; but in February he was laid up for a week. , He 
 got better, and came back again to the warehouse ; 
 then he got worse, and on the 9th March he 
 got leave of absence. I think it was on the morning 
 of the 23d February he came into my rpom and said, " I 
 am ill, very ill, and have been ill the night before." I 
 asked what was the matter with him ; and I advised him 
 to go home. He said he had fallen down on his bed-room 
 floor tit night before going to bed, and felt so ill that he 
 could not call for assistance. Hs did not say what he 
 had been doing, nor, where he had been the day before. 
 I must have seen him on the 21st (Saturday.) He was 
 confined to the house from the 23d February to Sunday, 1st 
 March. He spoke before his death of an attachment to Miss 
 Smith, Blythswood Square. Hesaidverylittle; andlknew 
 nothing further than that there was a& intimacy till shortly 
 before his death ; he came to me one morning and asked 
 what he should do about the correspondence. I advised 
 him strongly to give back the letters, but he said he would 
 not. That would be about a fortnight before the 23d of 
 February. He said that she wrote that a coolness had 
 arisen, and asking back her letters ; I understood she had 
 written that there was a coolness on the part of both of 
 them. He said he would never allow her to marry 
 another man as long as he lived. I said it was very 
 foolish ; he said he knew it was, that it was infatua- 
 tion. He said, "Tom, she will be the death of me." 
 That was about the last conversation I had with 
 him. The last time I saw him was on the 9th 
 March, when he left to go to Edinburgh. I knew his 
 handwriting well. [Shown No. 145.] This is a letter 
 in his handwriting ; it is addressed to me, and asks me 
 to come to the Bridge of Allan, and to bring or send two 
 or three pounds ; he says that he had been in Stirling 
 that day, and felt dull and cold, &o. [Shown No. 127.] 
 This letter is front L'Angelier to me, asking me to come 
 
93 
 
 to Edinbnrgli. The postmark is " Glasgow, March 1^." 
 [Shown No. 129.] This is also in L'Angelier'a hand- 
 > writing ; it is dated from Edinburgh ; he says he is going 
 to Bridge of Allan next day, and that he did not feel very 
 well, but that he thought it was from want of ^leesp ; the 
 letter bears the postmark of 16th March. {Shown No. 
 177 (a pocketbook.)] That is in L'Angelier's writing ; 
 my attention was called to the entries by the Fiscal. The 
 entries are in L'Angelier's writing, excepting one on the 
 14th March, the last entry in. his book. , I am not sure 
 thab it is not his, but I am not sure thai it is. I was 
 asked to dine with Mr Macall in. one of the letters I got 
 from L'Angelier, and the entry of the 14th March relates 
 to that dinner. 
 By the Dean — I never saw that hook in L'Angelier's 
 
 By the LoEB Advocate— No. 119 is in L'Angelier's 
 handwriting — this is a copy taken by a machine. [Shown 
 No. 25.] This is in his handwriting too, both envelope 
 and letter. 
 
 By /the Dean — The envelope bears notning but 
 " Mimi." The document is not signed. , 
 
 By the LoBD Advooatb— No. 7 is in L'Angelier's 
 handwriting too. It bears date " 10 Bothwell Street, 
 19th July 1855.'' I have seen letters in a female hand 
 coming for L'Angelier, I knew from him that they 
 came from Miss Smith. * 
 
 . The Lord Justice- Clbkk — In No. 7 it looks as if 
 the date did not belong to the letter, and had been com- 
 menced for some other purpose. ' 
 
 By the Lobd Advocate — I don't know where 
 L'Angelier put the letters he received from Miss Smith. 
 After his death, Mr Stevenson gave me a bunch of keys 
 belonging to L'Angeher. I kiiew there were documents 
 in his desk. "We had gone through them on the Monday 
 of his death to endeavour to find his mother's address. I 
 think we read one or two of L'Angelier's letters. Steven- 
 son locked them up and gave me the key. I saw them 
 locked up. There was nothing in the letters which 
 induced us to take any step as to his death. On the 
 Tuesday we again looked over them inore particularly, I 
 
94 
 
 did not read them -with attention. They were again 
 looked up, and I got the^ key. On the day the Fiscal sent 
 for the letters I gave them up, and saw them sealed and 
 initialed. They were all given up. 
 - By the Bean — In February L'Angelier first told me 
 of Miss Smith's desire to break off her engagement 
 with him ; I can't say the exact day. I tliink that was 
 ■the only occasion lie said so ; the conversation took place 
 in the country-house. L'Angelier came to me between 
 ten and eleven A.M. crying; he said he had received a 
 letter from Miss Smith that morning , asking back her 
 letters, and wishing the correspondence to cease, and he 
 sai^ that a coolness had arisen ; I said, "You ought to give 
 up the letters and be done with it ;" I made the remark 
 that the lady was not worthy of him. He said he would 
 not give up the letters ; he • said so distinctly, deter- 
 minedly ; he said he was determined to keep them, but 
 he threatened at the same time to show them to her 
 father. I told him he was very foolish, and that he had 
 much better give them up.r He said, " No, I won't ; she 
 shall never marry another man as long as" I live." He 
 also said, " Tom, it is an infatuation ; she'll be the 
 death of me." He was exceedingly excited during the 
 whole time. I heard him say on one occasion, I 
 don't recollect when, "I wish, I was six feet under the 
 ground." This was before the time I am speaking 
 of. I tBok no notice of that statement ; I never 
 supposed that anything was wrong with him. I paid 
 no attention to it. His first serious Ulness, so far 
 as I remember, was in February ; but I think he was 
 slightly complaining in January some time. I don't 
 remember iwhat' his illness then was. I have heard him 
 say on one or two occasioiis that he was subject to attacks 
 of howel-oomplaiut. Two occasions I recollect of, but I 
 can't say when — ^months previous to his death. I don't 
 remember his saying that he had a bad attack of cholera 
 in Belgium. I know he visited a place called Badgemore 
 Castle. I It was last summer or the summer before. I 
 don't recollect his saying that he had an illness there, I 
 don't remember the day the letters were taken from the 
 d?sk in the warehouse by the authorities. They were 
 
95 
 
 put in a large paper box ; all the letters were put in. 
 Stevenson was present. "When we read the letters in 
 the desk we put them in ag^. Those which we read 
 were lying open in the desk. Thsy may havQ had an 
 india-rubber band round them. I don't remember if they 
 were all in envelopes.' The letters we read — only one or 
 two — were taken out of envelopes. I , read only about 
 three. I don't know how many Stevenson read. He was 
 there about the, same time as I was. Our object was to 
 disooyer the address of . his mother. We did not iind it. 
 His mother's address was got otherwise. There was no 
 inventory of the letters made I believe. 
 
 By the LoKD Advocate— Nobody l(ad access to the 
 desk. I had the keys on Monday and Tuesday. On 
 ■Wednesday, I think, I gave them to Stevenson. When 
 I got the keys first, I locked them up in^ drawer in my 
 room. When the, letters went away they were, I think, 
 in the same state as when I found them. I think we 
 were careful to replace those read in their envelopes. I 
 can't recoUeot what letters we read'. I djd not see any 
 letters expressing a coolness on the part of Miss Smith. 
 Those we read were old— of date 1855. L'Angelier's 
 mother lives in Jersey. ^ ' 
 
 By the DB-Uf — ^While I had the keys no one had access 
 
 to the letters. I saw them packed in a box and sealed 
 
 up. 
 Puobcrt Oliph^nt recalled, examined by the LoBD 
 
 Advooatb — I have looked , p,t the letters and made a * 
 - note, of the result of my inspection of them. 
 
 By the Dean — I did' not get a die made for Miss . 
 
 Smith. The die might suit any person's name with these 
 
 initials. I had the letters ; they are movable. It is • 
 
 the same as if they had been printed. 
 
 John Murray, , examined by Mr Mackenzie — I amf a 
 Sheriff-oifioer in Glasgow. I got a warrant on the 30th 
 March to go to the office of'Huggins & Co. Bernard 
 M'Lachlin accompanied me. I saw Mr Stevenson and 
 Mr Kennedy. I told Stevenson my object in calling. 
 He, opened the desk, and I took a quantity of letters- and 
 papers, and the other contents from it. I put thepi into 
 
96 
 
 a box, which was then sealed up in the presence of Mr 
 Stevenson, and I left it with "Instructions to send it to the 
 Proourator-Fiscal's office. It was initialed by Mr Steven- 
 son and Mr Kennedy in my presence. I saw it after- 
 wards in the Piscal's office ; it was stiU sealed. I broke 
 the seal on the ' following day in the presence of the 
 Procurator-Kseal and Mr Stevenson. The box and its 
 contents were handed over to Mr Wilson, assistant in the. 
 Fiscal's office. I did not mark the letters at that titne, ' 
 or distinguish them in any way. Two days afterwards I 
 marked them. I got them from Mr Wilson to mark. 
 I found a portfolio in the desk, and a cake of cbcoa, 
 which I marked particularly. I don't remember seeing 
 a memorandum-book in the desk, but I observed it in the 
 box when it was opened. Identifies memorandum-book 
 No. 88, and part of the cake of cocoa. After I had 
 sealed the box in Huggins' I went to L'Angelier'a lodgings. 
 M'Lachlin and Stevenson accompanied me. Mrs Jenkins 
 pointed out his room and his repositories. When she 
 left the room we made a thorough search. Mr Stevenson 
 produced the keys, and we opened the repositories. . I 
 found letters in a portmanteau, and- also in a desk. We 
 did not open the tourist's bag. I took, possession of all 
 the letters. M'Lachlin carried them from the lodgings 
 wrapped up in brown paper. I accompanied him. It 
 was late in the evening, and he took them to his lodgings 
 \>y my directions. Next morning they were brought to 
 the Fisoal's office. The parcel was not sealed in Mrs 
 Jenkins'; I got them from M'Lachlin next morning, 
 and locked them in a drawer till we'' marked them. 
 After they were marked they were handed over to 
 Mr Wilson. [Shown No. 1.] This was found in the ' 
 desk in deceased's lodgings. No. 3 was also found 
 in the desk. Nos. 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23, 
 25, 41, 71, 77, 79, 81, 85, 87, and 89. I found a small 
 tourist's bag in the lodgings ; it was locked. I delivered 
 - it to Mr Wilson. I found also in the lodgings a number 
 of bottles ; M'Lachlin took them away to his lodgings, 
 and next morning brought them to me, and I locked them 
 up in a drawer along with the letters. They were handed 
 to Mr Wilson on the 1st April, and Dr Penny got some 
 
97 
 
 gf them. [Witness identified the bottles.] I went to 
 the house 7 Blythswood Square on the 31st Marcli, and 
 searched the prisoner's bed-room ; I found two bottles. 
 I also found photograph (179) in that bed-room. I went 
 through the druggists and surgeons in Glasgow to inquire 
 as to tJiB saie of arsenic in Deoombej', January, February, 
 and March ,last. I found some of them kept no arsenic 
 at all, others kept i it but did not sell it; from the 
 registers of those v/ho sold" it I copied the entries. I 
 ascertained that from December to March no persoii of 
 the name of L'AngeUer^ — 
 
 The Dean — Stop, stop. (Witness withdrawn.) Tliis 
 may be useful and important investigation for the Cfpwn 
 to make ; but it surely is not to be contended that a 
 policem.in is to speak to the registers of the sale of arsenic 
 in all the shops in Glasgow. 
 
 The LoBD Advocate— We only wish to prove that 
 L'Angelier's name is not in these registers as a purchaser 
 of arsenic. 
 
 The'. Court decided that the question was competent ; 
 it was simply to prove that L'Angelier's name was not 
 .found' in the registers ; it did not prove that he had not 
 bought arsenic under another" name or in some other 
 place.' 
 
 Witness recalled— I found in none of the registers 
 arsenic as having been sold to L'Angelier. I ej^t'ended 
 my inquiries to Coatbridge, and along the road between 
 Glasgow and Coatbridge, and also at Stirling and 
 Bridge of Allan ; and I found no such entry anywhere. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Young — I can't say how many 
 shops I went to in Glasgow. I kept a note of all the 
 places I visited. In that note there are forty-seven 
 druggists' shops mentioned. I went to other shops ; we 
 went to those which we saw on our way, hut which were 
 not in the GJ^isgow Directory. I made that note at, the 
 time. I made the visits sdine days prior to the 16th 
 May. It took several days. This list was not the list I 
 cj^rried about with me. I made it np from another list. 
 I examined the statutory register in each' shop where a 
 'register was kept. I did not find a register in'eveiy 
 place where arsenic was sold. I remember four shops 
 D 
 
where this was the case, i did not visit the shops of any 
 diysalters or any manufacturing chemists. I made the 
 examination of the deceased's lodgings on Monday, 30th 
 March. It was commenced a little after fiVe o'clock in 
 the afternoon^ and we were engaged in it till eight o'clock. 
 I think I examined all the repositories pointed out by Mrs 
 Jenkins as belonging to the deceased. We examined the 
 press, the wardrobe, a portmanteau, and a desk, and 
 found things there. We took no note of the things we 
 found in each of these places ; but I kept them all sepa- 
 rate, the letters found in the portmanteau in one parcel, 
 and those found in the desk in another. The parcels 
 were not libelled. I marked on one of them "trunk," 
 signifyingtheletters there were found in the portmanteau. 
 I knew, of course, that the other letters were found in 
 the desk. M'LaohUn took them to his lodgings, and 
 brought them to the office about 9.30 next morning. There 
 were so many things that it took us some time to mark 
 them. We began to do so four or five days afterwards ; 
 we were not continuously at them ; it took us for eight 
 or ten days. I put " desk, lodgings," "lodgings," and 
 "trunk," according to the place in which they were 
 found— these were our marks. M'Lachlin was with 
 me when I marked them ; and when 1 did so, I handed 
 them to him, and he put on his initials. They were 
 given to the Fiscal when I had finished marking them ; 
 that would be two or three weeks after. 
 
 The LoBD Justice-Clerk — And during all that period 
 no" person examined the letters to see what information 
 could be collected from them ? 
 
 Witness — None. 
 
 The LoKD Justioe-Clbrk— That was an expeditious 
 way of pressing on a precognition in such a case. 
 
 By Mr Young — I labelled the bottles on the 1st April in 
 my own room, assisted by M'Lachlin. There is nothing 
 on the labels to show when they were attached. The, 
 date " 30th March" on them is the date they were found. 
 Wemade thesearch of the desk in Huggins' before going to 
 the lodgings on the 30th March. The letters were sealed 
 with Huggins' office seal. I have no doubt the letters I 
 got two dfiys afterwards from Mr Wilgo;j to mark wer? 
 
99 
 
 those found in itie desk. The handwriting in the letteta 
 was the same as that in the letters found in the desk. I 
 can't say if they were all one handwriting. Taking the 
 letters from the desk and putting them into the box I 
 noticed them to be in a large, legible hand; and I 
 identified them again when Sir Wilson handed over the 
 box to me. ' 
 
 Re-examined by Mr MAOKBNZlE-^The two bundles 
 taken by M'Lachlin to his lodgings were in the same 
 state next morning when brought to the office, and they 
 were carefully looked up tiU given to Mr "Wilson. 
 M'Lachlin signed all the labels along with me. 
 
 By Mr Young — I handed the letter I found in Miss 
 Smith's bed-room to the Fiscal, and I saw it in his office. 
 I found more letters than I spoke to in the lodgings. I 
 can't say how many I found in the lodgings, or in the 
 desk at Huggins'. I saw a number of letters found in 
 the lodgings put into a box in Mr Young's room., The 
 letters found at Huggins' were also put into a box in the 
 same room. I never saw any list or inventory made out. 
 AU the bottles which I found I handed to the Fiscal. I 
 found in the press in Mrs Jepkins' house eight bottles. 
 I found a package of powders. I counted these things, 
 and retained them in my memory. 
 
 Bernwrd M'LacliUn, examined by Mr Mackenzie-^I 
 am an assistant to Murray, Sheriff-officer. I remember 
 going to Huggins' on the 30th March, and taking possession 
 of a number of letters which were in a desk. They were 
 put into a box, which was sealed. I was present when it 
 was opened in the Fiscal's chambers. I did not 
 see the contents then. I went with Murray the 
 same evening to Mrs Jenkins' house, and took possession 
 of various letters, a traveUing-bag, and eight bottles. 
 The letters were parcelled np in two parcels, and I took 
 them to my own house, and next morning I took them 
 to Murray in the same state that they were in the night 
 before — I had never opened them — and he locked them 
 up. I saw them marked afterwards. I was parilicularly 
 careful that the letters were put into the proper edvelopes. 
 The bottles were taken to my house that evening, and 
 b2 
 
100 
 
 delivered up next day to Murray. They were afterwards 
 given to 'Wilson in the same state. . I- took po.ssession at , 
 Mrs Jenkins', on the iSfch April, of a topcoat, and on the 
 14th, of a Balmoral bonnet. [Identifies coat and cap.] 
 I went with M. Thuau to Wo. 7 Bl jihswood Square. 
 He pointed out a window in 'Main Street — one of the 
 windows of Miss Smith's bed-room. , In that room we 
 found two bottles and a photograph. I accompanseij ; 
 Mary Tweedle from Terrace Street, St Tincent's Street, 
 to Blythswood Squaire. At No. 4 Terrace Street I showed 
 Tweedle my watch — it wanted five minutes to four. 
 We went to Blythswood Square, and when we arrived 
 there'it was exactly four. We walked at a Ibisurely 
 pace. Terrace Street is on the other side of SaNiohiehall 
 Street. 
 
 :By Mr youifQ — The letters found in Mrs Jenkins' J 
 took to my own room ; they were not put in a drawer'; 
 they were left open. My wife was in that room. I 
 coald not say precisely when we marked them. We 
 marked the bottles on the, 1st April, and the letters found 
 in the lodgings might be all marked a week after that j f 
 daresay we began to mark them about the 3d April, t 
 believe they wete all mai-ked within a fortnight, but I 
 am not sure. I may have omitted to mark some, bu,t . 
 ubt to my knowledge ; I was asked afterwards to mart 
 some which I had omitted. They had Murray's initials. 
 Murray brought them to me in his own office. 
 
 By Mr 'MXoKEI?zie — I was in the room with" the letters 
 all night, and I am .satisfied nobody touched them till 
 they were delivered up to Sfui-ray. The letters I omitted 
 tq mark were found in the lodgings. We visited 
 druggist's shops,' and made inquires as to the sale of 
 arsenic, and as to the register only ; also oil the road to' 
 Coatbridge, and at Baillieston, Bridge of Allan, and 
 Stirling, but we found no entries of sale of arsenic to any 
 person of the name of L'Angelier. 
 
 By Mr YouNO— Every shop or house 'we went into is 
 marked in the list. 
 
 By Mr Mackenzie— The houses are the houses of ' 
 doctors yho have shops elsewhere ; we went to tliese 
 ghops too, 
 
101 
 
 'The Lord Justice-Clerk— You say you ave an 
 aaeiatant to Murray! 
 
 Witness — Yes. 
 
 The LOBD JoallOE-CLEKK — Are you appointed and 
 paid by Murray ? 
 
 "Witness— Yes. 
 
 The Lord Justice-Clerk— Then you go about and 
 assist Mui-Tay without any legal authority or character at 
 all. I don't imply that you are not a better officer tlian 
 Murray, but in reality you are not appointed by the 
 Sheriff? 
 
 "Witness — No. 
 
 The Lord Justioe-Clkrk— Are you named in any 
 warrant for search ? 
 
 Witpeas — Not that I am aware of. 
 
 The Lord Justice-Cleek — Do you execute 'these 
 warrants yourself without Murray '! 
 
 "Witness — I have always Murray or some other officer 
 with me. 
 
 The Lord Justioe-Clebk— This system is perfectly 
 new to me, 
 
 William Wilson, examined by Mr Mackenzie — I am 
 assisliant to the Fiscal in Ulasgo\y. I remember 
 a box being brought to the Fjscal's office. I saw it 
 first in Mr Hart's and Murray's hands. I took posses- 
 sion of its contents, and kept them for two or three 
 days afterwards, and returned them to Murray, with 
 one or two exceptions, to mark and label according to 
 " the place in which he had found them. He returned 
 them with his own and M'Lachlin's initials. I went 
 over them and marked the envelopes with reference to . 
 each other. "With one exception they remained in my 
 custody till they v/ere so marked. The exception is 
 Wo. i03. I took particular care in going over them to 
 mark the letter with reference to the envelope in which 
 it was found. 
 
 By the Lord JusTiCE-ClfeBK — I labelled them after 
 Murray had initialed them. 
 
 By Mr Mackenzie— On "Wednesday the 25th March 
 Mr Stevenson brought me seven letters, which I identify. 
 
102 
 
 The tourist's bag was opened on the afternoon of the 3lsi 
 March ; they were marked by Mr Hart and myself. Nos. 
 113 and 125 I believe were found in '.the tourist's bag. 
 The letters found in the lodgings 1 afterwards marked, 
 the letters and envelopes relatively to each other. Murray 
 also brought the bottles found in the lodgings, a cake of 
 cocoa, and two bottles found in the prisoner's bed-room. 
 They were handed to fr Penny for examination. 
 
 Cross-examined by the De^uj — I am a clerk in 
 the of&oe of Messrs Hart and Young. I hold 
 no official, appointment. I kept the box with the 
 . letters two or three days before giving them over to 
 Murray. They were locked up. I kept them because 
 the officers were actively engaged in prosecuting inquiries 
 into this case. I took no note of the time they were out 
 of my hands ; but I think it would not be more than one 
 or two days. I might give them away on the Friday, 
 and they would be returned on the Saturday or 
 Monday. I cannot say how long they were in Murray's 
 possession ; the steps in the case were so numerous and 
 complicated that I can't recollect. It is not impossible 
 that they might have them for a fortnight, but I think 
 they only had them two or three days. After they were 
 returned by Murray and M'Laohlin, one letter was sent 
 to Edinburgh on the 6th April, the others were examined 
 by Mr Young andmyself, and when examined, those which 
 were considered relevant to the inquiry were selected 
 by Mr Young and myself. Those marked by me were 
 done partly in the office and partly in my house., I 
 believe Mr Young did the same. The selected letters 
 were reported to the Crown and sent to Edinburgh, 
 and the rest were kept in a lockfast place in Mr 
 Young's room. The letters sent to Edinburgh were not 
 returned. They were principal letters. Copies were 
 made of many of the letters, but I cannot say 
 whether the selected letters "were copied in. our office. 
 I can't say whether they w«re copied in the of&oe or 
 taken home by the clerks. I can't say whether the 
 Procurator-Fiscal lodged any of the letters in the Sheriff- 
 Clerk's hands. There are none of the letters, to my 
 knowledge, still in the Pr<iouratoT-Fiscftl'a office, Mr 
 
103 
 
 Young took charge of the later part of the inquiry. 
 [Shown documents in the third inventory \for the 
 prisoner.] These were found in the deceased's lodg- 
 ings ; but I can't say whether they were only got 
 out of .the Prdburator-Fiscal's office last Monday, on 
 the application of the prisoner's agents. I don't know 
 whether there are letters still in the Fiscal's office in 
 Glasgow. Mr Young must answer that. I knowthat 
 applications have been made within the last two months, 
 on the part of the prisoner, for access to these letters, 
 and the Crown desired us to refuse these requests. I 
 know, also, that several packages were given to 'the 
 prisoner's agents a few days before the indictment was 
 served. 
 
 By Mr Macke^j ZIE — I believe it was by order of Crown 
 counsel thai the letters were sent to ildinburgh. I can't 
 say if they were returned to copy, but I know they were 
 copied. There were 198 envelopes, some containing four, 
 and some eight pages, and so difficult to decipher that I 
 had to use a magnifying lens. About the beginning of 
 June instructions were sent to give the prisoner's agents 
 full access, to all the documents not libelled on ; and the 
 prisoner's agents immediately applied for them. 
 
 In reply to the Lord Justice-Clerk, witness stated that 
 the Procurator-Fiscal had possession of the documents. « 
 
 The LOED Justioe-Clekk observed that the Sheriff- 
 Clerk is the party under whose warrant these things are 
 recovered, and he is responsible for their custody, and 
 ought to have an inventory of them made immediately. 
 The Prosecutor ought not to have possession of them. He 
 thought after what he had said lately at Stirling on this 
 subject that such a thing would have been put an end to. 
 
 The Dean of Faculty having applied for the wan-ant 
 issued for recovery of the documents, 
 
 The Lord Advocate said he had been anxious that 
 ■ every facility should be given for the defence, but the 
 prisoner had chosen to run her letters, and the case had 
 to be prepared in a very short time. He ventured to say, 
 however, that more facilities had been given for the 
 defence in this case than he had ever known in any other. 
 Be had even desired that a private copy, njade for his own 
 
104 
 
 use, should be given to the other side, before he had time 
 to frame the indictment. They hadgiven them a manu- 
 script copy some days before the indictment was served, 
 not only of tlie correspondence founded on, but of all 'the 
 documents, l)ut he did not think it his duty to allow 
 access to the original manuscripts before the indictment 
 was served. , 
 
 The Bean of Faculty said ho was not attributing any 
 discourtesy to his learned friend, but he complained most 
 seriously of the oon'duct of his subordinates, in conse- 
 quence of which they had not had the time they ought 
 properly to prepare for this trial, and even down to this 
 moment they had not the slightest satisfaction or cer- 
 tainty that they had, got all the documents whicli had 
 been recovered in this case. 
 
 The LOED Justioe-Clekk— You could apply to the 
 Court for the recovery of any documents that may remain. 
 
 The Court then adjourned till next morning. 
 
lo8 
 
 FOURTH DAY.—fLUDXY, July 3. 
 
 The, Court met this morning at ten o'clock. 
 
 The i Dean of Faculty called attention to a cironlar 
 which had, been printed, announcing that the " Scqfcli 
 Thistle" o£ Saturday'would contain a report of the trial, 
 along with "aU the letters between the prisoner and 
 L'Angelier.'' This circular was signed by " James 
 Cuaninghara." Up to this moment, the. Dean stated, 
 the number of letters which had been put in evidence 
 was extremely small, but the number which were to be 
 produced in this case was very large indeed, and those 
 who were engaged in the case knew that a considerable 
 number of these had been printed for the use of the 
 parties on both sides. He was further informed that 
 those letters which were in print, and which amounted 
 to upwards of 100, were in the course of being 
 set up in this newspaper office, with the view to 
 being published to-morrow. It remained quite 
 doubtful how many of these.letters might be used in 
 evidence ; they were of a highly confidential character, 
 quite unfit for publication, and he was sure the Lord 
 Advocate would only use such of them as were essential 
 to his case. In these circumstances it appeared to him 
 that the proposed publication was a gross breach of 
 public decorum, and a most improper misuse of materials 
 which had somehow or other found their way into the 
 hands of this printer. He was much disposed to leave 
 this matter in the hands of the Court, but he must take 
 
106 
 
 the liberty of urging that, some proceedings should be 
 taken for preventing the proposed publication. 
 
 The Lord Advocate said thaf if the circular to which 
 the Dean referred had fallen into his hands, he would 
 hare taken the decisive course which his learned friend 
 had taken in the present occasion. How these detterS 
 could have got into the hands of any person unconnected 
 with the prosecution or defence he was unable to explain. , 
 He knew that the strongest orders had been given 
 that no copies of those letters printed by the Crown or 
 communicated by them to the defence should be given to 
 any person whatever, and he had every reason to think 
 that these orders had been most strictly obeyed. But, 
 be that as it might, he agreed with his learned friend' in 
 the extreme and gross impropriety of this publication^ 
 and he was perfectly ready to co-operate in any proceed- 
 ings that might be necessary. 
 
 The Lord Justioe-Cleek said the Court thought that 
 they should order the imiiaediate attendance of the person 
 who signed this circular. It was important to ascertain 
 whether the publication was to be limited to the letters 
 used in evidence, or whether the printers had a copy of 
 all the others, and wherje they had got that copy ; because 
 the publication of documents of such a character, and 
 indeed of any documents which were the property of 
 the Crown, and part of their precognition and recovery, 
 was a most improper proceeding and a gross contempt of 
 Court. Mr Neaves would therefore make out an order 
 for the immediate attendance of James Cunningham. He 
 (the Lord Justice-Clerk) would get the circular from the 
 Dean of Faculty to ascertain the address of that person, 
 and order him to attend the Court immediately. 
 
 The order was made out and signed by the Lord Justice- 
 Clerk accordingly. 
 
 James Hart, examined by the Solioitob-Genekal^- 
 I am joint Procurator-Fiscal in Glasgow. Mr Young is 
 my colleague. I heard of the death of L'Angelier about 
 the end of the week in which it happened. It happened 
 on Monday. Mr Young I think mentioned it to me.' 
 Letters were sent I believe to my office on the 25th, bu(^ 
 
107 
 
 I was" absent at the time, and Mr Young got them 
 There was at that time no criminal information lodged at 
 the office. I saw one letter, which is 149 of the present 
 indictment. There was an investigation going on at 
 that time in regard to the death. It was certainly not 
 being conducted In the expectation that a criminal charge 
 would result out of it. In the course of the investigation 
 I saw a number of letters which were brought to the 
 office by Stevenson and Murray. I saw them the week 
 after L'Angelier's death. On the 31st of March (Tuesday) 
 I made a criminal charge against the panel, and got a 
 warrant, for her apprehension, which was executed the 
 same day, and she was examined that day. Several 
 witnesses had been examined on precognition before that. 
 That was a precognition generally as to the death. The 
 Procurators-Fiscal have instructions to examine into 
 sudden deaths. In the course of the investigation I read 
 a number of letters said to come from L'Angelier's 
 repositories. They were for the most part in envelopes. 
 I was particularly careful to return each letter to its own 
 envelope. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr YouNG— I first made a charge 
 against the prisoner on the 31st, and obtained a warrant 
 to apprehend her. There was a warrant obtained the 
 day before; I believe it is in Glasgow. It was an 
 application setting forth the death, as was suspected, 
 from poison, and praying for an exhumation of the body, 
 and for power to take possession of documents, &c., in 
 the repositories of the deceased. I think there will be 
 no difficulty inigetting that warrant. [Shown copy.] I 
 think this is an accurate copy. I am not sure that a 
 precognition was taken in presence of the Sheriff before 
 the 31st. It was reported to the Sheriff. I could 
 scarcely say that there was any precognition taken in 
 presence of the Sheriff before the 31st. I was from 
 home ; parties may have been examined in the office, but 
 I am not sure that this was before the Sheriff. There 
 was no written precognition on the 31st before the Shejiff, 
 but witnesses were examined before Sheriff Smith on 
 that day ; their evidence was not written down ; it was 
 J think before and after the prisoner's declaration, 
 
108 
 
 Prisoner was committed for further examination on the 
 Slst. A great deal of wiitten precognition was taken in 
 the case before the Sheriff. [Witness was requested to 
 send for the original, of the warrant before referred to.] 
 
 By the Solioitoe-Gb.nbeaI; — ^The application for the 
 warrant makes no mention of any criminal charge at all. 
 A large proportion of the letters were copied in my oflSce 
 — many of them by Mr 'Young himself, to prevent them 
 as much as possible getting into improper hands. It is 
 not usual for the Procurator-Fiscal to make copies him- 
 self ; it was done in this case because the letters were of 
 a delicate and unusual description. They were extremely 
 difficult to decipher, and that made the transcribing of 
 thein a very slow and diificnlt process. They were in 
 such a state originally that they could not have been 
 used to any extent by counsel in the case. If originals 
 were sent to Edinburgh without copies they must have 
 been very few. If the letters had been handed to the 
 opposite party without copying, it must have taken a 
 long time to render them available. Copies were 
 communicated to one of the opposite agents in Edinburgh 
 some days before the indictment was served. Having 
 these copies in print must have saved a very great deal 
 of time. I haye been Procurator-Fiscal for eleven years, 
 and have been connected with the office for thirty-Six 
 years ; and I know no case in which greater faciKties 
 . have been given to any prisoner. As to the non-selected 
 I letters, too, there was very much pressure from the 
 'Crown Office to get copies ; we found it beyond the 
 strength' of our establishtnent, and we were ordered to 
 get them copied at the expense of the Crown as fast as 
 possible. The copy was sent to the Crown Office ; and 
 it was communicated to the opposite party before the 
 indictment was served. Mr Forbes, one of the prisoner's 
 agents, got several letters previously, for which he gave 
 a receipt. 
 
 By Mr Young — Five persons in our own office copied 
 the letters, and I think five clerks in the Sheriff-Clerk's 
 Office. They were not ajloweii to take them home, but 
 I learned that one or two of them had taken them home 
 in the evening to copy. I now speak of tjie letters not 
 
109 
 
 founded on. Those founded on were copied by our own 
 clerks, and none of them were given to, clerks in the 
 Sheriff-Clerk's OfSoe. It was about three or four weeks 
 after the letters founded on had been copied that we 
 commenced to copy those unfounded on. It was in June 
 that access was first given to the letters not founded on 
 to the prisoner's agents. From the 30th March to June 
 they were in the hands of the Crown authorities, 
 
 The LOBD Justiois-Clebk — I suppose there never was 
 such full and ready communication as in this case. 
 
 By Mr YousG — In April and May, application was 
 made on the part of the prisoner for copies of the letters. 
 They offered to make copies at their own expense, but 
 they did not know what the letters contained till June. 
 
 The LoKD Justioe-Clbkk — You very properly refused 
 to allow- them to get copiss. 
 
 I 
 
 Peter Taylor Younq, examined by the SouoiTOR- 
 Genekal — I am one of the Pioourator-Fiscals of Glasgow. 
 On Tuesday afternoon, 31st March, Mr Stevenson called 
 and reported the death of M. L'Angelier as a sudden death. 
 He said he was a stranger in Glasgow, and that it was 
 ■thought right to let us know of the death. He said there 
 had been a potst mortem examination. Mr Hart was from 
 home. Next morning Mr Kennedy called and said their 
 object in ordering the post mortem examination was to 
 ascertain the cause of death to communicate it to his 
 friends ; but he said there was a love affair in the matter, 
 and that there were some letters in Messrs Huggins', and 
 I said it would be material to get some of these letters 
 which they possessed. Mr Stevenson brought six or 
 seven of the letters ; and we made him mark them with 
 his initials, and afterwards laid them carefully aside. We 
 then -ordered an investigation by sending for his landlady, 
 and making inquiries elsev/here. The result was that we 
 made an appUcatiou for exhumation. On the following 
 Monday we learned that poison was fouiid; ajid we 
 ultimately got the letters froni L'Angelier's repositories. 
 There were about 300'envelopes and 500 letters. They 
 were extremely difficult to decipher, and I took fully ten 
 days to reJtd tham all. I m*de a selection of them, with 
 
110, 
 
 ■ the view of reporting the case to the Crovm. The utmost 
 care was taken to restore the letters to their own enve- 
 lopes. The investigation was a very serious interruption 
 to the ordinary business of our office. 
 
 Andrew Mv/rray, jmi., "W.S. — I was employed by the 
 Crown to look ov6r some letters written by Madeline 
 Smith to make a correct print of them. Each 
 proof was read with the relative letter. Some of the 
 letters were very difficult to decipher. It took four days 
 for the original corrections of the proof, and an additional 
 day for the revised proof. The print is an accurate print 
 of the letters. 
 
 Alex. S. Himter, clerk to Mr Murray, corroborated his 
 evidence. 
 
 Jftawland Hill Macdonald, comptroller of sorting-office. 
 Post Office, Glasgow — I have had shown to me a variety 
 of letters and envelopes with the view of reporting on 
 the postmarks. [Witness retired with an agent on each 
 side to examine the postmarks,] 
 
 George M'Call, Forth Street, examined by the LoBD 
 Advocate — ^I was acquainted with M. L'Angelier. I 
 remember his coming to Edinburgh in March last. He 
 dined with me on the Saturday week previous to his 
 death. I remember L'Angelier writing a note to Mr 
 Kennedy. I put a postscript to that letter. L'Angelier 
 seemed very well. He said he had been unwell before. 
 He spoke of going to the Bridge of Allan. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Young — I saw L'Angelier for 
 the last time on Monday, 16th March, in the afternoon. 
 He said he had been dining with a Colonel Fraser at 
 Portobello. 
 
 By the Lord Advocate— I saw him on the Thursday 
 evening before that Saturday. ^ ' 
 
 By the Loed Justice-Clerk — L'Angelier was a good- 
 looking pleasant man. I never saw him in the company 
 of ladies. 
 
Ill - . 
 
 Mobert MonteUh, Glasgow, examined by the LoBfi 
 Advooatk — I am a packer in the employment of Huggins 
 & Co. I knew L'AngeUer. He had asked me to address 
 a letter for him ; that was in the beginning of 1856. The 
 address he asked me to write was, "Miss C. Haggart, 
 KowaJeyn, Row." I afterwards addressed about ten or a 
 dozen letters for him to the same person. One of these 
 was to " Miss C. Haggart, 7 Blythswood Square." 
 
 By Mr Young — He said he did not want his hand- 
 writing to be known. 
 
 Robert Sinclair, examined by the LOBD Advocate — I 
 am a packer in Huggins & Co.'s employment, Glasgow. 
 L'AngeUer twice asked me to address letters to " Miss C. 
 Haggart, care of Mr James Smith, India Street, Glasgow." 
 This was more than twelve months before his death. 
 
 By Mr Young — He said he did not wish his hand- 
 writing to be known. 
 
 Janet M'Dougall, keeper of the Post Office at Eow, 
 examined by the LoED Advocate— I remember in the 
 course of 1855 and 1856 some letters coming to the Post 
 Office addressed "Miss Bruce, to be called forj" there 
 would be seven or eight in the course of the season. One 
 of Mr Smith's servants at Rowaleyn got these letters. I 
 tlun}c the servant's name was Jane Lindsay. I did not 
 know that there was any Miss Bruce at Eowaleyn. 
 
 Catherine M'Donald, lodginghouse-keeper. Bridge of 
 Allan, examined by the Lord Advocate — ^I remember 
 Mr Smith and his family coming to me last spring ; they 
 came on the 6th March ; Madeline Smitli was with 
 them; they stayed till the 17th, and then left for 
 Glasgow. 
 
 Dr Mobert Telfer Corbeit, physician and surgeon, 
 West Regent Street, Glasgow, examined by the LoBD 
 Advocate — I was called in to assist at a post mortem 
 examination of the' body of L'Angelier after its 
 exhumation. I concun'ed in the report. My opinion 
 was that the deceased had died from the effects of 
 
112 
 
 irritant poison. The morbid appearances were of twa 
 different ,oharaoters — the one showing, the result of 
 recent action, and tlie .other of action at a period 
 antefiedeiit -to that. Th? laEit of tbeso appear- 
 ance^ I refer to ■were several small ulcers, , with . 
 elevated edges, at the upper part of the duodenum. 
 These njight vhave been characteristic of the effects of 
 an irritant poison at the distance of a month, but it 
 is impossible to refer , them to any precise period.'. 
 They are such a result as an irritant poison, 
 administered a month before might have pro- 
 duced. They were probably of longer standing than 
 immediately antecedent to death. The appearance of the 
 stomach and intestines led me to believe there was 
 poison ; there was inflammatory aotionjand ulceration ; 
 there was also a pecidiar colour arising from 
 inflammation. Jaundice is not a necessary symptom of,. 
 arsepio, but it is an occasional symptom. Extreme 
 thirst would proceed from irritant poison; this 
 symptom shows itself very early. It is not charac- 
 teristic ,of ordinary British cholera in its earlier 
 stages., A dose of arsenic exhibits, its effects iii 
 half-an-houT to an hour ; that is the earliest time ; longer 
 periods have been known, but are unusual ; the period 
 depends on the state of the stomach and the mode in 
 which the arsenic has been administered. If the patient 
 had been the subject of repeated doses, and had 
 irritability of the stomach, it would produce its effdst 
 more speedily. I have read of cases where large doses 
 were found in the stomach of persons who had been 
 murdered. I can't say how much has been foijnd on 
 such occasions. I can refer to cases where the quantity 
 is said to have been large. 
 
 Orpss-examined by the Dean — Twenty grains would 
 be" a large dose to be administered. I can't refer., 
 to any homicidal case in which so large a dose was 
 given. When I speak of jaundice as a symptom of 
 arsenic, I mean only with reference ^to the yellow colour. 
 I have not met with any such case. I have seen it 
 statedmDr Taylor's workS||. 
 
 TVitness— Dr Taylor refers to Dr Christison. 
 
113 
 
 The Dean— No, not Dr OhiisHaon ; Marshall. 
 
 ■Witness — I can't condescend on any particular case. 
 
 The Beau— It is your reading you referred to ; I'll giv^ 
 you any book you name, and I ask you to point out your 
 authority. 
 
 Witness— I know the fact. 
 
 The DEAWr— Not except from reading ? 
 
 Witness — No. 
 
 The Dean— Well, here is Dr Taylor's book, pi 62 ; if 
 you find anything there I intreat you to give it to me. 
 
 Witness — I am not nware that it is mentioned in any 
 other part of the article than the page to which you 
 allude, but I would require to read it over. 
 
 The.DnAN— But surely when you come here to swear 
 as a man ^of .skill that jaundice is a symptom of arsenical 
 poisoning', you are prepared to give me a better answer 
 than that. Do yoii know that there is a life depending 
 on this ipqnii-y ? , Pray, keep that in mind. 
 
 Witness — I know jaUndioe to be a secondary symptom 
 of arsenical poisoning by my reading. 
 
 Tlie DeasJ" — And is there any reading that you can 
 condescend on except what I have pointed out to you ? 
 
 W'itness — ^Nothing. 
 
 Cross-examination resumed— The ulcers might be 
 produced by otlier causes than irritant poison. I have 
 never met with them in any other case in such a part of 
 the duodenum, but it is possible they might arise from 
 some enteric fever ; any cause of inflammation of the 
 upper portion of the intestines might produce tliem. ' I 
 have only once before made a post mortem exaujination 
 in a case of arsenical poisoning. Dr John Crawford of 
 Glasgow was engaged in that ease with me, and Dr 
 Penny '"as engaged in the analysis., 
 
 Ee-.examined by the Lord Ad'vocatb — From my read- 
 ing and study I know that jaundice is an occasional 
 secondary symptom of arsenical poisoning. If I found ■ 
 other symptoms of arsenic I should regard that as a 
 symptom. If a, person who had taken arseriiq presented 
 a yeUow colour, that inight or might not be a symptoni 
 of the poison. The prpsenoe of jaundice would not sway 
 me very much one way or the other. 
 
114 
 
 br Pmwy, examined by the Lord Advocate— I have- 
 made some experiments as to the colouring matter of arsenic 
 from the shops of Murdoch and Currie in Glasgow. 
 I administered Murdoch's arsenic (coloured with adot) 
 to a dog, and I found no difficulty in detecting the 
 soot in the stomach of that dog after death. I 
 administered arsenic coloured by myself with indigo 
 to another dog, and I had no difficulty in detecting 
 the indigo in that case, b^ chemical tests. I adminis- 
 tered to another dog a portion of the arsenic sold by Mr 
 Currie, and I detected black particles in the stomach of 
 that dog, but I could not undertake to identify the arsenic 
 found with the arsenic .given. I found carbonaceous 
 particles, but I could not undertake to say that these 
 carbonaceous particles are of themselves sufficient to 
 identify any particular description of arsenic. I could 
 detect no arsenic in the brains of these dogs. I found 
 solid arsenic in the stomach as well as arsenic in the texture 
 of the stomach. These are the results of my experiments. 
 
 By the Dean— I made myself acquainted with the 
 colouring matter in Currie's arsenic before administering 
 it. The black particles found in the stomach after death 
 bear a close resemblance irt their physical appearance 
 and their chemical properties to the constituents of the 
 arsenic given. Their physical appearance and chemical 
 properties were identical with those of the arsenic given. 
 
 Ctli/ristma JBaggart or Mackenzie, examined by the 
 SoLlciTOB-GrBNERAL — In the end of last March I was 
 married to Duncan Mackenzie. My maiden name was 
 Christina Haggart. I was servant in the family of Mr 
 Smlth, Miss Smith's father. I was two years there. I 
 left at last Whitsunday. The family consisted of Mr 
 and Mrs Smith, and five children. Miss Smith was the 
 eldest, about twenty-one years of age ; and there were 
 Miss Bessie Smith, and Miss Janet, about twelve or 
 thirteeri. The eldest son is John. I should think he is 
 between sixteen and seventeeji. He is in an office. The 
 younger son is James. He is two ^ears younger. Til 
 the end of March he was at school in Edinburgh. Mr 
 Smith has a house at Eowaleyn, near Row. They lived 
 
115 
 
 there during the summer. They went about May and 
 came back about November. During the first winter I 
 was with them they lived in India Street, Glasgow. 
 That was the winter before last. Last winter they' 
 stayed at 7 Blythswood Square. "WTiile they lived in 
 India Street Miss Smith pointed out a French 
 gentleman to me. She did not speak of him by 
 his name ; I came to know his name when I was 
 examined at the County Buildings. The name was 
 L'Angelier. Miss Smith when she pointed him out told 
 me he was a friend of hers ; he was in the street when 
 she pointed him out, and we were in the drawing-room ; 
 he was passing. [Shown photograph.] That is a likeness 
 of him. I have seen him in the house in Indi» Street. I 
 was asked by Miss Smith once to open the back gate 
 to let him in, and I did so. This was during the day ; 
 I think they were all in church except the youngest 
 sister ; it was on a Sunday. Miss Smith went in with 
 him to the laundry; the door was shut when thiy 
 went in. I don't remember how long he remained 
 — I think about half-an-hour. fie came back to the 
 house at "night pftener than once ; I don't think 
 more than three or four times ; he came about ten o'clock, 
 before the family retired to their rooms. As far as I 
 remember they were aU at home. On these occasions he 
 stood at the back gate, fie did not, to my knowledge, 
 come into the house. I don't know if he came in. I 
 opened the back gate to him by Miss Smith's directions. 
 She asked me to open the gate for her friend. On some 
 occasions when I went to' open the gate he was there and 
 on others he was not. I did'uot see Miss Smith go out to 
 him. I left open the back door of the house leading to the 
 gate. There was no person in the laundry at the time ; the 
 back door was a good piece away from the laiindry. Miss 
 Smith and this gentleman might have gone into the 
 laundry without me seeing them. During the season we 
 lived in India Street, I pointed this gentleman out to 
 Duncan Mackenzie, my present husband. I said he was a 
 friend of Miss Smith's. I have spoken to that gentleman. 
 During the season we were in India Street, he made 
 me a present of- a dress. He did not say what he gave it 
 
118 , 
 
 for. "VVihen the famUy were at. Bowaleyn, I don't 
 - recollect seeing him there, or in the neighbonrhood. 
 Letters came to me intended' for Miss Smith while we 
 lived in India Street. Miss Smith saiid they would, be so 
 . addressed. She said they were from her friend. I 
 thought she meant L'Angelier. I can't say how many 
 letters came so addressed. A good many came to India 
 , Street, and I gave them all to Miss Smith. Letters also ■ 
 came to Eowaleyn addressed to me for Miss Smith ; but 
 there were very few. I called for letters addressed to 
 Miss Bruce at the Post Offio?, Eow ; Miss Smith asked 
 me to call for them, and I got them and gave them to 
 Miss Smith. She I^as given me letters to post for her, 
 addressed to L'Angelier. J. posted letters for her ^ith 
 ihat address, in India Street, in Blythswood Square, and 
 during the two summers I was at Kowaleyn. I haye 
 delivered a letter with that address in Franklin Place ; I 
 only delivered, one letter ^ so addressed ; I left it at 
 the • house. In • the , , Blythswood Square , house 
 there was a back-door leading to an area an(i into ?, l?,ne. 
 She a^ked me once to open it for her. , I don't know 
 when that was ; it was a good long time before. Miss 
 Smith was appreliended, I do'n'i recoUeot whether it 
 was two months before ; it might be about two months. 
 It was at night — I think past ten — that she asked me to 
 open the door. I was in her room when she asked me to 
 do this. Her room was down stairs,, on tlie same floor as 
 the kitchen. I slept in a back room next to the back- 
 door. Thecook, Charlotte M'Lean, slept with me. Atthe 
 time I speak of, Charlotte M'Lean was in the kitchen. 
 I opened .the back-gate into the lane. I saw no person 
 there. I left it open and retm-ned to the house. I left the 
 back-door of the house open, and went into the kitoheji. 
 She met me.in the passage ; she was going towards, .the 
 back-door. I heard footsteps coming through the gate. 
 I went into the kitchen. I did not hear' where Miss 
 Smith went to. I did not hear the door of my room 
 shut. I don't remember how long I remained in the 
 kitchen ; X thiiik it would be more than half-an-hour. 
 Charlotte M'Lean was in the kitchen with ms during 
 th^t time. 1 think I reroained longer than ii5\ial in th? 
 
117 
 
 kitchen that night. Miss Smith had told me to stay in 
 the kitchen. She asked if I would open the hack-door 
 and stay in the kitchen a little, because she' was to see 
 her friend.' She did not say where she was to see her 
 friend. "While I stayed in the kitchen I did not 
 know where Miss Smith was. I did not know 
 that she was in my bed-room. I had no doubt 
 that she was there, but J, did not know it. "When 
 we heard Miss Smith go to her room I left the kitchen. 
 We- heard the door of Miss Smith's bed-room shut ; I did 
 not hear the door of our room open. I did not hear the 
 back-door of our house shut. I am not certain, but I 
 thmk I found it shut when I went to my bed-room. My 
 bed-room is next to the back-door. There is a low door 
 in the front area. The key was left sometimes in the 
 kitchen, and sometimes in the boy's room. I heard that 
 Miss Smith was to bo married shortly before her appre- 
 hension. Mrs Smith told me of it. I don't remember 
 the time ; it was a good while before her apprehension. 
 In consequence of that, I asked Miss Smith what she was 
 to do with her other friend, and she told me then or 
 some time after that she had given hira up. I asked 
 if she had got back her letters. She said no, that ^he 
 did not care. I recoUeot refusing to receive letters for 
 her in India Street ; that was after I had received some ; 
 in Blythswood Square, also, I refused to receive letters 
 for her ; I don't remember her saying anything.. She 
 said she would receive letters in at the window ; that 
 was before I had refused to receive letters for her. I 
 hare seen L'Angelier in Mains Street, close to the house, 
 at night. He was walking slowly. That was in the 
 beginning of the winter. At night, when we were in 
 bed. Miss Smith could have passed from her bed-room 
 to the kitchen, or upstairs, without, being overheard by 
 me. The stair leading up to the dining-room floor is 
 very near her bed-room door. I never saw any rats in 
 the house in Blythsjvood Square. 'We were not troubled 
 with rats. I remember Sunday, 22d March. I was not 
 well that day, and kept my'bed in consequence. I,got 
 up between five and six o'clock in the afternoon. I 
 saw my present Ijusband tljat evening. He came between 
 
118 
 
 seven and eight o'clock. There was family worship that 
 evening at nine o'clock. I was present. Miss Smith was 
 present, and the rest of the family. Mackenzie remained 
 in the house when I went up to family worship, and he 
 was there when I came down. I left Miss Smith in 
 the dining-room when I came down, and I did not 
 see her that evening. I went to bed at ten o'clock. 
 The cook slept with me as usual that night. 
 Mackenzie left near ten, or thereabouts. I was not 
 aware of anything taking place in the house during the 
 night. I did not hear anything, and was not aware of 
 any stranger being in. I remember Miss Smith leaving 
 home suddenly on the Thursday after that Sunday. One 
 evening that week Miss Smith was out at an evening 
 party. I cOnld not say if she was at home at the usuail 
 time on the Wednesday evening. The key of the back- 
 door was kept in my bed-room. On Thursday morning it 
 was discovered that Miss Smith was not at home. 
 There was a key to the back gate. I had charge of 
 that gate ; it is a wooden gate iii the wall ; it is more 
 than six feet high ; it may be twelve feet high. The key 
 of the back-door of the house always stood in the door ; 
 in the inside. The back gate was sometimes looked, 
 but generally snibbed. A person could open the back- 
 door by the key in the door, and open the gate in the 
 wall by iinsnibbing it. The key of the low front-door 
 was always left in the lock ; I had no charge of 
 the key of the high front-door, but I think it stood 
 in the lock. I had charge of cleaning out Miss 
 Smith's bed-room. During February or March I never 
 observed that the water in her basin was coloured 
 peculiarly black or peculiarly blue. I saw nothing 
 unusual of that sort. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Dean— It was in India Street 
 I first became aware of the correspondence between Miss 
 Smith and this gentleman. I think it was soon after 
 she had pointed him out to me. When the family left 
 India Street they went to Eowaleyn ; that would be in 
 April or May 1856. I became aware of this correspon- 
 dence weeks before the family went to Row ; but I can't 
 say the precise time. After I had received some letters 
 
119 
 
 for Miss Smith, I declined to take more ; the reason waa 
 that her mother had found- fault with me for taking 
 them, and hiid forbidden me to take them. The family 
 came back from Row in November. It was a good 
 while after this that this gentleman came into the 
 house ; it would be some months. I remember the 
 taniily going to the Bridge of Allan ; his visit would be a 
 good long time before that. I don't remember when Mrs 
 Smith mentioned her daughter's intended marriage to 
 me. It was before they went to the Bridge of Allan. 
 "When Charlotte M'Lean and I were in the kitchen the 
 night L'Angelier was in the house, the interview between 
 Miss Smith and he might take plaCe in the lobby. Her 
 youngest sister slept with Miss Smith ; she was in bed by 
 that time. My present husband was frequently in the 
 house ■ at that time — several times in the course of 
 a week. I remember the circumstance of the night 
 of the 22d March. When , Mackenzie went away 
 I saw him to the back-door and the outer gate. I 
 snibbed the gate, and I have no reason to suppose I did 
 not lock the inner back-door as usual. I left Miss 
 Smith in the dining-room wilh the rest of the family 
 after prayers. I did not see her again that night. She 
 gave me no reason to suppose she had any meeting that 
 night. I don't know that Miss Smith and her youngest 
 sister went to bed that night at the same time. The 
 back-door makes a noise in opening. The lock makes a 
 considerable noise. It is close to my bed-room. I don't 
 know a lady named Miss Perry. She might have been a 
 visitor at Mr Smith's house. The boy opened the door. 
 The window of my room lopks into the back area. It has 
 iron stanchions like aU the other low windows of the house. 
 By the LoED Justice-Clerk — ^When the family went 
 to the Bridge of Allan, the servants were all at home. 
 On the morning of the Thursday when it was found Miss 
 Smith had left the house, I don't know if it was found 
 she had taken any of her clothes with her, I saw her on 
 her return ; a small carpet-bag, containing things of hers, 
 was brought back with her. The bag was not very small. 
 It was in India Street. I was desired by Mrs Smith not 
 to receive letters ; but I did receive some afterwards. 
 
120 
 
 The LoEB Jcstice-Oleek— I eappose, in Mality, as 
 Mackenzie was coming to visit you, you were anidous to 
 oblige the young lady: , 
 
 Charlotte MLecm, examined -by the SoLloiTOK-GrENERAL 
 - I was cook in Mr Smith's family. I was there for six 
 months up till last "Whitsunday; I have left now. I 
 never saw any gentleman visit Miss Smith without the 
 knowledge of her family. I was not aware any one did 
 so. She never gave me letters to L'A-ugelier, and I 
 never knew of her receiving such letters. ' I never saw 
 any letters come to Mr Smith's house addressed to Miss 
 Bruce at Row. I remember one night last spring 
 remaining in the kitchen for some time with Christina 
 Haggart. The reason she gave me for it was that 
 some person was speaking to Miss Smith. I can't 
 say I heard Miss Smith in the passage while I was in the 
 kitchen. I afterwards heard her go into her bod-room, 
 and then Christina Haggart and I went to our room. I 
 remember Sunday, 22d March. I remember Christina 
 being unwell and keeping her bed. I was upstairs at 
 family worship, and left Miss Smith in the dining-room. 
 I did not see Miss Smith that night. I heard nothing. 
 in the course of that night, and I did if ot hear of any 
 person being in the house. 
 
 Cross.-examined by the Dean — I went to bed nearer 
 eleven than ten o'clock that night. 
 
 Duncan Mackenzie, examined by the SoLiolTOE- 
 General — I was married to Christina Haggart a short 
 time ago. I was visiting her on Sunday the .22d Match. 
 I left her about ten o'clock, by the back-door and back- 
 gate^ I did not hear if the gate was secured after I left. ■ 
 I used to visit Cliristina when the family lived in India 
 Street. Christina pointed oixt a gentleman to me at the 
 back-door of the house. She did not tell me his name. 
 I never saw him again. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Dean — I saw him at the back- 
 door of the house. I was coming up to the house, and 
 saw him standing. He asked me if I was going into the 
 house, and I said I was. He asked me if I' knew 
 
121 
 
 Christina, and he ask^d mc if I would ask her to come 
 out and speak to him. I did so, and she went out to 
 speak to him. I was present when they met, but I did 
 ' not hear what was said. I saw them talking together. 
 I was not jealous about them. Christina was afraid I 
 might be. I received a letter signed " M. Smith," saying 
 it was her friend that I had spen, and therefore she hoped 
 nothing would arise between Christina and me. , I never 
 saw this gentleman again. I was frequently about that 
 house and the house in Blythswood Square after that. 
 
 James Gallotvay, examiiled by the Lokd Abvooate— 
 I live at 192 St George's Road, Glasgow. I knew M. 
 L'Angelier by sight ; he lived next door to a relation of 
 mine, and I saw him several times. I remember Sunday 
 the 22d Maroh. I saw L'Angelier that night about nine 
 o'clock. He was in ^auohiehall Street. He was going 
 east ; he was going in the direction of Blythswood Square. 
 He was about four or five minutes' walk from Blythswood 
 Square. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Dean He was walking rather 
 slowly. 
 
 Mary Tweedle, examined by the LORD Advooatb — I 
 was servant to Mrs Parr, who keeps a lodging-house in 
 Terrace Street, St Vincent Street, Glasgow. I knew M. 
 L'Angelier. He was sometimes in the habit of coming to 
 Mrs Parr's house to see aTVIr M'Alester, who lodged there. 
 Iremember Sunday the 22d March ; I saw M. L'Angelier 
 that night at twenty "minutes past nine o'clock ; he called 
 at the door, and asked for Mr M'Alester ; . but Mr 
 M'Alester was not at home. He wore a light top-coat 
 and a Balmoral bonnet. [Shown coat and bonnet.] These 
 are like the coat and bonnet he wore. When he found 
 Mr M'Alester was not atihome, he halted a moment at 
 the stair-head and then went away. I went with an 
 officer from Mrs Parr's to Blythswood Square, and it took 
 us five minutes to go therS. 
 
 Cross-examined by the DEAN^Terraoe Street is south 
 
 and east from Blythswood Square. L'Angelier did 
 
 I not seem much disappointed that M'Alester was not at 
 
122 
 
 home. When he halted at the stair-head he seemed as if he 
 would hare liked to come in, 1 did not ask him to come in. 
 
 Thomas Eavan, examined by the LoED Advocate — 
 I am a night constable in Glasgow. My beat in Majch 
 last included the north and east sides of Blythswood 
 Square; it included Mr Smith's house. [Shown photo- 
 graph.] Ihave seen this person more than once; Isawhim 
 about two months previous to hearing of his death ; 
 I did not know his name ; but I heard of the death 
 of M. L'Angelier. [ saw him in Mains Street, as well as 
 I can recollect, about eleven o'clock, or between ten and 
 eleven. He tras standing near a lamp-post at the back lane. 
 When I came along the point of the Square, I turned 
 along Mains Street, and he said — " Cold night, police- 
 man; do you smoke ?" I said ' ' Yes, Sir ;" and he put his 
 hand in his breast-pocket, and gave me two cigars, and 
 passed on. He was then not more than the breadth of 
 this Court from the wall of Mr Smith's house. I saw 
 him again, tenor twelve days after the first time. He 
 was passing along at the garden side by the railings on 
 the north side of Blythswood Square, going east towards 
 Regent Street. • He was passing opposite 5 and 6 Blyths- 
 wood Square ; he was on the side of the gardens. 5 and 
 6 Blythswood Square are west of No. 7, and he was 
 going east. I saw him again about a fortnight, or 
 between a fortnight and three weeks, previous to the 
 time I was first examined before the Fiscal. He 
 was then at the corner of Regent Street and Mains 
 Street, coming towards Blythswood Square. It was 
 early in the night; but I can't positively say when. I 
 should say between nine and ten o'clock. I never saw 
 him again. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Dean — I was on my beat on 
 Sunday evening the 22d March. I did not see him that 
 night. I am quite sure of that. 
 t 
 
 William Younff, examined by the Lord Advocate 
 — ^I am a photographer at Helensburgh. [Shown pho- 
 tograph.] I made this photograph of Miss Madeline 
 ^mith ; it was done in September 1856, at her desire, 
 
123 
 
 &. St. Stacdonald was here recalled, and identified 
 minute of his examination of the postmarks on the 
 various letters, 
 
 Jane Scott Peny or Towers, examined by tlie Lord 
 Advocate — I am a sister of Miss Perry who lives in 
 Glasgow. I knew she was acquainted with L'Angelier. 
 In March last I and my husband were living at Porto- 
 bello. I remember L'Angelier coming to pay us a visit ; 
 he dined with us. Almost the whole time he talked about 
 his health ; he said he had been given cocoa and coffee, but 
 that they disagreed with him, and he had been very ill. 
 He spoke of morethan two occasions on which he had been 
 ■ill. He remarked that he thought he had been poisoned. 
 It was after speaking of the cocoa and coffee. Nothing 
 was said about who had poisoned him, and no question 
 was asked. My husband was present. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Db^vn — One of my daughters, 
 Jemima, might also bd in the room. I think Mias 
 Murray had gone away before that was said. 
 
 By the LoKD Advocate — He dined with us on 
 Monday, 16th March. 
 
 By the Dean — Many circumstances make me sure of 
 the day. It was after asking what was the matter with 
 him that he talked of being poisoned. 
 
 James Towers, examined by the LoKD Advocate — I 
 was living at Brighton Place, Portobello, last March. 
 I knew L'Angelier slightly. I met him once or twice at 
 my sister-in-law's in Glasgow. I recollect his dining 
 with me one day last March at Portobello. The con- 
 versation turned on his health. He said he had had 
 a very violent bilious attack, or jaundice. He did not 
 describe how it affected him. He said he had had two 
 attacks after taking coffee or cocoa, and that he had 
 other two attacks, and that he fell down in his bed- 
 room, and was unable to go to bed ; that on another 
 attack he was able to creep to the door and call on his 
 landlady. He said he thought he had been poisoned 
 after taking the cocoa and coffee. I remarked who 
 should poison him, or what object any one could have in 
 
124 
 
 poisoning him ? I don't recollect if he eaid anything In 
 reply. He told ua ha was going back to GlasgoWj and 
 thence to the Enidge of Allan. He looked quite well. 
 From what he said, I understood he had taken the coffee 
 on one occasion and cocoa on another, and that on both 
 occasions he had been ill. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Dean— The day he dined 
 with me was the Monday before his de^th— the, 16th. 
 He appeared in good spirits, and ate heartily. He was of 
 a talkative tarn. He spoke of his complaints ; and when 
 we asked about Glasgow society he spoke of that ; but he 
 spoke a great deal of his own sickness. He was very, 
 fond of talking about himself. I thought he was a vaiii 
 person. There was much vapouring or rash talking on 
 that occasion. I can't say ho was a person who spoke 
 much without thinking. 
 
 By the Lord Advocate — He did not say from whom 
 he got the cocoa or coffee. 
 
 Cross-examined by the DsAN-^He said, coffee agreed . 
 with hlni, and that he was in the habit of taking it ; and 
 that he was not surprised at cocoa not agreeing with him, 
 as he was not accustomed to it. • 
 
 Marry Artliwr Perry, examined by the Lobd Advocate 
 — I live at 144 Renfrew Street, Glasgow, and was 
 acquainted with the late M. L'Angelier. I became 
 acquainted with him about the year 1853. "Wo both' 
 attended the same chapel — St Jude's. About the spring 
 of 1855, 1 came to know him intimately ; the intimacy 
 went on. gradually. He was in great distress ; in the 
 early part of t^e summer of that year he told me he was 
 engaged to Miss Madeline Smith ; and I was aware from 
 him; from that time forward, of the progress of , his 
 attachment and correspondence. In August 1855, I 
 was introduced to Miss Smith ; he brought her to call 
 on me. After that I received several letters from 
 her. ! [Shown No. 11.] I received this letter from Miss 
 Smith. It has no date. I think I received it about 
 the end of September or beginning of October 1855 
 [Shown Nob. 19 and 20 (oiie letter).] I also received 
 this letter from her in the spring of 1856. [Shown No. 
 
12S 
 
 27.] I received this letter also from her in the spring of 
 1856, . It is signed " Mlmi." That was a pet name by 
 which L'Angelier called her. [Shown No. 29.] I got this 
 during the spring o£ 1856. No. 45 I received in Jmie qr 
 July 1856. No. 83 I received from her early in January 
 1857. No. 141 is a letter from L'Angelier to me. It is 
 dated " Bridge of Allan, 20tli March." The last para- 
 graph is— ^"I shoidd have come to see some one last 
 nighty but the letter came too late, so ne are both disap- 
 pointed." I understood that that paragraph referred to 
 Miss Smith. L'Angelier was frequently at my house, and 
 dined with me occasionally. Down to the beginning 
 of February 1857 he had generally good health, but 
 during February he seemed not so well as formerly. 
 In the beginning of February, he said he had heard a 
 report of another gentleman paying attentions to Miss 
 Smith. He said Miss Smith had written him on the ■■ 
 subject. One time she had denied it,- and another time 
 she had evaded the question. This would be, some time 
 during February, ile dined.' with me on the 17th 
 February. He told me that day when he next expected 
 to see her ; that was to be on Thursday. The 17th ,was 
 a Tuesday.' He was to see her on the Thussday. I did 
 not see him again till the , 2d of •March. He was looking 
 extremely iU then. When he came,in he Said, "'Well, I 
 never expected to have seen you again, I was so ill.'!,, 
 He said he had fallen on the floor, and been unable to 
 ring the bell. He did not say what day that was, but 
 from circumstances I knew it was the 19th Februai-y., 
 He did not tell me he had seen Miss Smith on the 19th. 
 He told me of having had a cup of chocolate which had 
 made him ill. -He told me of that on the 9th March. 
 He took tea with-me on the 9th, March. On the 2d he 
 said he could not attribute his illness to any cause. On 
 the 9th he said, " I can't think why I was so unweU after 
 getting tliat coffee and chocolate from her."^ I under- 
 stood he referred to two different occasions ; " her" 
 meant Miss Smith. He was talking about her at the 
 time.. He did not say that the severe illness which came 
 on after the coffee or ohpoolate was the illness he had 
 vdeae^ to on the 2d March ; but I understood so, On ' 
 
m 
 
 ihe 9(h March he was talking of his extreme attaohment 
 to Miss Smith ; he spoke of it as a fascination. He said, 
 "It is a perfect fascination my attachment to that 
 girl ; if she were to poison me I would forgive her." I 
 said, " You ought not to allow such thoughts to pass 
 through your mind ; what motive could she have for 
 giving you anything to hurt you ?" He said, "I don't 
 know that ; perhaps she might not be sorry to 
 be rid of me." All this was Said in earnest, 
 but I interpreted the expression " to be rid of me" to 
 mean rid of her engagement. From what he said there 
 seemed to be some suspicion in his mind as to what Miss 
 Smith had given him, but it was not a serious suspicion, 
 I never saw him again alive. On the 9th he spoke of 
 her intended marriage. He said he had heard she was 
 to be married, but he said he had offered to her some 
 months before to discontinue the engagement, but she 
 would not then have it broken. Some time after- 
 wards she wished him to return her letters, and she would 
 return his. He refused to do this, but offered to return 
 the letters to her father. That is what he told me. On 
 the 23d March I received a message — " M. L'Angelier'B 
 compliments'; he was very ill at Franklin Flace^ 
 and he would be very glad if I would call." That was 
 about ten in the morning. I went about mid-day, and 
 found he was dead. I called on Mrs Smith, and 
 intiiiaatedhis death to her. I saw Miss Smith ; I did not 
 mention it to her. She recognised me and shook hand^ ; 
 asked me to go into the i drawing-room, and if I wished to 
 see her mamma. She also asked if anything was wrong. 
 I said I wanted to see her mamma, and that I would 
 acquaint her with the object of my visit. I did not 
 know Mrs Smith before. I know Mr Philpot. He met 
 M. L'Angelier on the 17th February at my house. He 
 met him on another occasion about the same time. I 
 had a warm affection for M. L'Angelier, and corresponded 
 with him frequently. I thought him a strictly moral and 
 religious man. He was a regular attender at church. 
 I was very much agitated by the sudden shock of hearing 
 of his death, I saw the body, and was very much 
 shocked. 
 
127 
 
 Cross-examined by the Dean — I live in Beufrew Street. 
 I was not at aU acquainted 'with Mr Smith's family. 
 When L'Angelier brought Miss Smith to see me, I knew 
 the correspondence was clandestine ; he told me that 
 when the first engagement was formed he wished to tell 
 her father, but she objected ; he then asked her to tell 
 her father herself, but she objected to that also, and he 
 was very much distressed. I knew that he was not 
 acquainted with her father or mother ; he knew her sister. 
 In August 1855, when she was introduced to me, I knew 
 the engagement had existed for a few weeks, but I don't 
 know how long they had been intimate with each other. 
 L'Angelier told me he was introduced to Miss Smith at a 
 lady's house — at MrsBaird's. He said hehadmet her there. 
 I was aware that their intimacy ^as 'disapproved of by 
 the family, and that the engagement was broken off at 
 one time. In one of the notes she wrote me she says her 
 mother had become aware of it. I never knew that her 
 father or mother had abated their dislike of the intimacy. 
 I wrote on one occasion to Miss Smith advising her to 
 mention it to her parents. I advised M. L'Angelier 
 not to renew the engagement after it was broken 
 till her parents were aware of it. He said he 
 intended to do so, that he renewed the engagement 
 provisionally, Miss Smith having promised on the first 
 opportunity to make her parents aware of it. I knew 
 that they met clandestinely. I corresponded with both 
 at the time. [Shown No. 11 of third inventory for the 
 prisoner.] This is a letter which I wrote to L'Angelier, 
 postmark February 7, 1857 ; it is as follows : — 
 
 " Though you have not told me so, dear L'Angelier, that 
 you have received such kind cheering notes from Mimi, 
 that you are quite comfortable and happy— at least a 
 great deal less sad than you were last evening. 
 I felt so sorry for you when you were so Ul, and 
 miserable, and you are solitary in Glasgow, and 
 yet I could do notliing to help to cheer you, my kind 
 friend. To-day I saw Mimi, with her mother and 
 Bessie— at least I think it was her mother ; Mimi looked 
 very well, and I believe she saw me. Are yon suffering 
 
128 
 
 also f i;oni your neck ? Best wishes fpr your happiness and 
 
 Mimi's." 
 
 Shown No. 39, and read it as follows : — . ' - 
 
 "Dear L'Angelier, pray don't think of taking the 
 trouble of calling at my aunt's. I feel uncertain of 
 the reception that you might receive. I ought to have 
 spoken of this yesterday, bat had such a bad headache that 
 I was quite stupid. I enclose a note for Mimi. Among 
 my forgets yesterday, I omitted to ask whether I should 
 take notice of her birthday ; but I am very fond of ! all 
 these days, and you are so also ; and th^reforp I wish 
 her many happy returns. You are, howfevar, quite at 
 liberty to put it in the fire, if you are inclined to incendi- 
 airism. I shall think of you bbth on the 19th, for I wish 
 , yoa (Very good news and a, happy evening. I .wish you 
 many happy returns of her birthday." , , 
 
 The reception I there refer j;o has no ref erencp , to Miss 
 Smith ; it refers to a relative of inine who did not much 
 fancy him'. Shown No. 15, , and reads— . 
 
 "My dear L'Angelier,; — As Imust be out on Monday 
 forenoon, and may be engaged in the evening with a 
 friend from Edinburgh, who has come , to town for a 
 few days, will you defer your visit till Tuesday ? I had 
 wished to send a message to Mimi last time I saw you, 
 but I had no time fpr a word. You are, I hoiie, now 
 enjoying a very happy interview. I am longing to hear 
 from you. Meanwhile believe me, &o." . 
 
 The interview refers to Miss Smith. Tliat I knew 
 was a clandestine interview. L'Angelier was in 'ihe 
 habit of writing to me. Our correspondence went 
 on for perhaps two years. Yery often my note did 
 not require an answer. It might be asking him' to 
 come to tea or call ; latterly we addressed each other by 
 our Christian names. I addressed him by his surname, 
 and, he addressed me "Dear Mary," or "My dear 
 Mary ;" never "Dearest Mary." I was first intro- 
 duced to h^m by, a lady now resident in England — 
 Miss Philpot. I knew his mother livfed in Jersey; I 
 never inquired what her occupation was. He had two 
 sisters, and he had a brother who died some time before. 
 I don't know that I ever inquired what his occupation 
 
129 
 
 was. I don't think I was in the habit of meeting him in 
 other houses in Glasgow than my own. I have said tjiat 
 circumstances enabled me to fix an illness of L'Angelier's on 
 the 19th Tebruary. I remember that he said he did not go 
 to the office on a certain day after that, but that he went 
 on the Saturday; that fixed it for a Thursday, and I 
 knew it was not the last Thursday of February. I did 
 not recollect this when I was first examined, but it was 
 suggested to me by the Kseal's amanuensis. I recollect 
 it now, but not from that. The amanuensis said the 19th 
 was the ^ate of his first illness in his pocketbook. That 
 was on the 4th June (referring to notes.) I made these 
 notes afterwards. . Till he told me t did not recollect the 
 19th as the day, but I recalled it some days afterwards. 
 The dates of my precognitions are 6th, 7th, and 23d 
 April, 4th, 5th, and 23d June. "When I saw 
 L'Angelier on the 2d March, he described the nature of his 
 illness ; he said he was so ill tljat 'he fell on the floor, 
 and was unable to call for assistance till next morning ; 
 that it was unlike anything he had ever felt before ; that 
 hp was conscious, but unable to move. He spoke 'of his 
 second illness as a bilious attack or jaundice. It was prior 
 to the 9th March that he told me of the discontinuance 
 of the engagement ; it might have been in the latter part 
 of January or some part of Ifebrnary. He told me then 
 that some months before, imagining Miss Smith rather 
 cool, he offered to break off. the engagement, but he was 
 not anxious to do so ; he feaid this was some months previ- 
 ously. She would not accept this. He said that afterwards 
 she proposed a retui-n of the letters on both sides. That 
 jnight be aibout February. He said he refused to do that, 
 but that he offered to give the letters to her father., I 
 did not understand the meaning to bethat he threatened 
 to show the letters to her father. I understood thaf to 
 be a consent on his part to give up the engagement, and 
 he so represented it. Miss Smith would not accede to 
 that proposal, and the engagement remained unbroken at 
 Miss Smith's desire. That was on the last occasion that 
 he referred to it. 
 
 By the LoBD Advocate— [Shown No. 20.] This was 
 written in March 1856. 
 
 E 
 
130 
 
 By the Eokd Jdsticb-Clebk— The Sheriff was not 
 present when the clerk of the Procurator-Fiscal suggested 
 this to me. 
 
 The Lord JustIoe-Clbek— It turns out, then, ' that 
 you were examined by the Jjrosecntor piivately, with no 
 Sherifif present to restrain improper interference ; and 
 your recollection is corrected by the prosecutor's clerk — a 
 pretty security for testimony brought out in this sort' of 
 way. 
 
 Ml- Cunningham, for whose attendance a warrant had 
 been issued, was here brought up. 
 
 The LoBD Justioe-Clbek— The Court desire to know 
 whether you have had a copy of the print of theletters. 
 
 Mr Cunningham — I have had no copy of the letters. 
 
 The Losd'Justioe-Cleek — Then we have to ask if 
 yoTir object is to publish to-morrow letters whether they 
 are used at this trial or not ? 
 
 Mr Cunningham— Certainly not; only the Itetters 
 produced. 
 
 The L03D Jdstice-CIjEBK — You have had no copy of 
 them. ■ , 
 
 Mr Cunninghatti — I have no popy, and h ave had no (iopy. 
 
 Tlie LOED Justice-Clbek — And you are not jpre- 
 paring or intending to publish any except what may be 
 read in Court ? 
 
 Mr Cunningham— Certainly liot. 
 
 The LOED JusTlCE-CliBKK remarked that thecifoular 
 was very incautiously worded, and dismissed Mr Cun- 
 ningham. 
 
 The LoED Advocate then proposed to read the 
 letters. 
 
 Mr Young submitted that it would be unfair and unsafe 
 to admit the letters, in consequence of the manner in which 
 they had been recovered, and the mode in which they had 
 been kept. They were recovered and kept by the Pro- 
 curator-Fiscal instead of by the Sheriff-Clerk. 
 
 The Somoitok-GeneeaIi held that the practice was 
 different from that stated by Mr Youiig, and that in this 
 case the Procurator-Fiscal had held the documents under 
 the orders of the Lord Advocate. ' " ■■ . .- 
 
131 
 
 After hearing the Lord Advocaie and the i>ean oi 
 Faculty, 
 
 The CoUBT decided that the objection to receiving and 
 reading the letters was not well founded. The Loed 
 JnsTiCE-CliEBK, in the course of his observations, 
 remarked that when, on the application of the 
 Procurator-Fiscal, a warrant was intrusted by the 
 Sheriff to officers for execution, a report of the 
 execution of the warrant should be made to the Sheriff. 
 He should have thought that in this case the Sheriff 
 would have asked for the return to the warrant granted, 
 and for an inventory of the documents. He was surprised 
 that this had not been done, and it it was not done because 
 it' was never, done, then he would say that the sooner 
 such a loose practice was corrected the better, and the 
 execution of the warrant for recovery returned to the 
 Judge from whom it issued. His Lordsliip also remarked 
 that the Lord Advocate had in this case acted with 
 a degree of anxiety for the interests of the defender 
 which he had never known before ; for he had given 
 copies of all the letters before the indictment was served, 
 and in a form which saved all difficulty and loss of time 
 in deciphering them on the part of the prisoner's agents. 
 
 The Court then adjourned till next morning. 
 
 e2 
 
|132 
 
 FIFTH DAY.— Satueday, July 4. 
 
 The Cpurt mot again to-day at ten o'cloclc, '" 
 
 Miss Smith pontinued to pxliibittliat wonderful calm- 
 ness and self-possession whioli has characterised tier 
 demeanor from the commencement of the trial. £ach 
 day she has watched narrowly the questions put to every 
 witness ; she has never left the dock, even when the 
 Judges and the jury retired for refreshment, and she has 
 constantly refused to partalce of anything during the day. 
 While some of the letters were being read to-day, she 
 leaned fors?ard in the dock, and covered her face with 
 her hands. 
 
 Dr Ghristison, examined by the Lokd Advocate— It 
 would be very unsafe to use arsenic as a cosmetic by 
 putting it in a basin of water and washing the face with it. 
 I should expect inflammation of the eyes and nostrils and 
 the mouth to follow from its use. It would be diificnlt to 
 keep it out of the eyes and nostrils, and once in, it being 
 rather an insoluble solid, it would be very difficult to 
 wash it oat. I never heard of its being so used. A pre- 
 paration of arsenic is sometimes used ; the old name for 
 it — Rusma Turcorum— signifies that it was first used by 
 the Turks ; it essentially consists of 'sulphuret of arsenic 
 and sulphuret of lime ; but it is only used for removing 
 hair, not for the complexion. 
 
 The Lord Advocate — In reference to the statistics of 
 murder and suicide, you were asked the other day whe- 
 ther or not, in the case of a person committing suicide, 
 
133 
 
 a greater amount of the destructive element is used than 
 is necessary to accomplish their object ? 
 The Dbai?; objected to this ijuestion, and it was not 
 
 Cross-examined by the Ueait — The common arsenic of 
 the shops may be said to be an insoluble solid. It is not 
 absolutely insoluble. If put in cold water without 
 repeated agitation, the water will dissolve l-500th part, 
 but if the water is boiled in tho first instance, it will 
 retain, when cold, a 32d part. About l-500th part is 
 all that cold water dissolves, if it is put in cold water 
 originally. It is the worst medium to hold arsenic in 
 suspension. The finer part will remain some time in 
 suspension, and, the coarser part will fall rapidly down. 
 Not much would remain in solution without agitation of 
 the water. , 
 
 The Dean —Supposing the water were used to wash 
 the face or hands without stirring up the arsenic from 
 the bottom ? ' , , 
 
 "Witness — Little would be in siispension ; but I can 
 only say that I should not like to use it myself. 
 
 The Dean — That is quite a different affair. 
 
 "Witness — I think any person who would use it so 
 would do a very imprudent thing. 
 
 By the Lobd Advocate — Arsenic is specifically 
 heavier than wajter ; the fine part of the powder will 
 remain in suspension, but not long. 
 
 By the Dean — I, can't teU how long it would remain 
 
 in suspension. Speaking on mere hazard, I should say 
 
 that in the course of three or four minutes scarcely any 
 
 . of the arsenic would be remaining in suspension. But I 
 
 am speaking without experiments. 
 
 By the Lord Justice-Clerk— There has been a great 
 dispute as to whether arsenic has taste, and after the 
 strong observations which I published on the subject, a. 
 much greater authority than myself — Professor Orfila— 
 still adhered to the opinion that it is acrid. All I can 
 say on the subject is, that experiments were made by 
 myself and two others as far as it was possible to make 
 experiments with so dangerous a substance, and we found 
 that the taste was very slight indeed— if anything, 
 e3 
 
134 
 
 Svreetish, but all but imperceptible J and no doubt 
 large quantities have been ' swallowed repeatedly 
 without any taste having been observed. I and two 
 other 'scientific men tried it repeatedly with 
 great care, and all agreed in that opinion. Orfila of 
 Paris still maintains that it has an acrid taste. He 
 alludes to my observations, and maintains that it has a 
 taste. But I think I should add it has always struck me 
 as very strange that neither Orfila, nor any others who 
 doubted those observations of mine, have actually made 
 the experiments ' themselves. Orfila does 'not state 
 that he has done so ; ho merely states his belief notwith- 
 standing what I have stated. Of those who have 
 swallowed arsenic, some have observed' no taste; some 
 a sweetish taste, some an acrid taste. If there is 
 anything perceptible in the taste, it is not such that 
 it could be detected in cocoa or coffee. 1 think it 
 very desirable that' my observations on this subject 
 should be thoroughly understood. It has been found 
 that some persons who have taken arsenic largely, 
 without knowing at the time what they were taking, 
 observed no taste, some a sweetish taste, others an acrid 
 taste. But in regard to the acrimony there are two 
 fallacies : — 1st, That they describe as an acrid taste a 
 mere roughness, which is not properly taste at all ; and, 
 2dly, The burning effects slowly developed by the action 
 of the poison afterwards. 
 
 By the Dean — In this case last spoken of, the arsenic 
 was given sometimes with simple fluids, such as coffee 
 and water, and sometimes in thicker substances, such as 
 soup ; and I think there is an instance where the rough- 
 ness was observed in the case of porridge. But I do not 
 think the vehicle, as far as I remember, had'any influefice 
 on the~effect produced. 
 
 The Bean — Can you tell me what the quantities were 
 in this case ?, 
 
 Witness — Oh, no. 
 
 The 'Dean— You have no idea of it? 
 
 Vitness— Not the slightest. 
 
 The Dean— Are these oases in which you we 
 personally concerned ? 
 
■Witness— I presume you mean very muoh as I am now 
 in this case ; but strange to say I have only actually steen 
 two living cases of persons who had taken arsenic. 
 
 The Dean — ^Yoii don't think that in any of these oases 
 you saw the patients in life. 
 
 Witness — In two cases only I did. 
 
 The Dean — Two of those which you last mentioned ? 
 
 Witness — ^No. I refer to oases df murder, because in 
 cases of suicide persons know very well What they are 
 taking. ' ' 
 
 The Dean^ — But you referred to some observations in 
 corroboration of your general view. I want to kiiow if 
 these cases came under yoar personal observation, or 
 are merely recorded ? 
 
 Witness — ^N'ot one came under my personal observation. 
 
 The Dean — I see the opinion of Orfila is expressed in 
 ttLe^e words — "The taste is acrid, not corrosive, but 
 somewhat styptic." 
 
 Witness — ^I think that is pretty nearly a correct 
 translation, but I doubt the translation of the word 
 " acrid." The Frencji word for acrid is " dere." Orfila's 
 expression is " lipre," which rather means "rough." 
 
 The Dean — In the first volume, at page 377, the tenn 
 used, is " &pre." 
 
 Witness — I think that is mistranslated " acrid'." 
 
 The Dean — In the same volume, page 357, his state- 
 ment is " dcre." 
 
 Witness— That I have not observed,' but his observa- 
 tion which I quote is expressly in reference to the state- 
 ment which I myself made, and he says that, notwith- 
 standing the statements of Dr Christison, the taste of 
 arsenic is " dpre" — I don't recollect the rest of the 
 s^tence. 
 
 The Dean— Orfila is a very high authority in the 
 chemical world ? * 
 
 Witness— Undoubtedly. 
 
 The Dean— None higher, I Suppose ? 
 
 Witness — In medico-legal chemistry none. 
 
 The Dean — Tou mentioned some experiments which 
 you had personally made for, the pui-pose of solving this 
 question, and in combination with two other scientific 
 
136 
 
 gentlemen. Would you tell me tlie nature of t^ese 
 experiments ? Did you taste the arsenic yourself ? 
 
 "Witness — ^We all tasted it both in the solid and liquid 
 state, and we held.it as far back along the tongue as we 
 could do with safety 'SO as to enable us to spit it out 
 afterwards. We allowed it to remain a couple of nunutes 
 and then spat it out, and washed the mouth carefully. 
 
 The DBAN^Give me some idea of how much arsenic 
 would be in the mouth ? 
 
 Witness— I think about one or two grains. 
 
 The Deajj — Not more 1 
 
 Witness — My late predecessor, D^ Duncan, took three 
 grains, and kept it for a long time. I thought he- was 
 imprudent ; but he agreed entirely with my statement. 
 
 By the LoKD Advocate — It had not an acrid taste, 
 undoubtedly. In a very large majority of the cases I 
 have referred to, the quantity taken was not ascertained 
 even within a presumption. 
 
 By the LoKD JusTlOE-ClBEK— Orfila. surrendered his 
 opinion that there was arsenic naturally in the bones of 
 the human body ; he was not aware, at the time of his 
 earlier statement, of one of the materials used in his 
 analysis being subject to adulteration. 
 
 By the Dean — It is quite new to me that it was 
 thought at one time that there was arsenic in the human 
 stomach naturally. 
 
 The Lord Advocate then proposed that the letters 
 should be read — which was done by the Clerk. , 
 
 (We have found it necessary to omit from the letters 
 as read various passages as unfitfor publication, as well as 
 more numerous passages which appear unessential,) 
 
 The first letter read was one marked No. 1, the 
 postmark of which on the envelope was " 30th April 
 1855," and which bore to have been posted at Helens- 
 burgh. The f oUo wing i appeared to be the least unim- 
 portant passage : — 
 
 Mv Dkae Emile,— I do not feel as if I were writing you 
 for the first time. : Though our intercourse has been very 
 short, .yet we have become as familiar friends. May we long 
 continue so ; and ere long may you be a friend of papa's is 
 
137 
 
 my most earnest desire. ... I often 'wish you were near 
 us ; we coiild take such charming wallcs. One ertjoys walking 
 "With a pleasant companion, and where could we find one 
 equal to yourself 2 I am trying to break myself off all my 
 very bad habits. ' It is you I have to thank for this, which I 
 do sincerely from my heart. Your flower is fading. 
 '* I never cast a flower away. 
 
 The gift of one who cared for me, 
 
 A little flower, a faded flower, 
 
 Bat it was done reluctantly." 
 I wish 1 understood botany, for your sake, as I might send 
 you some specimens of moss. Papa and mamma are not' 
 goiUg to town next Sunday, so of course you do not come to 
 Row, We shall not expect you. Bessie desires me to 
 remember her to yon. 
 
 The next was No. 5, pf which this is the oommeuoe- 
 ment : — 
 
 My Dear Emile, — I think you will agree with me in what 
 I intend proposing— Tiz., that for the present the correspon- 
 dence had better stop. I know your good feeling will not take 
 this imkind ; it is meant quite the reverse. By continuing to 
 correspond, harm may arise ; in discontinuing it nothing can 
 be said. 
 
 The letter marked JSTo. 7 was objectecl to by the Dean of 
 Facultt as being only the fragment of a letter apparently 
 from the deceased to the prisoner, and found in the 
 deceased's lodgings. .After argument, the Judges retired, 
 and on returning rejected the letter, as being only of the 
 nature of a memorahdum, which might never have been , 
 used. 
 No. 11 was read as follows ; — 
 
 Dearest Miss Perry,— Many kind tbanks for all your 
 kindness to me. Emile will tell you I have bid him adieu. 
 Papa would not give his consent, so I am in duty bound to 
 obey him., , CoBifort dear Emile ; it is a heavy blow to us 
 both., I had hoped some day to be happy with him, but, 
 alas, it was not intended ; we were doomed to be disappointed. 
 You have been a kind friend to him ; oh, continue so. I 
 hope and trust he will prosper in the step he is about to 
 take, and am glad he is now leaving this country, for it 
 would have caused me great pain to have met him. Think 
 not my conduct unkind; I have a kind father to please. 
 Farewell, dear Miss Perry, and, with much love, believe me 
 yours sincerely, M^IMI. 
 
> 138. 
 
 No. 13, addressed to M. Ii'Angelier at Jersey ; postiiiark, 
 
 " September 4, '55" :— 
 
 Monday, 3d. 
 My Deaeest E.1III.E,— How I long to see you. It looks 
 an age since I bade you adieu. ^ Will you be able to come 
 down the Sunday after next. You will be in town by the 
 14th. I do not intend to say anything till I have seen you. I 
 shall be guided by you entirely, aiidwho could beabetterguide 
 to me than my intended husband ? I hope you have given up 
 all idea of going to Lima. I will never be allowed to go to 
 Lima with you ; so I fancy you shall want to get quit of your 
 Mini. You can get plenty of appointments in Europe— any 
 place in Europe. For my saTie, do not go. . . . It will 
 breals my heart ii* you go away. You know not how I love 
 you, 'Emile. I live for you alone ; I adore you. I never 
 could love another as I do you. Oh ! dearest Emile, would 
 I might clasp you now to my heart. Adieu for to-day. If I 
 have time I shall write another note before I post this. If 
 not I shall have a letter at the garden foi^ you ; so dearest 
 love and a fond embrace. Believe me your ever-devoted and 
 kind MiMI. 
 
 No, 15; postmark, " 3d Dec, '55" :— 
 
 Tuesday, two o'clock. 
 My own D-^KLiNa Husband,— I am afraid I may be too 
 late'to write you this evening, so as all are out I shall do it 
 now, my sweet one. I did not expect the pleasure of seeing 
 you last evening ; of being fondled by you, dear dear Emile. 
 Our cook was ill and went to bed at ten. That was the 
 reason I could see you ; but I trust ere long to have a long 
 interview with you, sweet one of my spul, my love, my all, 
 my own best beloved. . . . B. andM. are gone to call 
 for ' the Houldsworths and some others. Never fear me ; I 
 love you well, my own sweet darling Emile. 13o' go to 
 Edinburgh and visit the Lanes ; also, my sweet love, go to 
 the ball given to the oflioers. I think you should consult Dr 
 M'Farlane ; that is, go and see him. Get him to sound you— 
 tell you what is wrong with you. Ask him to prescribe for 
 you, and, if you have any love for your Mimi, follow his 
 advice. And oh ! sweet ^ove, do not try and doctor yourself ; 
 but, oh ! sweet love, follow the M.D. advice. Be good for 
 once, and I am sure you will be well. Is it not horrldcold 
 weather! I did, my love, so pity you standing in the cold 
 last night, but I could not get Janet to sleep, little stupid 
 thing, i . . My own sweet beloved, I can say nothing as 
 to our marriage, as it is not certain when they may go from 
 
139 
 
 home— whan I m^y, is uncertain. My beloved, will we require 
 to be married in Edinburgh, or will it do here 1 You know 
 I know nothing of these things. I fear the bans in Glasgow ; 
 there are so many people know me. If I had any other 
 name but Madeline it might pass ; but it is not a very 
 common one. But we must manage in some way to be 
 united ere we leave town. How kind of Mary to take any 
 trouble with us. She must be a dear good creature. I 
 would so like to visit her ; but no, I cannot ; I shall never, 
 never forget the first visit I paid with my ovm beloved 
 husband ; my sweet dear Emile— yyou sweet dear darling. . . 
 But, pet, I must stop, as they will be in shortly. If I do not 
 post this tOTDight you shall have a P.S. Much, much love ; 
 kisses' tender ; long embraces— kisses, love. I am thy own, 
 thy ever fond, thy own dear loving wife— thy Mimi 
 Jj'Angelier. 
 No. 17 ; postmark, " Helensburgh, April 30, '56" : — 
 
 Tuesday, April 29, 1866. 
 My own, my.Beloved Emile,— I wrote you Sunday night 
 for you to got my note on your birthday (to-day), but I could 
 not get it posted. Disappointment it was to me— but 
 " better late than never." My beloved, may you have many 
 happy returns of this day. ... 1 wish we were more 
 alone ; I wish I were with yoi{ alone — that would be true 
 happiness. Dearest, I must see you ; it is fearful never to see 
 you, but I am sure I don't know when I shall see you. P. 
 has not been a night in town for some time, but the first 
 night lie is oil' I shall see you. We shall spend an hour of 
 bliss. There shall be no risk— only C. if . shall know. . . . 
 I have been reading Blackwood for this month. B. is a 
 favourite publication of mine— in fact, I think it is the best- 
 conducted monthly publication. . , . Only fancy, in 
 tuning out an old box yesterday, I got ah old notebook 
 three years old, and in going over it, many of the pages had 
 the name L'Angelier on them, I did not think I bad been 
 so fond of my darling then. I put it in the tire, as there are 
 many names in it I would not like to see beside your's, my 
 own sweet darling husband. Now, this is a very long letter 
 to-night. I must conclude with a fond, fond embrace^^ a 
 sweet kiss. I wish it were to be given, not sent. , . . 
 
 'ifo. 21 ; postmark dated " May 3, '56." 
 
 Friday. 
 •Mr OWN, MY Beloved Emile,- The thought of seeing 
 you so soon makes me feel happy and glad. Oh to hear, you 
 again' speak to mOj call me your wife, and tell me you lov^ 
 
140 
 
 me. Can you wonder that I feel bappy ? I shall be so happy 
 to see yoii. I cannot tell how I long to see you; it looks 
 such an age since I saw you, my own sweet pet. I am well ; 
 cold quite gone. P. has been in bed two daj's. If he 
 should not feel well and come down on Tuesday it shall 
 make no ditf etenoe. Just you come; only darling. I think if 
 he is in the boat you should got out at Helensburgh. Well 
 beloved, you shall come to the gate — you know It — and wait 
 till I come. And then, oh happiness; won't I kiss yoii, ffly 
 love, my own beloved Emile, my husband dear ?• I don't think 
 there is any risk. Well, Tue.5d;ty, 6th May— the gate— half- 
 past ten ; you understand darling. . . . ' My beloved 
 Emile I feel so delighted at the idea of seeing you. I cannot 
 write. I hope you will be able to tell mo that you shall 
 get married in September. Darling, I love you, I shall 
 remain for ever true. As you say, we are man and wife ; so 
 we are, my pet ; we shall, I trust, ever remain so. It shall be 
 the happiest day of my life the day that unites us never more 
 
 to separate Beloved of my soul, a fond embrace, 
 
 a dear kiss till we meet ; we shall have more than one love, 
 dearest. From thy own, thy ever devoted and loving wife, 
 thine for ever, ' Mimi. 
 
 Tuesday, half-past ten o'clock. 
 
 No. 23; postmark, "Helensburgh, 7th;" month and 
 year illegible : — 
 
 Wednesday morning. Five o'clock. 
 My own, my Beloved Husband,— I trust to God you 
 got home safe, and were not much the worse of being out. 
 Thank you, my love; for coming so far to see your Mimi. It 
 is truly a pleasure to see my Emile. Beloved, if we did wrong 
 last night, itwasintheexcitement of ourlove. Yes, beloved, 
 I did truly love you with my soul. I was happy; it was a 
 pleasure to be with you. Oh, if we could have remained, 
 never more to have parted. But we must hope the time 
 shall oome. I must have been very stupid, to you las.t night, 
 but everything goes out of my head when I see you, tny 
 darling, my love. I often think I must be very stupid in 
 your eyes." You must be disappointed with me. I wonder 
 you like me in the le^st; but I trust and pray the- day may 
 come when you shall like me better. Beloved, we shall wait 
 till you are quite ready. I shall see and speak t9 Jack, on 
 Sijnday. I shall conaid^' about telling mamma. Butldivn't 
 see any hope from her. I know her mind . You, of course, 
 cannot judge of my parents ; you know them nofe I did not 
 know, or I should not have done it, that I caused, you to pay 
 
141 
 
 extra postage for my stupi,d cold letters ; it shall not occur 
 agaia. Darlipg Einile, did I seem cold to you last night ? 
 Xlarling, I love you— you, my own Emile. I love you with 
 my heart and soul. Am I not yonr wife ? Yes, I am. And 
 you may rest assured, after what has passed, I canftot be the 
 wife of any other but dear dear Emile. No, now it would 
 be a sin. ... I dread next winter. Only fancy, beloved, 
 us both in the same town and unable to write or see each 
 other ; it breaks ray heart to think of it. Why, beloved, 
 are we .so unfortunate? They cannot keep us from each 
 other. No, that they never shall. Emile, beloved, I 
 'have sometimes thought, would you not like to go to 
 Lima after we are married ? "Would that not do ? Any 
 place with you, pet ... I shall always remember 
 last night. "Will we not often talk of our evening meetings 
 after we are married ? Why do you say in your letter— "If 
 we are not married." I would not regret knowing you. 
 Beloved, have you a doubt but that we shall be married 
 some day ? I shall write dear Mary soon. What would she 
 say if she knew we were so intimate ? She would lose all 
 her good opinion of us both— would she not ! My kind love 
 to your dear sisters when you write. Tell me the names of 
 your sisters. They shiiU be my sisters some day. I shall 
 love if they are like their dear brother, my dear husband. I 
 know you can have little confidence in rae. But, dear, I shall 
 not flirt. I do not think it is right of me. I should only be 
 pleasant togentlemen. Free with none, my pet, in conver- 
 sation but yourself. I shall endeavour to please you in this. 
 Npw, will you tell me at the end of the summer if you have 
 heard anyjihing about me flirting ? Now, just you see how 
 good your Mimi shall be., Pet, I see you smile and say, " If 
 she has a chance." Try and trust me, love me. Beloved, 
 adieu. 
 
 No. 25, a letter bearing to be from the deceased to -the 
 panel, was then offered, but objected to as having been 
 found in deceased's lodgings, and there being no evidence 
 of it having been sent. 
 
 'No. 31; postmark, "Helensburgh, lith day of " 
 
 (month and year illegible.) 
 
 My own, mv Daeung Husband,— To-morrow night by 
 thiSj time I shall be in possession of your dear letter. I shall 
 kiss it and press it to my bosom. Hearing from you is my 
 greatest pleasure ; it is next to seeing you, ray sweet Ibve . 
 My fond Emile, are you well, darling of my soul? This 
 weather is enough to make one ill, is it not ? We have had 
 
142 
 
 ^lost dull wet days, but I have liad time to read and practise, 
 which is a comfort to me. I am well. I am longing $o to 
 see you, sweet pet, to kiss and pet you. Oh for the day when 
 I could do so at any time. I fear we shall spoil each other 
 when w« are married, we shall he so loving and kind. We 
 shall he so happy, happy, in our own little room, no one to 
 annoy us, to disturb us. All to ourselves, we shall so enjoy 
 that day. 
 
 Ko. 35 was then read : — 
 
 \ Friday night. 
 
 Beloved, Dearly Beloved Husband, Sweet Emile,— 
 How I long to call you mine ; never more to le^ve you. 
 What must occur ere that takes place, God only know^ ! 
 I often fear some cloud may yet fall on our path, and mar 
 oar happiness for a long time. I shall never cause you 
 unhappiness again. No, I was unkind, cruel, unloving, but 
 it shall never be repeated. No, I am now a wife, a wife in 
 every sense of the worfl, and it is my duty to conduct myself 
 as such. Yes, I shall behave now more to your mind. I am 
 no longer a child. Rest assured 1 shall be true and faithful 
 wherever you are, dear love. My constant thought shall he 
 of my Emile, who is far, far away. I only consent to your 
 leaving if you think it will do you good— I moan do your 
 health good. Your income would be quite enough for me. 
 Don't for a moment fancy I want you to better your income 
 for me ; no, dearest, I am quite content with the sum you 
 named. When I first loved you I' knew you were poor. I 
 felt then I would be content with your lot, however 
 humble it might be. Yes, your home, in whatever place, or 
 whatever kind, would suit me. If you only saw me now— (I 
 am all alone in my little bed-room)— you would n^ver mention 
 your home as being, humble. I have a small room on the 
 ground floor- very small— sp don't fancy I could not put up 
 in small rooms and with humble fare. But if you think it 
 would do you good— a tour— go by all means for six months 
 or so. I trust you will take great care of yourself, and not 
 forget your Mimi. Oh, how I love that name of Mimi . 
 Ton shall always call me by that name ; and, dearest Emile, 
 if ever we should have a daughter, I should like you to allow 
 me to call her Mimi, for her father's sake. ... As you 
 ask me, I shall burn your last letter. It was my cold which 
 prevented me going to Arrochar. . . . 
 
 It was again proposed to read No. 25. After debate, 
 the Lord Justice-Clerk and Lord Handyside ruled that 
 the letter coidd mi be received, Lord lyory dissenting.. 
 
143 
 
 No.' 37; postmark, "Helensburgh, 15fch Jiily 1856" :^ 
 
 My Sweet, Beloved, and Deaeest Emile,— I shall 
 begin and answer your dear long letter. In the first place, 
 how are you? Better, I trust. You know I feel disappointed 
 at our marriage not taking.place' in September., But, as it 
 could not, why, then, I just made up my mind to b^ content, 
 and trust that it may be ere long. We shall -fix about that 
 at our next meeting, which I hope won't be long. ... Do 
 not, weep, darling, fond husband, it makes me sad to think 
 you weep. Do not-db it, darling ; a fond embrace and dear 
 klssito you, sweet and much-beloved Emile. Our intimacy 
 has not been criminal, as I am your wife before ttod— so it 
 has been no sin our loving each other. No ; darling, fond 
 Emile, I am your wife. 1 shall cease to be childish and 
 thoughtless. I shall do a^U I can to please you, and retain 
 you traly, dear, fond love. You know I have wished as much 
 as you do to give yon my likeness, but I have not had an 
 opportunity. I proniise to you yon shall have it some day, 
 so that promise won't be broken. If I did not sign my name, 
 it was fpr no reason. Unless it is to a stranger, I never do 
 put Smith, only Madeline. Y''ou shall, dear love, have all 
 your letters back. Emile, love, you are wrong. If I did 
 feel cool towards you in winter, I never gave thought of love 
 to any other. No other image has ever filled my heart since 
 I knew you. ... 
 
 No. 41 ; postmark, " July, 24," (year illegible) : — 
 
 Tuesday morning, .July 24. 
 My own Beloved Emile,— I hope and trust you arrived 
 safe home on Monday. I did enjoy your kind visit on 
 Sunday. ... I was not astonished at your thinking me 
 cool, for I really have been in fault. But it is my way. 
 But I must .change it to you. I shall try and be more 
 affectionate for the future. You know I love you dearly. 
 Ah ! Emile, you possess my love. I could not love any other 
 as I do you ; and believe me I shall ever remain true to you. 
 I think a woman who can be untrue ought to bo banished 
 from society, It is a most heartless thing. After your 
 disappointment, dearest Emile, I wonder you would have 
 ' had. any confidence in another. But I feel that you have 
 confidence in me, or you would not love me as you do. I 
 long for the day when wa shall be always together. . . 
 
 No. 43 ; postmark, " Helensburgh, July '58" : — 
 
 Saturday Night, eleven o'clock. 
 Beloved and Darling Husband, dear Emile,— I 
 have just received your letter. A thousand kind thanks for 
 
1^ 
 
 it. It is kind, and I sliall love you more for writing me 
 sudi a letter. Dearest, I do love you for telling me all you 
 thint of me. Bmile, I am sorry you are ill. I trust to 
 God you are better. For the love Of HeaTen take 
 care of yourself. Leave tovfn for a day or two. I am as 
 much your vfife as if we had been marriod a yeiir. You 
 cannot, will not leave me, your wife. Oh, for pity's sate 
 do not go. I wiirdo all you ask, Only remain in this country. 
 i shall keep all my promises. I shall not be thoughtless and 
 indifferent to you. On my soul I love you and adOre you 
 with the love of a wife. I will do anything— I will 
 do all you mention in your letters, to please you, only do 
 not leave me or forsake. I entreat of you,"my husband 
 — my fondly loved Emile— only stay and be my guide, 
 my husband dear. You are my all ; my only dear love. 
 Have confidence in me, sweet pet. Trust me. Heaven 
 is my witness, I shall never prove untrue to you. 
 I shall— I am your wife. No other shall I ever marry. I 
 promise 1 shall not go about the streets, Emile, more than 
 you have said,' We went aboilt too much. I shall not go 
 about much. But one thing you must promise me is this— 
 that if you should meet me at any time in B. Street or 
 S. Street, you will not look on me crossly; for it 
 almost made me weep on the street last winter some- 
 times when you hardly looked at me. . . . Now, 
 Emile, I shall keep all my promises I made to you. 
 I shall love and obey you; my duty as your wife is to do 
 so. 1 shall do all you want me ; trust me ; keep your- 
 self easy. I know what awaits me ; if 1 .do what you 
 disapprove, off you go. That shall always be in my mind. 
 Go, never more to return. The day that occurs I hope I 
 may die. Yes, I shall never wish to look ou the face of man 
 again. You would die' in Africa ; your death would be at 
 my hands. God forbid ! Trust me, I love you ; yes, love 
 you for myself alone. I adore you with ray heart and soul. 
 Emile, I swear to yon I shall do all you wish and ask me. I 
 love you more than life. I am thine — thine own Mini 
 L'Angelier. Emile, you shall have all your letters the first 
 time we meet. It niay cost me a sigh and a pang, but you 
 shall have them all. I wonder what you would do with one 
 of my drawings ; a stupid black Jooking thing. Minnoch left 
 this morning. Say nothing to him in passing. It will only 
 give him cause to say you did not behave in a gentlemanly 
 manner. Do not do it. Hesaidnothing to me out of place ; 
 but I was not a moment with him by myself, I did not wish 
 to be alone with him, . . . 
 
145 
 
 No, 47 ; postmark, " Helensburgh, August 11, '56" :— 
 
 Wednesday afternoon. 
 Beloved and ever Dear EmilBj— AU by myself. So I 
 shall write to you, my dear husband. Your visit of last 
 night is over. I longed for it. How fast it passed ! It 
 looliedbut a few minutes ore you left me. You did look 
 cross at iirst, but, thank Heaven, you looked yourself ere yon 
 left— your old smile. Dear fond Emile, I love you more and 
 more. Emile, I Icnow you will not go far away from me. I 
 am your wife. You cannot leave me for ever. Could you, 
 Emile ? I spoke in jest of your going last night, for I do not 
 think you will go very far away from me, Emile, your wife. 
 Would you leave me to end my days in misery ? for I can 
 never be the wife of another after our intimacy. ... No 
 one heard you last, night. Next night it shall be a different 
 window, that one is much too small. I must see you before 
 yon go to Badgemore. ... I must have a letter from 
 you very soon—the begitiniDg of the week, perhaps Wednes- 
 day, " Miss Bruce, P. O., Row." You shall tell me all your 
 arrangements. 
 
 No. 49 :— ♦ 
 
 Thursday evening. 
 
 MX OWN Dear Emile,— How must I thank you for your 
 kind dear letter ? Accept a fond embrace, and dear )^^a, 
 and assurances that I love you as much as ever, and have 
 never regretted what has occurred. I forgive you freely 
 trom my heart for tliat picture. Never do the same thing 
 again. ... I cannot see you ere you go, for which I am 
 sorry. You forget tliat my little sister is in my bed-room, 
 and I could not go out by the window or leave the house and 
 she there. It is only when F. is away I can see you, for then 
 Janet sleeps with M. You see I cannot see you if you go on 
 Monday; don't write me again till I tell you. If you do not 
 go, write me so as I may not write to Badgemore. ... I 
 did tell you at one time that I did not like Minnocb, but he 
 was so pleasant that he quite raised himself in my estimation. 
 
 No. .51 ;- postmark, "Helensburgh, 29th Sept. '56 :— 
 
 I did riot , wiite you on Saturday, as C. H. was not at 
 home, so I could not get it posted. I don't think I can 
 see you this week. But I think next Monday night I shall, 
 as F. and M. are to be in Edinburgh. But my only thought 
 is Janet ; what am I to do with her ? I shall have to wait 
 till she is asleep, which may be near eleven o'clock. But 
 you may be sure I shall do it as soon as I can. . . . Mr 
 Minnoch has been here since Friday. He is most agreeable. 
 
I think we shall see him very often this winter. He SB^rs 
 we shall, and P. being so fond of him, I am sare he ishall ask 
 him in often. ... • 
 
 No.' 5S,'; postmark, " Helensburgh, October" (day and 
 year megible) : — 
 
 ' Tuesday evening. 
 
 My Deak Emile,— . . . Our meeting last night was 
 peculiar. Emile, yon are not reasonable. I do not wonder 
 at your not loving me as you once did. Emile, I am not 
 worthy of you. You deserve a better wife than I. I see 
 misery before me this winter. I would to God we were not 
 to be so near the M. You shall hear all stories and believe 
 them. You Will say I am indifferent because I shall not be 
 able to see you much. I forgot to tell you last night that I 
 shall not be able of an evening to let you in. My rooifi is 
 nekt to B. and on the same iioor as the front-door. I shall 
 never be able to spend tho happy hours we did last winter. 
 Our letters I don't see how I am able to do. - M. will watch 
 every post. I intended to speak to you of all this last night, 
 but we were so engaged otherwise. 
 No. 55; postmark, "Helensburgh, Oct. 20, 1856":— 
 
 . . . Doyouknowlhavetakonagreat dislike to C. H. 
 I shall try and do without her aid in the winter. She has 
 been with us four years, and I am tired of her, but I won't 
 show it to her, so dearest love. 
 
 No, ,57; postmark^ " Glasgow, November" (day and year 
 illegible) : — 
 
 Friday night, twelve o'clock. 
 
 My own Dakling, my Dearkst Emile,— I would have 
 written you ere this, but, as I did not intend. to be out till 
 Saturday, I saw jio, use in vvriting. . . . Sweet love, 
 y«u should get those brown envelopes, they would not be so 
 much seen as white ones put down into my window. You 
 should just stoop down to tie your shoe and then slip it in. 
 I, have been drdered by the doctor, since I came to town, 
 to take a fearful thing, called peasemeal— such a nasty 
 thing; I am to take it at luncheon. I don't think I have 
 tasted breakfast for two months. But I don't think I can 
 take this meal. I shall rijither take cocea. But, dearest 
 loye, fond embraces, much love, and kisses, from your 
 devoted wife, yaur loving and attectionate wife, 
 
 MiMi L'Angelier. 
 No. 61 ; postiuark, " Glasgow, Nov. 18" : — 
 
 First letter I have written in Blythswood Square House 
 Qood night, my. very sweet love. 
 
147 
 
 No. 63 ; postmark, "^Glasgow, Nov. 21, 'B6" :— 
 
 Now, about ■writing, I wish you ta write me and giT« me 
 the note on Tuesday evening next. You will, about eight 
 o'clock, come and put the letter down into, the window— 
 (just drop it in— I won't be there at the time)— the window 
 next to Minnoeh's close door. There are twp windows 
 together with white blinds. Don't be seen near the honse 
 on Sunday, as AI. won't be at church, and she will walbch. 
 In your letter, dear love, tell me what night of the week 
 will be best for you to leave the letter for me. If M. and P. 
 were from home I would take you in very well at the front- 
 door, just the same way as I did in India Street, and I won't 
 let a chance pass— I won't, sweet pet of my soul, my only 
 best-loved darling. 
 
 Now, you understand me, Tuesday evening next, between 
 seven and eight o'clock. Drop the note in between the bars 
 on the street, and I shall take it in. The window with 
 white blind, next to Billy's door. 
 No. 65 ; postmark, " Glasgow, Nov. 30, '56" :— 
 
 ... I was sorry I said anything about Mary. It 
 was not kind of me. She's your kind and true friend. It 
 was very bad of me, but I was vexed she said she would not 
 write me. I thought she had taken some dislike to me, and 
 would not write me. . She had written me all along, knowing 
 M. did not know ; so I thought it peculiar she .'should drop 
 writing vrithout some other excuse. 
 
 No. 67 ; "Glasgow, Deo. 5, '56" :— 
 
 Sweetest, dearest love, if it is more convenient for you to 
 drop ii( my'nbte at six o'clock, do it ; it will suit me just as 
 well. If not six, ^ight o'clock. Will you, darling, write ma 
 for Thursday first. If six o'clock, do it ; I shall look; If not 
 at six o'clock, why I shall look at eight. I hope no one 
 sees you; and, darling, make no noise at the window. 
 You mistake me. The snobs I spoke of do not know 
 anything of me ; they see a light, and they fancy it may be 
 the servants' room, and they may have some fun ; only you 
 know 1 sleep down stairs. I never told any one, so don't 
 knock again, my beloved. ... 
 
 I wept for hdurs after I received your 
 
 letter, and this day I have been sad— yes, very sad. My 
 Emile, I love ybu, and you only. I have tr ed to assure you 
 no other one has a place in my heart. It was Mianoch that 
 was at the concert with me. You see I woulcj not hide that 
 from you. EmiJ^, he is P.'s friend, and I know he will 
 have ibjm at the hoi)se ; but need you mind that when X have 
 
148 
 
 told' you I have no regard for him. It is only you, my 
 Emile, that I love ; you should not mind public report. 
 You know I am 'your wife, and that we shall shortly be 
 united ; so it matters not. 1 promised you I should be seen 
 OS little in public with him as I could. I have avoided him 
 at all times. But I could not on Wednesday night ; so 
 sweet love be reasonable. I love you, is not that enough ! 
 
 No. 69 ; " Glasgow, 8 Deo. '56" :— 
 
 My Dearest Love, my own Fond Husband,, my Sweet 
 EMrLE, — I cadnot resist the temptation of writing you 
 a line this evening. , Dear love, by this time you vrill 
 have my parcel. I hope ere long you may have the 
 original, which I know you 'will like better than a glass 
 likeness. Won't you, sweet love ? . . . Emile, I don't 
 se^ when we are to. have a chance. I do^'t know, but I 
 rather think papa and mamma will go in to Edinburgh with 
 James in January, but I don't hear of them being from home 
 in February. I rather fear we shall have difficulties to 
 contend with ^ but we niust do our best. How am 1 to get 
 out of the house in the morning with my things (which will 
 be two large boxes, &c.), I don't know. I rather think they 
 must go th? night before ; and for that I would try and get 
 the back-door' key. The bans give me great fright ; 1 wish 
 there was any way to get ciuit of them. What stupid things 
 they are ! 
 
 No.. 73 ; postmark, " Glasgow 17th , 1856" :— 
 
 My own Beloved, my Darling,— I am longing for 
 Thursday to bring jne your dear sweet letter. . . .' Beloved 
 Emile, I dou't see how wo can. M. is not going from 
 home, and when P. is away Janet does not .sleep with M. 
 She won't Ipave me, as I iave a fire in my room, and M. 
 has none. Do you think, beloved, yon could not see me 
 some nights for a few moments at the 4oor under the front 
 door, but perhaps it would not be safe. Some one might 
 pas's as you were coming iu. We had better not. . . . 
 
 No. 75 ; postmark, " Glasgow, Deo. 19, 1856" :— 
 
 My i^ELOVED, MY Darling,— Do you for' a second think I 
 could feel happy this evening, knowing you were in low 
 spirits, and that I am the cause 1 Oh, why was I ever born 
 tb'anuoyyou.best and dearest of meni Do you not wish — 
 Oh yes ! full well I know you often wish you had never 
 known me. I thought I was doing all I could to please you. 
 But no. When shall I ever be what you wish me to be ? 
 Never ! Never ! Emile, will you never trust me— she who 
 
149 
 
 is to be your wife ? You will not believe me. You say you 
 heard I took M. to the coucert against his inclination, and 
 forced him to go. I told you the right way when I wrote. 
 But from your statement in your letter of to-uight you did 
 not believe my word. Emlle, I would not have done this to 
 you. Even now I, would write and tell you. I would 
 not believe every idle report. No ! I would not. I would, 
 my beloved Emile, believe my husband's word before any 
 other. But you always listen to reports about me if they 
 are bad,* . , . Oh, wouUr to G-od wo could meet. I 
 would not mind for mamma ; if papa and mamma are from 
 home— the first time they are, you shall be here. Yes, Iny 
 love, I must see you, I must be pressed to your heart. \ . . 
 
 yes, my beloved, we must make a bold efiort. I shall do 
 it with all my heart if you will. I should so like to be your 
 wife ere they leave town end of March. Oh, these horrid 
 bans. I will go to Edinburgh for 21 days, if that will do. 
 
 1 am so afraid of Glasgow people telling papa, and then 
 there would be such a row. You. see, darling, we would 
 have a greater chance of making up if we were o|['than if he 
 found it out before we were married. 
 
 No. 81 ; postmark, " Glasgow, 28th Deo. 1856" :— 
 
 Now, I must tell you something 
 
 you may hear. I was at the theatre ; and people, 
 my love, may tell you that M. was there too. Well, 
 M. was there, but he did not know of my going. He was in 
 the Club Box, and I did net even bow to him. To-day, 
 when 6., mamma, and I were walking, M. joined us, took a 
 walk with us, and came home. He was most civil and kind. 
 He sent Janet such a lovely flower to-night, to wear on 
 Monfiay evening. Now, I have told you this, sweet pet. 
 I know you will be angry ; but I would rather bear your 
 anger than that yon should perhaps blame me for not telling 
 you, as some one will be sure to inform you of ipe. . . . 
 No. 85 ; dated " Friday, Jan. 9 ;" postmark, " Glasgow, 
 10 Jan. 1857" :— 
 
 It is past-eleven o'clock, and no letter from you, my own 
 ever dear beloved husband. Why this, sweet* one ? I think 
 I heard your stick this evening. Pray, do not make any 
 sounds whatever at my window. If it were possible, sweet 
 one, would you not leave my notes at six as at ten o'clock ? 
 The mooni up, and it islight. 
 No. 87; postmark, "Glasgow, 11 Jan. '57" : — 
 My own dear Beloved Emile,— I cannot tell you how 
 rry I was las night at not hearing from you. ... If 
 
150 
 
 you would risk it, my sweet beloved pet. We would have 
 time to kisp ench otjieranda dear fond embrace ; and tliongb, 
 si^e^t love, it is only for a minute, do yoii not think it is 
 better tban not meeting at all ! . . . 
 
 No. 89 ; postmark, " Jan. 14, 1857" :— 
 
 My OWN Beloved Darling Husband;—! have Written 
 Mary a note, and you shall have one too. . . . 
 
 No. 91 ; postmark, "Glasgow, Jan. 16, 1857" :— 
 
 Friday, three o'clock afternoon. 
 Mt very Dear Eutile,— I ought ere this to have written 
 you. . . . Well, my dear Emile, you did look cross at 
 your Mini the ofher day. Why, my pet, you cannot expect 
 that I am never to go on St. St. Sometimes I must. 
 It is not quite fair of you. I have kept off that street so 
 well this winter, and yet when you meet me, and the first 
 time you have bowed to me this season, that you should 
 have looked so cross. When I saw you, my little pet, 
 coming, I felt frightened even to bow to you 
 
 No. 93 ; postmark, " Glasgo^v, 19th Jan. 1857" :— 
 
 Dearest Emile,— All this day I have wished for you one 
 moment tq kiss you; to'laymyhead on your breast woujd 
 make me happy. , . . I did love you so much la«t night 
 when you were at the window. 
 
 No. 95 ; postrriark, " Glasgow, 21st Jan. 1857" :— 
 
 My Dearest Emile,— . . . Why no letter, pel, on 
 Monday night ? It was such a disappointment to your MiAi. 
 I cannot see you on Thursday, as I had hoped^ Jack is out 
 at a party, aud the boy will sit up for him, so I cannot see 
 you. A better chance may soon occur, my dear pet. . . . 
 
 Mini. 
 
 No. 97 ; postmark, " Glasgow, 23il January 1857." 
 
 My Dear Emile, — I was so very ^orry that I could not 
 see you to-night. I had expected an hour's chat with you ; 
 but we must just hope for better the next time. I hope you 
 are well. Is your hand quite better^my dear pet ? . . . 
 I am with nMch love for ever your own dear sweet little pet 
 wife, your own fond Mimi L'Angelier. . . . Emile, my 
 own beloved, you have just left me. Oh, sweet darling, at 
 this moment my heart and soul burns with love for thee, my ' 
 husband, my o^vn sweet one. Emile, what would I not give 
 at this moment tp be your fond wife ? My night-dress was 
 n when you saw me ; would to God you had been in the 
 
151 
 
 same attire. We would be happy. Emile, 1 adore you. t 
 love you with my heart and soul. I do vex andanncyybu; 
 but oh, sweet love, I do fondly, truly love you with my 
 soul, to be your wife, your own sweet wife. I never felt 
 so resye.4s and unhappy as I have done for some time 
 past. ' I would do anything to keep sad thoughts from my 
 mind ; but in whatever place some things make me feel 
 sad, A dark spot is in the future. What can it be! Oh God 
 keep it from us. Oh may we be happy. Dear darling, pray 
 for our happiness. I weep now, Emile, to think of our fate. 
 If we could only get married, and all would be well. But 
 alas, alas, I see no chance, no chance of happiness for me. 
 I must speak With you. Yes, I must again be pressed to your 
 loving bosom, be kissed by you, my only love, my dearest 
 darling husband. Why were we fated to be so unhappy. 
 Why were we made to be feept separate. My heart is too 
 full to write more. Oh pardon, forgive me. If you are 
 able, I need not say it will give mo pleasure to hear from 
 you to-morrow night. If at ten o'clock, don't wait to see 
 me, as Janet may not be asleep, and 1 will have to wait till 
 she sleeps to take it in. Make no noise. Adieu, farewell, 
 my own beloved, my ctarling, my own Emile. Good night, 
 best beloved. Adieu, I am your ever true and devoted 
 Mimi L'Angelier. ... I don't see the least chance for 
 us, my dear love. M. is 'not well enough to go from' home, 
 and, my dear little sweet pet, I don't 'see'we could manage 
 in Edinburgh, because I could not leave a friend's house 
 without their knowing it, so, sweet pet, it must at present 
 be put off till a better time. I see no chance before March. 
 But rest assured, my dear love Emile, if I see any chance I 
 shall let you know of it. 
 
 No. 101; postmark, "Glasgow, Feb. —1857" :— 
 
 I felt truly astonished to have my last letter returned to 
 me ; but it will be the last you shall have an opportunity of 
 returning me. When you are not pleased with the letters 
 1 .send you, then our correspondence shall be at an end ; and 
 as there is coolness on both sides, our engagement had better 
 be broken. This may astonish you ; but you have more than 
 once returned me my letters, arid my mind was made up 
 that I should not stand the same thing again. And you also 
 annoyed me much on Saturday by your conduct in coming so 
 near me ; altogether, I think, owing to coolness and indiffe- 
 rence (nothing else),' that we had better, for the future, con- 
 sider ourselves strangers. I trust to your honour as a gentle- 
 man that you will not reveal anything that may have passed 
 
152 
 
 between na. I shall feel obliged by yonr bringing me my 
 letters, and litceness on Thursday evening Srt seven. Beat 
 the same gate, and C. Hj, Tvill'take the parcel from yon. On 
 Friday night t shall send you all your letters, likeness, &e, 
 I trust thfit you may yet be hijppy, and get one more worthy 
 of you than I. On Thursday at seven o'clock.— I am, die. 
 '.",".,.. .. ' 'm. 
 
 You may be astonished at this sudden ihange, but for 
 some time back you must have noticed a coolness in my 
 notes. My love for you has ceased, and that is why I was 
 cool; I did once love you truly and fondly, but for some 
 time back I have lost much of that love. There is no other 
 reason for my conduoti and I think it but fair" to let you 
 know this. I might have gone on, and beconfe your wife, 
 but I could not have loved you as I ought. My conduct you 
 will condemn, but I did at one time love you with heart and 
 soiil. It has cost me much to tell yon this— sleepless nights 
 —but it was necessary you should know. If you remain in 
 Glasgow; or go away, I hope you may succeed in all you* 
 endeavours. I know you will never injure the character of 
 one you so fondly loved. No, Bmile, I know you have 
 honour, and are a gentleman. What has passed you will not 
 mention. I know when I ask you thit you will comply. 
 —Adieu. 
 
 Ko. 1Q3; postmark, " Glasgow, ,9lh Peb.' '57" ;— 
 
 I attribute it to your having cold that I had no answer 
 to my last note. On Thursday evening you were, I suppose, 
 afraid of the night air. I fear your cold is not better. I 
 agai^n appoint Thursday night lirst, same place, street gate, 
 seven o'clock.— M. li yoti can bring me the- parcel an 
 Thursday, please write a note saying when you shall bring 
 it, and address it to C. H. Send it by post, 
 
 No. 105 ; postmark, "Glasgow, 10th ■ •, 1857" : — 
 
 I , Monday night. 
 
 Emi^e, — I have just had your note. Emile, for the love 
 you. once had, for me do nothing till I see you. For Q-od's 
 sake do not, bring your once, loved Mini to an open shame. 
 Emile, I have deceived you. I hayo deceived my niother. 
 God knows she did not boast of anything I had said of you, 
 for the poor woman thought I had broken oft' with you last 
 winter. ,1 deceived you by telling you.shei still knew of our 
 enga,gement. She did no,t. This I now confess, and as for 
 wishing for an engagement with another, I do not fancy she 
 ever thought of it. Emile, write to no one— to papa or any 
 
163 
 
 other. O ! do not till I see you on Wednesday night. Beat 
 the Hamiltons* at twelve, and I shall open my shutter; and 
 then you come to the area gate, and I shall see you. It 
 would break my mother's heart. Oh, Emile, be not harsh 
 to me. I am the most guilty miserable wretch oil the face 
 of the earth. Emile, do not 'drive me to death. When I 
 ceased to love you, believe me it was not to love another. 
 1 am free from all engagement at present. Emile, for God's 
 sake do not send my letters to papa ; it will be an open 
 rupture. I will leave the house. I will die. Emile, do 
 nothing till I see you. One word to-morrow night at my 
 ■window to tell me or I shall go mad. Emile, you did love 
 me. I did fondly, truly, love you too. Oh, dear Emile, be 
 not so harsh to me. Will you not ? But I cannot ask forgive- 
 ness— I am too guilty for that. I have deceived. It was 
 love for you at the time made me say mamma knew of our 
 engagement. To-morrow one word, and on Wednesday we 
 meet. I wduld not again ask you to love me, for 1 knew you 
 could not. But, oh, Emile,- do not make me go mad. I will 
 tellyou that only myself and C. H. knew of my engagement 
 toyoti: Mamma did not know since laJst winter. Pray for 
 me— for a guilty wretch— but do nothing. Oh, Emile, do 
 nothing. Ten o'clock to-morrow night— one line for the.love 
 of God. 
 
 Tuesday morning. 
 1 am ill. God knows what I have suffered. My punish- 
 ment is more than I can bear. Do nothing till I see you. 
 For the love of Heaven do nothing. I am mad. I am ill.— 
 Sunday night. 
 
 No. 107 :— . 
 
 Tuesday evening, twelve o'clock. 
 Emile, — I have this night received your note. Oh, it is 
 kind of you to write me. Emile, no one' can know, the 
 intense agony of mind I have suttered last night and to-day. 
 Emile, my father's wrath would kill me— you little knovv his 
 temper. Emile, for the love you once had for me, do not 
 denounce me to my P. Em^le, if he should read my letters 
 to you he will put me from him— he will hate me as a giiilty 
 wretch. I loved, you, and wrote to you in my iirst ardent 
 love — it was with my deepest love I loved you. It was for 
 yQur love I adored you. I put oh paper what I should' ^not. 
 I .was free because IJoved ,you with .my heart. If he or any 
 other one saw those fond letters to you, what would not be 
 said of me. On my bended knees I write you, and aak you 
 as you hope for mercy at the Judgment Day, do not inform 
 on me— do not make me a public shaine. Emile, my love 
 
,,lo4 
 
 has 1>eeii one of bitter disappointment. You and only you 
 can make tbe rest of my life peacefal. My own conscience 
 will be a punishment that I shall carry to my grave. I bave 
 deceired the best of men. fou may forgive mo, but God 
 never will. For God's love, forgive me, and betray me not.. 
 For the. love you once had to me do not bring dpT^ my 
 father's wrath on me. It wiUkillmymoth6r(whoisnotwell.) 
 It will forever cause me bitter unhappiness. I am humble 
 before you, and, crave your mercy. You, can give me forgive- 
 ness, and you, ohygu only, can make me happyforthe rest of 
 my life. I would not ask you to love me, or over make me 
 your vifife. I am too guilty for that., I have deceived and 
 told you too many j^lsehoods for you ever to respect rpie. 
 But, oh ! will you not keep my secret from the world 1 Oh ! 
 will you not, for Christ's sake, denounce me. I shall be 
 undone: I shall be ruined. Who would trust me ? ghame 
 will be my lot. Despise me, hate me, but make me not ,the 
 public scandal. Forget me for, ever. Blot out all remem.- 
 brance of me . . I have . . you ill. I did love ^ou, 
 and it was, my soul's ambition to be your. wife. If^a^'ed 
 you to teU me my faults. You did so, and it made mo cool 
 towards you gradually. When you have found fault with 
 me I have cooled. , It was not love for another, for there is 
 no one I love. My love has all been given to you. My 
 heart is empty,, cold ; I am unloved, I am despised. I told 
 you I had ceased to love you— it was true.- I (pd, no): love 
 as I did; but, oh! till within the time of our coming to 
 town I loved you fondly. I longed to be your wife. ,1 had 
 fixed February. I longed for it. The time I could not ]|»ave 
 my father's house. I grew discontented ; then I ceased to love 
 you. Oh, Emile, this is indeed the true statement. Now 
 you can know my state of mind. Emile, I have siiffered 
 much for you. I lost much of my father's confidence since 
 that September ; and my mother has never been the same to 
 me. Np, she has never given me the same kind look. 'For 
 the sake of my mother, her who gave me life, spare me from 
 shame. Oh, Emile, will you, in GPd's name, hear m^ prayer ? 
 I ask God to forgive me. I have prayed that he might put 
 in your heart to spare me from shame. Never, never, while 
 I live can I be happy. No, no, I shall always* have the 
 thought I deceived you. I am guilty ; it will be a punish- 
 ment I shall bear till the day of my death. I am humbled 
 thus to crave your pardon. But I dare riot. While I have 
 breath I shall ever think of you as my best friend, if you will 
 only keep this between ourselves. I blush to ask you. 
 Yet, Emile, will you not grant roe this my last favour ?— 
 
. i5S 
 
 if you 'will never reyeaJ what has passed. Oh, tot 
 God's sake, for the loye of Heaven, hea^ me. I grow 
 mad. I have Tbeen ill, very ill, all day, I have had 
 what has given me a false spirit. I had resort to what I 
 shouldi not have taken, hut my brain is on Are. I feel as if 
 death would indeed be sweet. Denounce me not. Emile, 
 Emile, think of our once-happy days. Pardon me if you can : 
 pray .for me as the most wi'etched, guilty, miserable creature 
 on the earth. I could stand anything but my father's hot 
 displeasure. Emile, you will not cause me death. If he is 
 to get your letters I cannot see him any more ; and my poor 
 mother, I will never more kia? her. It would be a shame to 
 them all. Emile, will you not spare me this 1 Hate me, 
 despise me, but do not expose me. I cannot write more. 1 
 am too ill to-night. 
 
 P.S. — I cannot get to the back stair. I never could see the 
 way to it. I will take you within in the door. The are^ 
 gate will be open. 1 shall see you from my window at twelve 
 o'clock. I will wait till one o'clock. 
 
 No. 109 ; postmark, " Glasgow, 14 Feb. 1857" :— 
 
 Saturday. 
 Mt Dear Emile,— I have got my finger cut, and cannot 
 write, so, dear, I wish you would excuse me. I was glad to 
 see you looking so well yesterday. I hope to see you very 
 soon. Write, me for Thursday, and then I shall tell you 
 whein I can see you. T want the first time we meet that 
 you will bring me all my cool letters back— the last four I 
 have written— -and I will give you others in their place. 
 Bring them all to me. Excuse-me more just now. It hurts 
 me to write ; so with kindest and dearest love ever believe 
 yours with love and affection, M. 
 
 No. Ill :— 
 
 Dearest Sweet, — Emile, I am so sorry to hear you are 
 ill. I hope to God you will soon be better. Take care of 
 yourself. Do not go to the office this week, just stay'at 
 heme till Monday. Sweet love, it will please me to hear 
 you are well. I have not felt very well these two last days 
 — sick and headache. Everyone is complaining; it must 
 be something in the air. I cannot see 'you on Friday, as 
 M. is not away, but I think on Sunday P. will be 
 away, and I might see yon, I think, but I will let you 
 know. I shall not be at home on Saturday, but I 
 shall say, sweet love, and give you even if it should 
 be a word.- I cannot paas your windows, or I would, as you 
 ask me to dtf U, Do not come and walk about, and become 
 
156 
 
 ill again. You did look bad on Sunday night and Monday 
 morning. I think you got sick with walking home so late, 
 and the long want of food, so the next time we meet, 1 shall 
 make you eat a loaf of bread before you go out. 1 am 
 longing to meet again, sweet love. We shall be so happy. 
 I have a bad pen— excuse this scroll— and B. is near me. I 
 cannot write at night now. My hand aches so, and I am 
 looking so bad that I cannot sit up as I used to do ; but I am 
 taking some stuft to bring back the colour. 1 shall see you 
 soon again. Put up witli short notes for a little time. 
 When I feel stroriger you shall have long ones. Adieu, my 
 love,' my pet, liiy sweet Eraile. A fond, dear, tender love, 
 and sweet embrace. Ever, with love, yours. Mint. 
 
 No. 113 ; postmark, " Glasgow, Peb. 27, 1857" :— 
 ' My Dear, Sweet Emile,— I cannot see you this week, 
 and I can fix no time to meet witli you. 1 do hope "you are 
 better. Keep well, and take care of yourself. I saw you at 
 your window. I am better, but have got a bad cold. I shall 
 write you, sweet one, in the beginning of the week. I hope 
 we may meet soon. We go, I think, to Stirlingsjiire, about 
 the lOth March, for a fortnight. Excuse this short note, 
 sweet love. With much fond tender love and kisses; and 
 believe me to be yours, with love, Mini. 
 
 Nou 115 ; postmark, " Glasgow, 3d March 1857" :— 
 
 My Dearest Emile,— I hope by this time you are quite 
 well, and able to be, Out^ I ?aw you at^ your window, but I 
 could not tell how you looked— well, T hope.' I am very 
 well; 1 was in Edinburgh on Saturday to be at a luncheon 
 of forty at the Castle. It was a most charming day, and we 
 enjoyed our trip very much. ■ On Friday we go to Stirling 
 for a fortnight. ' I am so sorry, my dearest pet, I cannot see 
 you ere we go — but I cannot. Will' you, sweet one, write 
 me for Thursday, eight o'clock, and I shall get it before two 
 o'clock, which will be a comfort to me, as I sball not hear 
 from you till I come home again. I will write you, but sweet 
 p^t it may only be once a-week, as I have so mauy friends in 
 that quarter. B. is not going till next week ; M., P., J., and 
 I on Friday. B. goes to the ball next week. I am going to 
 a ball in Edinburgh the end of next week, so cannot go to 
 both, and I would rather go to the one in Edinburgh. I have 
 not seen you all this week— have you been passing ? What 
 nasty weather we have had. I shall see you very soon, wheii 
 I get home again, and we shall be very happy, won't we 
 sweet one ? as much so as tho last time— will we, my pet ! I 
 hope you feel well. I have no news to gvfe you. I am very 
 
157 
 
 well ; and I think the next time we meet yon will think I 
 look.bptter than I did the last time. You won't hav^Pi Ip.iter 
 from me this Saturday, as I shall be off; but I shall write the 
 beginning of the week. Writd me for Thursday, sweet lo^e,, 
 and with kind love pver believe mo to be yours with lovfe 
 and affection. Mini. 
 
 No. 117 ; postmark, " Glasgow, 4tli March 1857" :— 
 
 Dearest Bmile,— I have just time to write you a line. 
 I could not come to the window, as B. and M. were there, 
 but i saw you. If you would take my advice you would go 
 to the South of England for ten days ; it would do you much 
 good. In fact, sifeet pet, it would make you feel quite well. 
 Do try and do this. You will please me by getting strong 
 and well again. I hope you won't go to B. of Allan, as P. 
 and M. would say it was I brought you there, and it would 
 make me to feel very unhappy. Stirling you need not.go to, 
 as it is a nasty, dirty, little town. Go to the Isle of Wight. 
 I am exceedingly sorry, love, that I cannot, see you ere I go. 
 It is impossible, but the ftrst thing I do oh my return will be 
 to see you, sweet love. I must stop, as it is post time. So 
 adieu with love and kisses, and much love. I am, with ' love 
 and affection, ever yours. Mini. 
 
 No. 119 was objected to by the Dean, being only a 
 copy taken by a press — and was reserved. 
 
 No. 121 :— 
 
 My Dear Sweet Pet,— I am so sorry you should be so 
 vexed. Believe nothing, sweet one, till I tell you myself. 
 It is a repqrt I am sorry about, but it ha^ been six months 
 spoken of,, There is one of thd same kind about B. Believe 
 nothing till I tell you, sweet one of ifiy heart. I love you 
 and you only. Miss A. only supposed, M, never told her. 
 But we have found out that Miss A. is very good at making 
 up stories. Miss A. asked me if it was M. gave me the 
 trinket you saw, and I told her no. My sweet love, I love 
 you, and only wish you were better. We shall speak of our 
 union when wo meet. We shall be home about the 17th, so 
 I shall see you about that time. I wish, love, you could 
 manage to remain in town till we come home, as I know it 
 will be a grand row with me if you are seen there. Could 
 you, sweet love, not wait, for my sake, till v/e come home ? 
 You might go the 20th or so. I would be so pleased with 
 you if you can do this to pleape me, my own dear husband, 
 I shall be very glad to meet you again, and have as happy a 
 KBeting as the last. I have quarrelled with C, H. just now, 
 
to eannot see you to-nSght. I shall write you next week, 
 Neither M. nor his sisters go with us. Only M., B., J.; and 
 I^b to-morrow, P. on Saturday night. I hare only been in 
 M.'s house once, and that was this week, and I was sent a 
 message because M. could not go herself. I will tell and 
 answer you all questions when we meet. Adieu dearest 
 loye of my soul, with fond and tender embraces, ever believe 
 me with love and kisses your own fond, dear, and loving 
 
 Mini. 
 
 The LoKD Advocate argued that No. Il9 should be 
 read, because it was proved by its contents taken in con- 
 nection with Nos. 117 and 121. 
 
 The Court then rose for consultation, and, on thpir 
 return. Lord Ivory stated at some length the grounds 
 on which he held the letter to be receivable — although 
 the jury must judge whether or not the letter was actually 
 received. ' 
 
 Iiord Handyside concurred with Lord Ivory. He 
 regarded the document as intimately connected with 
 other documents already read. It was a tuU and com- 
 plete letter, having a date and a signature. It had been 
 copied by a copying-press, and therefore he inferred its 
 despatch ; while its receipt was proved by the fact that 
 in a subsequent letter various questions asked in it were 
 replied to. 
 
 The LOBD Justice-Clems: dififered from the other 
 Judges, because therp was no separate and independent 
 proof that the document had been despatched or received 
 by the prisoner ; but he regarded it as of little impor- 
 tance whether it went to 'the jury or not, as the points 
 referred to in it were covered by No. 121. 
 
 No. 119 :— 
 
 Glasgow, March 5th, 1857. 
 My Dear Sweet Pet JIini,— 1 feel indeed very vexed 
 that the a,nswer I rooeive'l yesterday to mine of Tuesday to 
 you should prevent me from sending you the kind letter I 
 had ready for you. Tou must not blame me for this, but 
 really your cold, indifi^rent, and reserved notes, so short, 
 without a particle of love in them (especially after pledging 
 your word you were to write me kindly for those letters yon 
 asked me to destroy), ^nd the manner you evaded answOring 
 the questions I put to you in my last, with the reports I 
 
159 
 
 hear, fully convinoe me. Mini, that th6i;e is foimdatiou in your 
 marriage with another. Besides, the way you put off our 
 union till September, without a just reason, is very 
 suspicious. I do not think Mini dear that Miss Anderson 
 would say your mother told her things she had not ; ^nd 
 really I could never believe Mr Houldsworth' would be 
 giiilty of telling a falsehood for mere talking. No, Mini, 
 there is foundation for all this. You often go to Mr M.'s 
 house, and common sense would lead any one to believe 
 that if you were not on the footing reports say you 
 are, you would avpid going near any of his friends. 1 
 know he goes with youj or at least meets you i in 
 Stirlingshire. Mini dear, place yourself in my position, ' 
 and't^.me, am I wrong in believing what I hear. I 
 was happy the last time we met— yes, very happy. I was 
 forgetting all the paat, but now it is again beginning. Mini, 
 I insist on having an etsplicit answer to the questions you 
 evaded in my last. If you evade answering them this time, 
 I must try some other means of coming to the truth. If not 
 answered in a satisfactory manner, you must not, expect I 
 shall again write you personally, or meet you when you 
 return honie. I do not wish you to answer this at random ; 
 I shall wait for a day or so if you require it. I know you 
 cannot write me from Stirlingshire, as the time, you, have to 
 write me a letter is occupied in doing so to others. There 
 was a time you would have found plenty of time. Answer 
 me this, Mini— Who gave you the trinket you showed me ; 
 is it true it was Mr Minnoch ? And is it true that you are 
 directly or indirectly engaged to Mr Minnoch, or to any one 
 else but me ? These questions I must know. The doctor 
 say^ I must go to the Bridge of Allan. I cannot travel SOO 
 miles to the Isle of Wight' and 500 back. What is your 
 object in wishing mo so very much to go south ? I may not 
 go to the Bridge of Allan till Wednesday. If I can avoid 
 going I shall do so for your sake. I shall wait to hear from 
 yon. I hope, dear, nothing will happen to check the happi- 
 ness we were again enjoying.— May God bless you, pet ;' and, 
 with fond and tender embraces, believe me with kind love 
 your ever aliectionate husband, 
 
 EMILB L'ANGELIEft. 
 
 No. 121 was then again read. 
 
 No. 123 ; postmark, " Bridge of Allan, 10 March, 
 1857" (reached Glasgow 5. 30 P. M. ) :— 
 
 My OWN BEST LOVED PET.— I hepe'you are well. lam 
 yery well, but it is such a cold place, far ooldSr th^n jn town, 
 
160 ■ 
 
 I have never been warm since I came here. There are very 
 few people that we know staying in the Tillage. Have you 
 ever Been here, my own dear little pet ? I hope, .^weet one, 
 it may make you feel well and strong again, and that you 
 will not again be ill all the summer. You must try and 
 keep we'll for itt^ sake «; will you, will you, my own dear 
 little Emile ? You love' me, do you not ? Yes, Umile, I 
 know you do. AVe go to Perth this week to see some 
 friends. I am going -' to Edinburgh the end of this 
 month. B. will, I 'think, go too. I saw you pass the 
 momifig we left, and you, little love, passedi the front door, 
 but you would iiot look up, and I didnotknow where ybu 
 were going to. \V6 shall be home Monday or Tuesday. I 
 shall write you, ..sweet love, when we shall have an 
 interview. I long to see you— to kiss and ettibrace you, my 
 only sweet love. Kiss me, sweet one, niy love, my oVn 
 dear, sweet, little pet. I know your kindness vrill forgive 
 me if t do not write you S long letter ; but we are j ust going 
 to the train to meet friends from the north. So 1 shall 
 conclude with much love, tender embraces, and fond kisses. 
 Sweet love, adieu. Ever, with love, yours. < " Mini. 
 
 No. 125 ; postmark, "Bridge of .Allan, 13bJi,Marohl8S7" 
 (reached Glasgow, 10,45 same night) ::— 
 
 Dearest and Beloved,— I hope you are well. I am very 
 well, and anxioiis to get. home to see you, sweet one. It is 
 cold, and we have had snow all the week, which is most 
 disagreeable. I feel better since vve came here. I think we 
 shajl bo home on Tuesday, so I shall let you know, my o'wn 
 beloved sweet pet,, when we shall have a dear, sweet inter- 
 view, when I may be pressed to your heart, and kissed by 
 you, my own sweet love. A fond, tender embrace ; a kiss, 
 sweet love. I hope youwill enjoy your visit here. Yon will 
 find it so dull ; no one here we know, and I don't fancy you 
 will iind any friends, as .they are all strangers, and don't 
 appear nice people. I am longing to see yoii, sweet one of 
 my heart, my only love. I wish wg had not come here for 
 another month, as it would have been so much nicer; it 
 would thenbe warm. I think if yoxi' could wait a little. It 
 would do ybu more" good ; but you know best when you can 
 get away. Adieu, my only love, my own sweet pet. 4- kiss, 
 dear love, a teuvler-, embi^ace, Iqve and kisses. Adieu, ever 
 yours, with love and fond kisses. I am ever yours, Mini. 
 
 Nos. 127, letter of depeascd to Mr Kennedy ; 129,, letter 
 to Mr Kennedy ; and 131, French letter io Mr iJvuan — 
 
161 
 
 Were given in — ^having been previously read in the ooUrae 
 of examination of witnesses. 
 
 No. 133 ; posbmark, " Stirling, 16fcli Maroli 1857" :— 
 
 My Dearest William,— It is but fair after yoar kind- 
 ness to me, that I should write you a note. Tlie day 1 part 
 from friei^s 1 always feel sad ; but to part from one I lore, 
 as I do you, makes me feel truly sad and dull. My only 
 consolation is that we meet soon again. To-morrow we shall 
 be home. 1 do so wish you were here to-day. We might take 
 a long walk. Our walk to Dunblane I shall ever remember 
 with pleasure. That walk fixed a day on which we are to 
 begin a new life— a life which I hope maybe of happiness and 
 long duration to both of us. My aim through life shall be to 
 please and study you. Dear William, 1 n^ust conclude,, as 
 mamma is ready to go to Stirling. I do not go w ith the 
 same pleasure as I did the last time. I hope you got to 
 town safe, and found your sisters well. Accept my warmest, 
 kindest love, and ever belibve me to be yours with affection, 
 
 Madeline. 
 
 Ho, 135, a French memorandum of L'Angelier's address 
 
 at Bridge of Allan ; and 139, envelope addressed to " M. 
 
 L'Angelier, Post Office, Stirling. 
 
 KTo, 137, envelope ; postmarks, " Glasgow, 19 March, 
 
 1857"; and "Stirling, 20th March, 9.0 A.M," addressed 
 
 to M.. L'Angelier at Glasgow. 
 
 No. 141 J posted at Bridge of Allan, 20th March : — 
 
 Dear Mary, — I should have written to you before, but I 
 am so lazy in writing when away from my ordinary ways. 
 I feel much better, and Ihopetobe borne the middle of next 
 week. This is a very stupid place, very dull. I know no 
 one, and besides it is very much colder than Edinburgh. I 
 saw your friends at I'ortobello, and will tell you about them 
 when I see you. I should have come to see some one last 
 night, but the letter came too late, so we are both disap- 
 pointed. Trusting you are quite well, and, with kind regards 
 to yourself and sister, believ^ me, yours sincerely, 
 
 P. Emile L'Angelier. 
 
 I shall be here till Wednesday. 
 
 No. 143, letter to Mr Stevenson from Bridge of Allan, 
 formerly read. 
 
 No. 145, letter to Mr Kennedy from Bridge of AUan, 
 fonaerlyread, postmark, " Bridge of Allan, 20th March." 
 
162 
 
 No. 147, lette* from Mr Stevenson to M. L'Angelier, 
 posted at Glasgow, 21st March 1857, at night, and reached 
 Bridge of Allan 9 A.M. next morning. 
 
 No. 149; letter from the panel to.L'AngeUer at his 
 lodgings, Glasgow, with postiuavk " Glasgow, March 21, 
 1857":— ' ' , , ' 
 
 Why, my belovedj did you. not conie to me? 01^ my 
 beloved, are you ill?. Come to me. .Sweet one, I TOited 
 and waited for you, but you came not. 1 shall wait again 
 to-morrow, night— same hour and arrangement. Oh, come, 
 sweot, love,, my own dear love of a sweetheart. Come, 
 beloved, and clasp me to your heart ; come, and we shall be 
 happy. A kiss, fond love. Adieu, with tender embraces. 
 Ever believe me to be your own ever dear, fond 
 
 Ml,Nl. 
 
 No. 153-— Envelope only, posted a;t Glasgow, March ,21, 
 1 857 ; reached the Bridge of Allan early on the morning 
 of the 22d March,; addressed, ". M. .L'Angelier, Post 
 ' Office, Bridge of Allan." 
 
 The Lord Advooatb put in three Edinburgh Almanacs ; 
 and then proposed to, read the memoranda in L'Angelier's 
 pookert)ook, from 16th February to 14th March 1837. 
 He maintained that he had already laid a sujBcient foun- 
 dation for these memoranda. It was proved that they 
 were in L'Angelier' ^i owci himdwriting, and he submitted 
 that these wera statements by himself of what he did on 
 those days. 
 
 Mr Young said the book was tendered to prove that 
 the matters entered did occur in point of fact ;. but this 
 was not a book regularly kept, and the corroborative, 
 evidence was not sufficient, while one entiy on 22d 
 February was actually contradicted by the witnesses 
 examined. 
 
 The SoLioiTOE-GrENER-iL and the Dean of IVpuLTT 
 wore then heard on, the point. The Dean referred to one 
 of the entries of 5th March, "Saw Mini;,, gave her a 
 note, and receive.'! one," and argued that this entry was 
 contradicted by the letter No.. 119, which had already 
 been put in evidence. ■ .^i ., 
 
 The Court retired to consider the point, and on jiheir 
 return 
 
163 
 
 The Lord JtisiiCE-CLEBK said they wished to take 
 more tame to decide upon it, and that they would be glad 
 if either party conli^ assist them with authorities by 
 Monday. 
 
 Tho Loud Advocate said he had other evidence which 
 he could not adduce till this point was disposed of. If 
 the memorandum-book was received he should be ready 
 to close. His Lordship then stated that he had 
 included in the list of witnesses all tho members 
 of Miss Smith's family. He did not propose to 
 examine theui, for very plain and obvious reasons. 
 There were questions which it was important to ask 
 them,' but he thought it was only right that he (the Lord 
 Advocate) should not put them in the witness-box. If, 
 however, his learned friend on the other side wished 
 that he should do so, as part of the Crown case, he was 
 quite ready now to call them. 
 
 The LoKD Justice-Clerk — That course is open to the 
 prisoner. 
 
 The Dean of Faodlty — And that course I shall 
 follow. I 
 
 In consequence of the severe illness of a relative of one' 
 of tlie jurymen, the Court permitted him to visit her 
 to-morrow, under charge of the Clerk, Mr Neaves. 
 
 The LoED Advocate stated that if the memorandmu- 
 book was received, the case for the Crown would close 
 with the evidence of Mrs Anderson, who had becntakeu 
 so unwell that she had been unable to attend. If she 
 were able to attend, he would examine her ou Monday 
 morning. Tliat would be the whole case for the Crown, 
 unless, as he had said, that document was rejected. 
 
 The Bbaiv" of Faculty suggested that the Lord 
 Advocate should give him some idea what he would do 
 in the event of the document bemg rejected. 
 
 The LoKD Advocate, in reply, said he was afraid he 
 could not do so now, but he would communicate with hib 
 learned friend. 
 
 In reply to a juryman. 
 
 The Dean of Faculty said that he could not under- 
 take to say that the case woul^ be closed before 
 Wednesday. 
 
161 
 
 The LoBD Jdstice-Clerk remarked that, in a case of 
 such importance, he could not be expected to go on with 
 his charge immediately after the speeches on both sides 
 were concluded. 
 
 The Court then adjourned till to-day at ten o'clock. 
 
165 
 
 SIXTH DAY.— Monday, July 6. 
 
 The Court met this morniEg at tea o'clock, and pro- 
 ceeded to decide on the admissibility of the memorandum- 
 book of the deceased L'Angelier. 
 
 The Lord Justice-Clerk and Lord Handyside held that 
 it was not admissible, Lord Ivory -was of a different 
 opinion. 
 
 The LoED Justice-Clerk said he did not know that 
 any point of greater importance ever occurred in any 
 criminal trial ; and the Court were in this unfortunate 
 position in one respect, that they had no assistance frpm 
 any authorities. The admission of hearsay evidence was 
 an established rule in the law of' Scotland, but under 
 those restiictions and conditions which he had occasion 
 fully to state in the case of Gordon — ^restrictions and 
 conditions which went in many circumstances to the 
 entire rejection of the evidence. What was now proposed 
 to be admitted was this — certain memoranda or jottings 
 made by the deceased, in which certain things were said 
 to be contained, which went directly to the vital part 
 of this charge. The,Dean of Faculty felt that so strongly 
 that he did not scruple to state what the purport of one 
 of these was. In order to show the immense materiaKty of 
 the point. It was certainly most important for the 
 Court to take care that the rules of evidence were not 
 relaxed merely because it appeared that the matter 
 tendered was of the highest importance in the 
 case. Before evidence could be received and allowed 
 to go to a jury, it must be shown that such 
 r3 . 
 
'166 
 
 evidence was legally competent to be tendered againBt the 
 prisoner. That was the rule also in civil cases. It was 
 of vital importance in considering whether this evidence 
 Avas admissible, to ascertain in frhat circumstance, 
 and, if possible, from what motive, and at what periods 
 these entries were made. Now, it was a most remark- 
 able fact that there was no entry regarding the prisoner, 
 or the circumstances connected with the prisoner, before 
 the 11th of February, and at that very time the purpose 
 on her part of firealiing off the erigagein'ent' with him 
 and of demanding back her letters had been communi- 
 cated to the deceased; and his purpose and resolution 
 not to give up' the letters and to keep her to her engage- 
 ment were avowed and made known, as it Appeared 
 from the evidence prior to that daite. Then ho had a 
 purpose in writing these memoranda — a purpose, 
 obviously, to endeavour to strengthen his hold over the 
 prisoner; not only by refusing to give up the letters at 
 that time and afterwards, but probably with the view 
 to hold out that he had a' diary as to tbeir inter- 
 views and ooliimunications, so as to endeavouir" to 
 effect his object of preventing the marriage, stad 
 of terrifying- her into giving' up her engagement 
 with Mr Minnooh. He (the Lord' Justice-Clerk) made 
 this observation not merely with regard to' the 
 weight and credibility of these entries, but with regard to 
 their admissibility, because in the case of hearsay evideiice 
 one could ascertain' from the witnesses the time ifhe 
 statement was made, all the circuiiistancos and all the 
 apparent motives which could be collected as to the 
 statement being made by the deceased. But when we 
 could not know with 'cfertai'nty the motive with which 
 the man mads the entry, or, perhaps, as in this case, could 
 perceive reasons why he made the' entry as aigainst her, 
 intending to prejudice her in one way, not of course with 
 reference to' the prospect of such a trial as this, but with 
 reference to her engageinent, he thought it could not'be 
 said ■ that this caine before the Court as a statement 
 recorded- by him as to indifferent matters, or as to 
 matters in which he Inight have not had a strong 
 purpose in making the statement. Further, it might 
 
167 
 
 be a record of a past act. He felt the force of 
 what the Lord Advoo^be had so forcibly stated, that 
 supposing ia tliis hook there had been an entry that this 
 man purchased arsenic, would not that have been avail- 
 able in favour of the prisoner. An illustration of this 
 point had been suggested to his mind by a person whose 
 authority and experience were of the very highest : take 
 an action of divorce" against the wife where the paramour' 
 was (Je,ad ; would an entry in any diary of his that ha had 
 enjoyed the embraces of this woman in her husband's 
 absence b'n such a night be proof against thq wife ? He 
 thought liot. "What was 'propased in this case was to 
 tender in evidence a thing altogether unprecedented 
 according to the research of the bar and bench, of which 
 no trace or indication occi^rrei in any book what- 
 ever — viz., that a memorandum made by the deceased 
 should be proof of a fact against the panel in a charge of 
 murSer. He was unable to adniit siich evidence ; it 
 migh\ relax the' sacred rules of evidence to an extent 
 thatithe mind could hardly contemplate. One could not 
 tell Jjow many documents might exist and be found in 
 the repositories q£ a deceased person ; a man might have 
 threatened another, he might have hatred against him, 
 and be deterrnitied to revenge himself, and what entries 
 might he not make in a diary for this purpose ? He had 
 a faint, recollection of a case in 1808 — the trial of a man 
 Patch for murdering Page, or of a man Page for murdering 
 Patch — in which some letter of the murdered man, prior 
 to his death, was used ; but he had been miable to find 
 the case, and he had no notion if it was of the character 
 . he had alluded to. However, in the meantime, as the 
 point was perfectly new, and as it would be a departure 
 from what he considered to be an important principle in 
 the administration of justice, he thought this evidence 
 could not be received. 
 
 Lord Handtside said — W'e are asked to receive 
 as evidence for the 'Crown a pocketbook contaijiing 
 an almanac or diary for 18.57, in which certain entries 
 are made, opposite to certain days of. the week, from 
 February 11 to March 14. I mention these extreme 
 dates, first, because they include the period of the only 
 
168 
 
 entries in the diary— the entries not beginning with the 
 commencement of the year ; and, second, because the 
 peridd during which the entries are made lias "reference 
 only to the first and second charges in the indictment. 
 The third charge, as to time, is subsequent to the 
 entries ceasing to be made. The special point is, whether 
 the entries of certain dates— two in number — are to be 
 read, and made evidence for the prosecution, as regards 
 the first and second charges in the indictment. The 
 whole of the entries hare been written with a lead pencil. 
 I notice this to make the observation that ink and 
 penmanship afford to a certain degree a means of ascer- 
 taining whether entries are made de die m diem, thus 
 having the character of entries made daily ; or, on the 
 contrary, of several entries having the appearance,, by 
 change of ink or of pen, of being made at one time, and 
 so from after recollection, "Where all the entries are in 
 pencil, there can be no security asto the time when the 
 entries are, in point of fact, inserted, and that they are 
 not ex 27pst facto ; or that the original entries have not 
 been expunged, and others substituted in their place — 
 whether this be in correction of memory, or with purpose 
 and design of ariother character. The party making such 
 entries in pencil has entire power over what he has done ' 
 or chooses to do. But, waiving this peculiarity in the 
 present case, the general point is presented for determi- 
 natiqn, whether memorandums of a deceased person, 
 setting forth incidents as having occurred of particular 
 dates, and connected with the name of an individual, are 
 admissible as evidence to support a charge in a criminal 
 case ? So far as my knowledge goes, this is a new point. 
 We have received no assistance from the bar by reference 
 to any authority either direct or illustrative. Wo case has 
 been cit^d to us bearing upon the subject. And having 
 taken some pains myself to search for authority and pre- 
 cedent, I have been unsuccessful in finding either to/ guide 
 us. If the fact be so, undoubtedly it is a circiimstance 
 on which the objector to the admission of the evidence 
 is entitled to found, as shifting from him to the prosecutor 
 the burden of showing that such evidence ought to be 
 received. I think the question is one of great difficulty 
 
169 
 
 — at least I have found it to be so. Had the writer of 
 the memoraQduius been living, they could not have been 
 made evidence — of themselves they were nothing. They 
 might have been used in the witness-box to refresh the 
 memory, but the evidence would still be parole. What 
 would be regarded would be the oath of the witness to 
 facts, time, and person ; and if distinct and explicit, 
 though resting on memory alone, the law of evidence 
 would be satisfied, irrespective of any aid by memoran- 
 dums or letters, though made at the time. It is the 
 oath of the witness to the verity of his oral statement in 
 the box which the law requires and regards. But if the 
 writer has died, is this circumstance to make such 
 memorandums thenceforward admissible as evidence by 
 their own weight ? Are they, the handwriting being 
 proved, to be treated as written evidence ? That would 
 be a bold propjsition. Death cannot change the character 
 originally impressed upon memorandums, and convert 
 them from inadmissible into admissible writings. They 
 are private memorandums, seen by no' eye but the writer's ; 
 as such, subject to no check upon the accuracy of their 
 statements, whether arising from innocent mistakes or from 
 prejudice or passing feeling. I do not say that they are 
 to be supposed to be false and dishonest, for the idea is 
 repugnant, from the consideration that it would be idle to 
 falsify and invent when memorandums are intended to be 
 kept secret by the writer. T5ut it is quite conceivable 
 that vanity might lead to statements being made wholly 
 imaginary, with a view to the subsequent exhibition of the 
 book, and were its admissibility as evidence set up by 
 death, it might become a fearful instrument of calumny 
 and accusation. I speak just now of private memorandums 
 diaries, and journals, taken in the abstract. As to other 
 writings of a deceased person, such as letters, I do iiot 
 say these may not become admissible as evidence by 
 reason of death, though during life they could not be 
 used. But here the principle suggests itself that these 
 writings have been communicated before death to at least 
 another person. They thus become analogous to words 
 spoken — to representations made and conversations held 
 — by a deceased person, the proper subject of hearsay 
 
170 
 
 evidence;. It was contended that the principle on wjiioh 
 hearsay evidence is admitted should extend to anything 
 written by a dpoeased person. It is assumed to -t>e a 
 declaration in writing of whf t if spoken would, have been 
 admissible on^ the testimony of the persop hearing; it. 
 And on a first view it, would seem that the written, mode 
 is superior to the oral, from the greater certainty that 
 no mistake is committed as to the words actually , used. 
 Slit this -n^ould be a fallacious grgund to rest on, for 
 words written would require to be taken as they; stand, 
 without explanation or , modification ; whereas words 
 spoken to another are subj eot to the further inquiry by the 
 party addressed as to the meaniiig of the speaker, an4 to a 
 sort of cross-examination, however imperf ept, to vi;hiph ^he 
 hearer mayput the speaker in order to a better or thorough 
 understanding of ilie subject of communication, the, object 
 of making it, and the ground^ on which the speaker's 
 statements rest. ,_ ,And all ■ these ,thjj)gs may be brought 
 out in the examination of the witiiess who comes into 
 Court to give his heai'say evidence. The y^lue of hearsay 
 evidence, and the weight to be given to jt, gomes ,thu?^ to 
 depend much on tho accovint which the witness gives of - 
 the, circumstances , under which the; communication \yas 
 made to him — as to, the seriousness of tho statement and 
 what, folio wed upon it in the .way of inquiry and reply. 
 !N"ow a mere writing in th,p way of memorandum or 
 entry in, a book in the sole custody of the writer till his 
 death can bo subject to no such tests. Jts very nature ■ 
 shows that it is not intended for communication. , It may 
 be an idle, purposeless piece of iwritlng; or it may be a 
 record of unfounded suspicions and malicious charges, 
 treasured up by hostile and malignant feelings i» a 
 moody spiteful n\ind. These views impress mo strongly 
 with ^h,e. danger of admitting a private journal, or diary as 
 evidence ,to support » criminal charge.: I think the 
 question now before us must be decided as a general 
 point.. As such I take it up. If I were to confine myself 
 to the special and peculiar circumstances of tliis case, 
 I should see much perhaps to vindicate tho Court, in the 
 reception of tho evidence tendered. There is to be found 
 in the letters wbioji have been already made evidence 
 
171 
 
 touch to give corroboration or verification to some at leaat 
 of the entries in the pooketbook. Bat I feel compelled to 
 clqse.my mind ag3,ijist such considerations) ^nd to look, 
 above all to a ,gei),eral and, therefore, safe rule by which 
 to be guided. X have come, therefore, to be of opinion 
 that the production tendered as evidence in the case in 
 support, as I take it, of the first and second charges, 
 ought to be rejected. 
 
 Lord IvoET said the opinions which had just been 
 given had relieved his mind of a burden of responsibility 
 under which he had laboured, and which he was ill able 
 to bear. He had given the most anxious, serious, and 
 repeated consideration to this matter. He had found 
 little or nothing in the way of aiithority, and no dicta so 
 precisely bearing on this case as to be of any avail. But, 
 judging in the abstract, applying the rules as applied to 
 other cases, endeavouring tp find a principle by comparison 
 of the different 'classes and categories in which evidence 
 had been distributed and in which evidence had been 
 received, he felt himself totally unable to come to a 
 conclusion that the evidence of this document should be 
 excluded from the jury. As his opinion could not in the 
 least degree infiuence" the judgment, he should be sorry 
 to add anything that should even seem to be intended to 
 detract from the authority of that judgment now given ; 
 least of all should he be disposed to follow such a course 
 in a capital case, where the judgment was in favour of 
 the prisoner. He would content himself, therefore, with 
 simply expressing his opinion. It appeared tp him that 
 this document should have been admitted valeat quantum, 
 and that the jury should have considered its weight, and 
 credibility, and value. , 
 
 The LOED Advocate then put in evidence the fol- 
 owing portion of letter No. 79, viz. ; — 
 
 Monday. 
 
 If P. and M. go, will you not, sweet love, come to your 
 Mimi? Do you think I would ask you if I saw danger in the 
 house ? No, love, I would not. I shall let you in ; no one 
 shall see you. We can make it late— twelve, if you please. 
 You have no long walk. No, my own beloved ; my sweet 
 dearEmile. Emile, I see your sv/oet smile. I hear you say 
 you will come and see your Mimi, clasp her to your bosom. 
 
172 
 
 and kiss ber, call her your own pet, your wife. Emlle will 
 not r«fnse me. . . . I need not wish you a merry Christ- ^ 
 mas, but I shall wish that we fcoay spend the next together, 
 and that wo shall then be happy. 
 
 Mrs Janet Anderson, examined by the Lokd AdTOCATE 
 — I am acquainted with the prisoner. I recollect meeting 
 her at a party in my house on the 5th February. I met 
 her also at a .party at Mrs "Wilkie's shortly before she was 
 at my house. She had a iiecklace on. I asked from 
 whom she had got It ? She said she had got it from papa. 
 I asked if she had got it from Mr Minnoch ; and she 
 denied that. I don't recollect if I spoke of this to any- 
 body ; I inay have mentioned that I thoaght she got it 
 from Mr Minnoch. 
 
 The Lord Advocate then intimated that this closed 
 the case for the Crown. 
 
Its. 
 
 EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. 
 
 The Dean of Faculty stated that in the course of the 
 examination of some of the first witnesses reference 
 would be made to affairs of some little delicacy, in which 
 L'AngeUer had been engaged in some preTioua part of his 
 life; }>nt he was extremely unwilling to drag names 
 before the public in this examination, and he hoped his 
 learned friend the Lord Advocate would assist him in 
 this. 
 
 RdbeH Baker, examined by Mr YotiNG— I am a grocer 
 at St Helen's, Jersey. I lived in Edinburgh at one time, 
 and acted as waiter in the Eainbow Tavern. When there 
 I was acquainted with L'Angelier. That was in 1851. 
 He lived in the Eainbow between six and nine months, as 
 far as I recollect. He was there until the time he went 
 to Dundee. He and I slept together. The tavern was 
 kept at that time by an uncle of mine, Mr George 
 Baker. L'Angelier's circuidbtances were then very bad ; 
 he was living on Mr Baker's bounty ; he was waiting 
 there till he got a situation. I took him to be a quiet 
 sort of person. I did not know much of his ways. I 
 was hot much out with him. He was very easily excited. 
 He was at times subject to low spirits ; I have seen him 
 crying often at night. Latterly, before he went to 
 Dundee, he told me he was tired of his existence and 
 wished himself out of the world ; he said so on more than 
 one occasion. I remember on one occasion he got out 
 of bed and went to the window and threw it up. I rose 
 
6ttt oi bed and went to him, and he said thai if I tiad 
 not disturbed him, he would have thrown himself out. 
 The windows of the Eainbow are about six storeys from 
 the ground — ^the height of the North Bridge, indeed. He 
 was in the habit very often of getting up at night, and 
 walking up and down the room in an excited statBj 
 weeping very much. I happened to know that he had at 
 that time met with a disappointment in a love matter. 
 He did not tell me so himself, but I heard my uncle talk 
 of it. T heard L'Angelier speak to other people about it. 
 Lfc was about some lady in Fife. 
 
 Mr Young — You need not mention names. I think 
 we shall be able to speak of her as the lady in Fife. 
 
 Examination oontimied — He was in distress about not 
 having a situation, in order to enable him to keep to his 
 engagement with her. I did not see hiin weeping on 
 that subject. "When he said he would have thrown 
 himself over the window on the occasion I have spoken 
 of, he was not crying; he was very cool and collected ; 
 and did not seem at all excited or agitated when I spoke 
 to him. I thought he was in earnest ; he had. talked about 
 it so often before. We were Jn the habit of taking 
 walks together in the morning before business began. 
 We have walked to Leith Pier ; when there, he said he 
 had a great mind to throw himself over one morning, 
 because he was quite tired of his existence. I have seen 
 him reading newspaper accounts . of suicide ; and I have 
 heard, bim say that, here was a person who had the 
 courage that he should have had ; that he wished lie had 
 the same oonragei or something to that effect. 
 
 Cross-examined bytlie Lord' Advocate — I believe he 
 was a Jersey man ; I met him in Jersey once before I 
 was in the Rainbow, fle did not come there because I 
 bad' seen him in Jersey.' He had been living in Edin- 
 burgh before I saw him. I had seen bim on a visit iar 
 ■lersey. 
 
 -By the Loud Justice-CtjEEK — I saw him in Jersey in 
 ' 1846, 1 think. ' ' . , '' , _ 
 
 ByMrS'ouNO — ^Ireogived this letter (No. 1 oJE prisoner's 
 inventory) from L'Angelier at JDundee. It has no date ; 
 it wafj shortly after he left the Rainbow. In this letter 
 
175 
 
 he says, " 1 never was so unhappy in my life ; I wish 
 I had the courage to blow my braiuii out." 
 
 Wm. Pringle, Laird, exaniiued, by Mu Yot'Nci — 1 am a 
 nurseryman in Dundee. I was acquainted with the late 
 Emile L'Angelier. I knew him when in the service of 
 Dickson & Co., Edinbm-gh, about 1843. In 1852 1 took 
 him into my own employment in Dundee. He had been 
 away from tho Dicksons before that, - and liad been in 
 Franco. He oame to me between the 12th and 20th 
 January 1852 — on Old Hansel Monday. He remained 
 till the end of August or the 1st of September. He was 
 a very sober young man, and very kind and obliging ; 
 rather excitable and dhangeable in his tamper, and 
 sometimes very melancholy and sometimes very blythe- 
 some. tVhen he came to me in January he had a cold ; 
 he Was unwell, and very dull. He did not tell me at 
 first, but shortly after he told me of a cross in love that 
 he had got. He assisted me in the seed-shop 
 chiefly ; sometimes he wrought at light work in 
 the nursery too. It was a fortnight or a mpiith 
 after he oame that^ he said ho had been crossed in 
 love. He told me it was reported the girl was to be 
 married to another, but that he could scarcely believe 
 it, because he did not think she could take another. 1 
 understood that that was because .she was pledged to 
 him. He told me who she was. [Mr ToUHG — I don't 
 want her name.] I believe she was in the middle 
 station of life. After this I saw her man'iage in the 
 newspapers. I got a letter from my brother in Edin- 
 burgh asking if L'Angelier had seen in an Edinburgh 
 newspaper — in the ScoUman — a'notiee of the marriage. 
 L'Angelier did seethat notice. I know William Pringle ; 
 he was my apprentio^ at the time. Either Pringle or 
 some other apprentice told me of something L'Angelier 
 had done about that which led me to speak to hinj. I told 
 him I was sorry to see him so melancholy and aad, that I 
 was still more so to hear that he had taken up a knife to 
 ptab himself. He said very little, and was very dull. I 
 iaid what I could to soothe him. He said he was 
 yenr miserable, ajjd thf^t he wisJvsd Ije was out of the 
 
176 
 
 world, or words to that efifeot. He w;as in a very 
 melancholyi state after this. He was gloomy and moody, 
 and never spoke to any one. I had Irequeut converaa- 
 tiou with him — several times every day. 
 
 Mr TOUNS — From these conversations, and all you had 
 seen of him, did you think he had any religious principle 
 about him to deter him from committing suicide ? 
 
 Witness — He attended church regularly, but did not 
 show anything particular about religion.' But he was 
 very moral, so far as I knew. 
 
 Examination continued — He often told rae of being in 
 France during the Eevplution of 18i8. He said he was in 
 Paris at that time. He told me he was engaged in the 
 devolution ; he said he was a member of the ItTatioual 
 Guard. He was rather a vain man. I don't recollect 
 his wages with me ; he came to me as an extra hand 
 When he was o^it of employment. I said I would give 
 him bed and board and something more ; and I think he 
 got bed and board and 8s. or 10s. a-week. 
 
 William Pringle, examined by Mr TODNG — ^I was in 
 the service of Mr Laird in Dundee in 1852. I knew 
 L'Angelier there. We both liv^d in Mr Laird's house. 
 I had frequent conversation with L'Angelier.- I remem- 
 ber telling him that I had heard of a certain marriage in 
 the newspapers. I said so in the shop. I said that such 
 a lady was married, and he seemed very much agitated. 
 
 Mr youNO — How did his agitation show itself ? 
 
 Witness — He ran once .or twice behind the counter ; 
 then he took hold of the counter knife. He did not point 
 it at himself, but he held it out. When I stepped for- 
 ward he put it down again. I don't remember what he 
 , said. I don't think he was shedding t?ars. I did not 
 observe him crying. He was particularly melancholy for 
 some time after this occurrence. He slept with me. I 
 was a little afraid that he might do himself some 
 mischief. 
 
 By the LoBD Jtjstiob-Clerk — I was then sixteen years 
 of age. 
 
177 
 
 Andnvi Watson Smith, exammed by Mr YonuG — I am 
 an upholsterer in Dtuj.<iee. I was acquainted with 
 L'Angelier when he was in Laird's emplpyment in 1852. 
 We were pretty intimate. I was then living at JsTewport, 
 on the other side of the Tay from Dundee. L'Angelier 
 frequently visited me there, sometimes coming on « 
 Saturday and waiting till Monday. "When he did so we 
 slept together. I had good opportunity of obseryinghis 
 disposition and state of mind. ,1 thought he was a very 
 excitable sort of character — often in very high spirits, 
 and often in very low spirits. He mentioned a 
 disappointment in love he had had about that time. He 
 mentioned the lady's name. He told me they had been 
 engaged for a number of years, a:nd h»d loved each 
 other very much ; but that it had been broken 
 off, and that he felt inclined to destroy himself. He 
 showed me a ring he had got from the lady, with a name 
 engraved on it. I think it was her name. He spoke of 
 destroying himself. He seemed in a very inelancholy 
 spirit, declared he could never be happy again, and that 
 he thought he would drown hiiaself. I have a faint 
 remembrance, but I am not exactly sure, that he once 
 told me he went to the Dean Bridge for the purpose of 
 throwing himself over. I am not exactly sure of', that. 
 It was because this lady had jilted him. He did not say 
 what prevented him from throwing himself over. Self- 
 destruction was a very frequent subject of conversation 
 with him. I thought him serious, though I never 
 had any serious apprehension that he would do, it. 
 That was from want of courage. It was, only when 
 he was in his low moods that he talked of self- 
 destruction. He told me about having been in Jramce 
 at the Revolution, and he told me he , felt very 
 nervous after that, attribitting it partly to the excitement 
 of the time. He said he frequently thought he heard a 
 noise behind him, as if a number of rats were running 
 along. When he spoke of the lady who had jilted him 
 he was always very excited^ and once I remember, him 
 crying. He appeared to be. in great grief. That was the 
 first time he spoke of destroying himself ; he talked of 
 drowning himself, 
 
178 
 
 WUliam' Anderson, exaiuindd by Mr YouNS — I had a 
 nursery and seedsliop in, Dandee in 18S2. I then became 
 aoquaiiited with L'Angelier. Sfe sdmetinw? came to my 
 shop, and I saw a good deal of him. I had conversations 
 with him two or three tinies. ' He was rather of a 
 sanguine disposition ;' he was excitable, I think, and he 
 had the appearance of being vain ; his conversation h ad 
 that character. When women were a matter of conver- 
 sation he spoke much of that. He boasted of his success 
 with ladies. I remember oii one occasion particularly in 
 my own house at supper, he told me he was very intimate 
 with ivfo ladies in Dundee at the time, aiid that it seemed 
 to him his, attachment for them was returned, that they 
 were very beautiful girls, and worth a considerable sum 
 of money. 
 
 By the LoKD JustioiI-Clerk — ^Did he mean to Say that 
 he had been successful in seducing them, or what ? 
 
 Witness — No, niy Lord, it was that he loved them, 
 and they loved him in return. I did not put this down 
 as a piece of bragging. I thought it was in earnest. ' 
 
 By MrYouNO — He did boast of being successful in 
 getting ladies attached to him ; but the same subject was 
 not always spoken of. He said ' he^ did not know very 
 well what he would do if he W'as jUfced, and he said some- 
 thing to the eifeot he would revenge on them in spme 
 shape or othel-. He was occasionally 'Very irritable in 
 his disposition, and on some occasions he sat quite dull 
 without ' speaking, and then he got up all at once in an 
 excited state ; that was when speaking of any particular 
 subijfect, such as females. His manner ahd disposition 
 had more of the temperament of the French, Italians, or 
 Spaniards. 
 
 William Ogilvie, examined by Mr Yowsa—l am an 
 assistant-teller in the Dundee Bank. In 1852 I v.'as 
 secretary to the Floral and Horticultural Society in 
 Dundee. Numbers of the meetings of the Society were 
 held in Laird's back-shop.' In this way I became 
 acciuh,inted with L'Angelier. We became very intimate, 
 and we frequently conversed together. He was variable 
 in his spirits— very remarkably so. His general subject 
 
179 
 
 of conversation was ladies. He seemed sometimes vab 
 Of his success with ladies. He talked of ladies always 
 looking at hitu in passing along the street, and that he 
 had considerable success in getting acquainted with ladies. 
 He spoke of falling in love with them. On one occasion 
 I heard him say what he would do if he met with a 
 disappointment. He was standing speaking in the shop 
 about some sweathearts,' and. he said he would think 
 nothing of taking up a large knife which Laird used for 
 cutting twine, and putting it into him, suiting the action 
 to the word. He was not speaking of any real case — 
 he was speaking generally. He seemed to me somewhat 
 excited. He spoke to me about having been in France, 
 and about travelling there. He did not mention at what 
 time he had been there. He said he was travelling, as I 
 understood, witli some person of distinction. He said he 
 had, got charge of ail their luggage, carriages, and horses- 
 and everything in fact. 
 
 The Lord Justioe-Clerk — As a courier. 
 
 "Witness-T-He did not say that. He seemed to have a 
 general superintendence. 
 
 Examination continued by Mr Young — He said the 
 horses were very much knocked up, and that he had' 
 given them arsenic. ; He was speaking in English 
 at that time. I was not acquainted with the 
 effects of arsenic, and when he mentioned the 
 circumstance I was interested in it and asked him 
 about it. He said he gave it to them to make them 
 accomplish the journey. I asked what effect this had. 
 He said it made them long^wiuded, and thus made them 
 able to accomplish a feat. I said, was he not afraid of 
 poisoning them ; and he said. Oh no. So far from doing 
 that,; he, had .taken it himself. I told him, I , should 
 not : like to .try it, and he seemed to say he had 
 not felt any bad effects from it ; that there had been 
 no danger, or expressions to that effect. He mentioned; 
 another effect of arsenic, which was that it improved 
 the conjplexion. I infeiTed from his remarks that he 
 took it for that ipurpose. He did not exactly say so, hut 
 I understood that was one of the reasons why he took it. 
 He also said that he complained of pains in his back, and 
 
, 180 
 
 had a little difficulty in breathing, and he said it had a 
 good effect in that way. I am not sure he ever showed 
 me arsenic. I rather think he did on that occasion — 
 that he opened his desk, and showed me a paper 
 containing something white ; but he either showed it 
 to me or said he had it. At the same time, he 
 showed me a very fine specimen of copper ore. It 
 was that that led to the conversation about arsenic. 
 He said he had got it in travelling, and that 
 led to the conversation about the journey and the 
 arsenic. I have seen him on inore than one occasion eat 
 poppy seeds in large quantities — in handfuls — in the shop. 
 I remarked this the first occasion that I saw him. Some 
 person had come into the shop for it, and when they went 
 away he eat some of it. I expressed surprise, and he 
 said that, so far from being dangerous, it was much better 
 than filberts, and that' he took it in large quantities. He 
 said he had taken the poppy seeds in such quantities that 
 he had got quite giddy with them. He said he had done 
 that when he was in Dickson & Ccl.'s. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Lord Advocate — ^I first 
 becam? acquainted with L'Angelier in the early part of 
 18.52. He talked a good deal of ladies, and what he 
 would do if he were jilted. He did not say he had been 
 jilted. Iheardof his having been jilted, but not from him. 
 We had just one conversation about the arsenic. He did 
 not say in what shape he took it, or in what quantity. 
 He showed me on that occasion a fine piece of copper ore. 
 I had begun a collection of minerals; and he said he had 
 a number of specimens in his lodgings, and that he would 
 bring me a piece of it. It was in that conversation the 
 matter of the arsenic came out. I thought poppy seeds 
 dangerous, because opium is extracted from them. 
 
 By the Lord Justioe-Clbek— I can't say whether he 
 said he had frequently given the horses arsenic or only 
 on one day. I think he spoke of having accomplished a 
 feat by giving it to them on one occasion. I can't say he 
 spoke like a foreigner. I knew he was a foreigner, but 
 he rapoke remarkably good English. I think I only 
 heard him speak French on one occasion. I am quite 
 certain it was arsenic that he spoke of. I am sure he 
 did not use the French word for the common here. 
 
, 181 
 
 David Hill, examined by Mr TouNG— I am a market 
 gardener in Dundee. I was in Mr Laird's employment 
 when L'Angelier was there in 1852. Before L'Angelier 
 came I recollect finding a small jarbel on a Sunday in a 
 wc/od OB the north side of Dundee. I thought it was 
 arsenic. I put it in my pocket and brought it to Dundee 
 and inquired about it. A party to whom I showed it 
 supposed it to be arsenic. I don't reooUect how long this 
 was before L'Angelier came. I spoke to him about it 
 after he came ;' I told him of finding it there, and he told 
 me that was nothing strtage, and that he used it 
 regularly. I don't recollect of anything more passing. 
 He did not say for what purpose he used it regularly. I 
 have been trying to remember, but I oari't. 
 
 By the Loed Advocate — I have been trying to 
 remember since I have been asked about this affair. I 
 was asked about it on Saturday last. I told it to Mr 
 Laird, my late master, and Captain Miller of Glasgow 
 came to me. Pe was the Superintendent of Police at 
 Glasgow, and he is now a messenger-at-arms. No one 
 was with m'e when I spoke to L'Angelier about this ; we 
 were passing along the top of Union Street ,■ no one heard 
 what passed between us- He said'he used it regularly; 
 I did not inquire, and he did not say in what way. 
 
 By Mr YouNO— I was cited as a- witness on Monday, 
 last week ; I have been thinking about at since I was ^ 
 cited. I was examined again about it on Saturday. I 
 heard' of L'Angelier's dektb when it occurred ; that did 
 not'recall the circumstance to my recollection ; it did not 
 conieintomy mind soon after ; I don't recollect when it 
 came to my recollection ; ibut it was before last Saturday.- 
 
 The Lord Justioe-Cleek — If yow did not recollect 
 this conversation when you heard of L'Ahgelier's death-, 
 what brought the conversation to your mind ? 
 
 "Witness — I did not recollect first about this at all. 
 
 TheLoED Justioe-Cleek— "What brought it to your 
 recollection ? 
 
 "Witness — I don't recollect what it was.' 
 
 The Loed Justioe-Cleek — ^Was it any conversation of 
 others in Dundee that made you recoUect this about 
 arsenic ? 
 
182 
 
 ■Witness— No, sir. 
 
 The LoKD Justioe-Cleek— "What was it tllBn that 
 brought it to,y9utreooUectioni? 
 
 Vitijesstpl can't answer that question ; it came to my 
 mind, ^d then I recoll^otad it. 
 
 Thg LOED ADVOCVTB-rDid you reoolleot' it before Mr 
 MiHer spoke to you ? 
 
 Witness — Yes, sir. 
 
 Ed/ward Mctpkie, examined by Mr Young — I am » 
 merchast.in Dublin. , I was in the habit of visiting Edin- 
 burgh in the course of my business, I occasionally risited 
 tha Rainbow. I got acquainted with L'Angelier there. 
 I was intihiatejy acquainted with Mr Baker, who kept 
 the tavern. , I first became acquainted with fAngeljer 
 In 1846 ; and I continued to see. him at the Rainbow to a 
 day or so previous to his going to, Dundee. I had several 
 conversations with. him. I saw quite enough of him to 
 enable toe to form an opinion of. his character and 
 disposition. 1 formed anything but a good opinion of him . 
 I considered .him a vain, lying fellow. He was very 
 boastful of his personal appearance, and parties admiring 
 him^adies .partieularly. He boasted of his high 
 acquaintances repeatedly, and the; high society he had 
 moved in ; that was when he returned from the Continent, 
 when he became more or less of a man ; he was quite a 
 lad when I first saw him. He . mentioned several titled 
 people whom he had known, but not b6lieving anything 
 he was saying at the time, I did not store up any of their 
 titles. Shortly before he went to Dundee I met him one 
 evening in Princes' Street Gardens; I could not say the 
 date, but ha went to Dundee the following day. He was 
 sitting in the .Garden ; I came on him accidentally ; te 
 had his head, in his cambric pockethandkerchief, and I 
 put my hand on him and said " L'Angelier." He held , 
 up his head, and . I perceived he had been, crying j 
 his eyes had the appearance of much weeping. 
 He imentionea that a lady in Eifeshire had slighted 
 him ; but I made light of the matter. He made a 
 long complaint about her family ; he was much excited. 
 He said ladies admired him very often. X remember on 
 
183 
 
 one Qccasipn psirticaUi-ly, he came in when I was reading 
 the papers in the Rainbow ; he told me he met a lady in 
 Princes' Street with another lady, and she had remarked 
 what pretty feet he had had. I had said he was a rather 
 pretty little person, and he had gone out and concocted 
 the story that she had said she admired his f eet, they 
 were so pretty. I never believed anything he said after- 
 wards. 
 
 The, LOKD Jusiice-Clerk — Am I to understand you to 
 say that he heard the lady say what pretty feet he had ? 
 
 Witness — Yes. 
 
 By, Mr YouNO— It v/as a common thing for him to 
 speak of ladies admiring him on the street. 
 
 By the ,LoBD Advocate— I live in Dublin. I haye a 
 counting-house in Dublin, at the lower quay. To a 
 certain extent I believed the story about the Fife lady. 
 I believed there was a lady there, and that he was after 
 her, for I had seen him weep about it. 
 
 The LoKD Advocate — You believed it when you saw 
 him weep ? 
 
 Vyitness — I beliayed there was a something. 
 
 Janet Chrwtic, examined by Ktr Young — Some years 
 ago 1 was acquainted with a Mrs Craig, in St George's 
 £oad, Glasgow. She had a son in Huggi&s ifc Oo.'s 
 employment. I visitecl at her house. I have occasionally 
 met L'Angelier there. I remember on one occasion 
 hearing him say that the French ladies used arsenic to 
 improve their complexions. This was about four years 
 ago. 
 
 By the Lokd Advocate — I can't recollect on what 
 occasion this was. I have not the slightest recollection 
 if it was at a dinner party or an evening party, or who 
 was present. 
 
 By the Lord Justice-Clerk — I thought he was rather 
 a forward man, and full of pretension. 
 
 Alexander Miller, examined by the Deak of Faculty 
 — I am i^ the employment of Hugging & Co., ani I was 
 acquainted with the late M. L'Angelier. He waS there 
 before me. I remember him telling me several times that 
 
184 
 
 he was going to be married ; about nine months before 
 his death he tpld me he intended being married at a 
 certain time, and at other times he told me he was to be 
 married by a certain date ; these dates passed ; in 
 February, however, he told me he was to be married, 
 and I said that this would pass like the other dates, 'but 
 he affirmed it would not, and that it would take place in 
 about three months. He told mewho the lady was. This 
 wasih' the beginning of February. He looked very sensitiye ; 
 he was easily depressed and as, easily uplifted. ' I don't 
 recollect him talking to me of suicide. On one occasion 
 he said he wished he was dead. He once said he did 
 not consider that there was any sin in a person taking 
 away their own life to get out of the world, being tired 
 of it — having lost all happiness, was his expression. I 
 objected to that, and said that as our life was not our 
 own we had no right to do what we chose with it. He 
 did not acknowledge, so far as I recollect, having 
 abandoned his opinion. When he said he wished 
 he was dead, I had commenced to say something 
 to him when a party came into the room and 
 the subject dropped. I intended to remonstrate 
 with him. He seemed to be talking nonsense ; I 
 said, you certainly don't think what you say, and 
 he said he did. I then said, " Then you don't 
 mean it," and he said he did. Then I was going to 
 remonstrate with him, when some one came into the 
 room. He seemed seriou^. He complained several 
 times of having diarrhoea,, and, about the middle of 
 February, about having an affection of the stomach and 
 bowels ; his eyes were watering very much. But I 
 thought that was from the effect of cold. He had 
 complained of attacks of diarrhoea on several occasions 
 before that. Alinost since I saw him he complaiiied of 
 that, but more latterly. ' I went to Hoggins' in Septem- 
 ber 1853, and I. became acquainted with him there. 
 He appeared to receive a great many letters. I knew he 
 had letters from some one, but not till the beginiiing of 
 February did I know who they were from. He had 
 several other female corresppndents. 
 By the Souoitob-Gbnbral — ~We had the impression 
 
185 
 
 that he was a young man of very regular habits. He 
 ■was a worthy young man. The occasion in February to 
 which I have alluded, when his eyes were suffused, was, 
 I think, about the 13th. About the 19th or 20th he 
 complained again. That was in the warehouse. He 
 came in at one o'clock. He had not been there that day 
 before. He came late. There was a sort of " blayish" 
 appearance round the eyes, and there was a small red 
 spot on his cheek. I asked what was wrong with him, 
 and he said he was nearly dead last night. I then asked 
 what had been the matter with him, and he said he 
 had been rolling on the floor all night, and that 
 he was so weak he could' not call for assistance. 
 He said he was so sick that he was like to vomit his 
 inside out ; I asked what he had vomited, and he said it 
 was something yellow aiid of a very bitter taste ; I 
 suggested It might be bile, and he said his landlady had 
 suggested the same. At from four to six o'clock in the 
 morning he said he had called for his landlady and asked 
 for a cup of tea. I believe it was on the 19th or 20th he 
 told me this ; he said he was very much pained in his 
 bowels and stomach. He felt very weak when speaking 
 to me. He did not say it he had been anywhere the, 
 night before. He was not regularly in the ofllce after 
 that ; he was almost entirely absent ^fter that from 
 illness. 
 
 Agnes M'Millan^ examined by Mr YoyNQ— I was at 
 one time in Mr Smith's service as tablemaid. I was 
 there for a year. It is three years previous to last May 
 since I left. Miss Madehne Smith was at home when I 
 was there. The second daughter, Elizabeth, left home 
 to go to school near London whUe I was in the house. I ' 
 understood Miss Smith had returned from the same 
 scbool some .time before. On one occasion she spoke to 
 me about arsenic. I can't remember what brought on 
 the conversation, but I perfectly remember her saying 
 that she. believed arsenic wa^ used for the complexion, or 
 that 'it was good for the complexion— I don't recollect 
 which. I can't tell anything more about it. 
 
186 
 
 James (Hrdwood, examined "by Mr Young — I am a 
 suTgeoji in Falkirk,. s^nd I.baTe been in practice for about 
 forty years., I liave , Been frequently, since the publica- 
 tion of ,an article in Chambers's Journal, been asked by 
 females as to tlie use of ^r^^nic as a.cosmetfc. That is 
 aboijil, two years ago. 
 
 By the LoBD Advocate —Many of my friends consulted 
 me, and I told tligm it 'would be highl^y injurious, and 
 ought not to be taken. 
 
 John Mobertson, examined bj Mr YoCNO — I am. a 
 druggist in Queen S'reeli, Grlasgow. I. remember, some 
 time, ago, pf an , application b(sing made inmy .shop for 
 ar.sentc by a man-seryant. That was in the beginning of 
 last May. A young man came in, from seventeen to 
 nineteen years of age, and asked for Gd. ijrorth or Is. 
 worth of arsenic, I asked him for what purpose it was 
 to be used. He said it was for a lady who was waiting 
 outsidp, I asked for what purpose, and he stated that 
 she was going to use it for her complexion. I did not 
 see any lady waiting outside. I did not give it. , 
 
 The ioRD Justioe-Clekk— This is very loose ; it is 
 after universal rumours were circulated about this case. 
 
 The IjOKD Adtooate (to the witness) — You did not 
 ask his name ? 
 
 Witness^— Ko. 
 
 Peter Quthrie, examined by the Dean — I am the 
 manager of Fraser &, Green's establishment in Sauchie- 
 hall Street. Ve Sell arsenic among otfter things. I 
 remember a lady coming to our shop and asking about 
 the particular use of arsenic. That was in the beginning 
 of 18'56. She came into the shop alone, and produced a 
 number of Bla,clcwooWs, Magazine containing an article on 
 the lise of arsenic for improving the complexion, and 
 asked me if t ^ad seen it, 1 said 1 had ; and she asked 
 me to give her arsenic. I declined doing so. She still 
 expressed a strong desire to have it, but I did not give it 
 to her. 
 
 By the Lord Advooaie— I did not know the lady. I 
 had seen her several times before, There was no other 
 
187 
 
 customer in the shop. I mentioned it to Johnston, our 
 senior aesisfent. I could not say if I did so the day'it 
 happened. ' 
 
 William Bolerts, examined by Mr YouNG — I am' a 
 merchant in Glasgow. I became acquainted with 
 L'Angelier about the year 1853, and he once dined with 
 me — on Christmas Day of that year. After dinner lie 
 became very ill ; there were a few friends at dinner. 
 When the ladies retired he got ill, and wished to lea^e 
 the room. I went with him, and left him in the water- 
 closet. I came back to the dining-room, and remained 
 some time. I wondered why he did not come. I opened 
 the dining-room door, and heard a groan as of some 
 person vomiting. 1 went to the closet, and found him 
 vomiting and purging. A good many gentlemen came 
 out of the room and saw him there. I sent for cholera 
 mixture, and gave him a good deal of it. He 
 nearly emptied the bottle. I got very much frightened, 
 as cholera had been in the town shortly before. He 
 remained in the water-closet for a considerable time,' and 
 after a short time one of the gentlemen took him to his 
 lodgings. . He called on ine the next day or the day after 
 to apologise tor his illness. He v/as a (considerable time 
 in the water-closet ; it appeared' to me an hour or 
 upwards, nearer two indeed. ' 
 
 By the LoKD Advocate— I knew L'Angelier pretty 
 well ; I always thought him a very nice little fellow ; he 
 sat in the church three years ; at that time I would not 
 have hesitated to believe his word. 
 
 By the Lokd Jusiice-Clbbk— I had occasion to change 
 , my opinion of him. 
 
 The Lord Justice-Clbbk — Why 1 ' 
 
 "Witness— I have been told since this trial was talked 
 of^ 
 
 The Lom JusTiOE-CLdbK— But you don't know from 
 your own observation. 
 
 "Witness^^No. ' ■ '■ ■ ■ '■ i 
 
 Charles Baird, examined by Mr Young— I am eon of 
 the late SJr Eobert Baird, Glasgow. I have an uncle in 
 
188 
 
 Huggins & Co.'s warehouse. Through him I became 
 acquainted with L'Angeller ; I should say about two 
 years ago. After that I frequently met with him, and 
 *ent to his lodgings,, sometimes. I remember on one 
 occasion finding him very unwell in his lodgings. , He 
 was then living in Franklin Place with Mrs Jenkins. I 
 think the occasion to which I refer was either in the 
 last fortnight of September or the first fortnight , of 
 October 1858. I went to Spain immediately after that, 
 and it was just before I lef j;. When I went up in the 
 evening, he saidjie had returned straight from the o^o^ ; 
 he ordered some tea; he took very ill suddenly, and 
 put his ,hand on his stomach, and, as it were, 
 doubled himself up ; he lay down on the sofa 
 screaming with pain. This continued for about a quarter 
 of an hour. I advised him to send for a medic^ man, 
 and I believe he did so. He was going to bed when I left. 
 It was about ten o'clock when I went, and about eleven 
 when I left. I saw him on the following day between 
 nine and ten in the morning. I asked,hiin how he was, 
 and he said he had had a very bad night of it ; that he 
 had seint for a medical man — I .believe a Dr Steveii, who 
 had been employed by him before. lMre;me|m,bps,,tbe 
 name Stevea distinctly. He said he had, vomited a great 
 deal during the night, Jje has been in my mother's 
 house — never at a party. . He never met Miss Smith jihere 
 to my knowledge, . ,, j, , ,; ,, 
 
 By the LoBD Jcstice-Cleek — My family knew the 
 panel. 
 
 By the Lobd Advocate — Mrs Jenkins was with 
 L'Angelier on the occasion he was so ill. He said Dr 
 Steven had seen him that evening after I left. I could 
 not say Mrs Jenkins was present when he told me so. 
 
 By the Dean — I remember this because it was before 
 I went to Spain. *I went there on 6th November. 
 
 By Lord Handtside— I ireturned on the 5th April. 
 
 EdbeH Baird, examined bg the Dean — I am brother 
 of the last witness. I was acquainted with L'Angelier. 
 I can't say when I became acquainted with him; it is 
 t)ot less than two years, I recollect him asking me to 
 
189 
 
 introduce him to Miss Smith. I cannot say how long ago 
 that is ; I think it is about two years ago. He asked me 
 several times to introduce him, and he seemed very 
 pressing about it.. I Tjelieve 1 asked a gentleman to 
 introduce them, thinking it Would be better to come from 
 him than frofn me, but he declined. It was my uncle 
 that I asked.' I' think I then asked my mother to ask 
 Miss Smith some evening, that I might ask L'Angelier, and 
 introduce him. She declined to do so. They certainly 
 never met in my mother's house. I intrbduced th'em on 
 the street. L'Angelier did not ask me to introduce him 
 to Miss Smith's fatber, but he expressed an anxiety or 
 determination to be introduced to him. "When I intro- 
 duced him to Miss Smith her sister was with her. I am 
 nineteen years of age. 
 
 By the Solioitoe-Genekal— L'Angelier asked me to 
 go T^ith him once to liow, and I understood his purpose 
 was to go and see Miss Smith. He might have said he 
 wished to call at Rowaleyn, but I don't recollect. He 
 frequently expressed a desire to be introduced to her 
 father. I have been in her father's house. 
 
 Elizabeth Wallace, examined by Mr ToUNG — I keep 
 lodgers in Glasgow, and have done so for a pumber of 
 years. M. L'Angelier lodged with me for some time 
 when he first came to Glasgow ; he came in the end of 
 July 1852 and remained tiU the middle of December 
 1853-. He told me he had come to be in some mercantile 
 office; he said he had been a lieutenant in the navy 
 at one time. I don't know whether he meant the British 
 or French navy. I understood it to be the British navy. 
 He did not say he had sold his commission. He spoke of 
 having lived in Edinburgh before he came to me. He 
 did not say anything of being in a situatioii in Edinburgh . 
 he said he had been long out of a situation. ' He said 
 nothing about having beeh in Dundee. He told me he 
 had been frequently in Fife ; he mentioned that he knew 
 some families there. 
 
 Mr Young— The Balcarres family? 
 
 "Witness — I asked if he knew, that family, and he s^id 
 he did, or that he had heard of them, ' 
 
190 
 
 By the LoED Advocate— He was a well-conducted 
 young man. He kept goodjiours ; he kept no company. 
 One day tjiat he came in, he said he had met an cjli 
 sweetheart going on her marrjage jaunt. He had a great 
 aversion to medicine, and I never knew him take it. , He 
 was very cheerful. He played the guitar in the evenings, 
 and sang occasionally. 
 
 Colonel FfaBer, examined by Mr Yotma— I rg^ide at 
 Portobel^o., I was not , acquaintefi wjt^i the late M. 
 L'Angelier, , I never saw him, in my life, to mykno,w- 
 ledge. He never was in my house. Bind never dined with 
 , me. At the time of his death I received a, note from 
 Mr (^eorge M'Call mentioning the fact of, his (Jeathj^ He 
 mentioned him as a mutual friend ; but I was very much 
 surprised at it, never Jfaving seen M. ii^\jigelier or l^Ir 
 M'Call. There is no other Qolonel, Eraser iti PortobeUo. 
 
 By the LOED Advooatb — There is a Captain Fraser, 
 R.N. 
 
 Dr Charles AdamXf^ examined by Mr Toukg — I axa. an 
 Ml.D. at Coatbridge. I keep a druggist's shop there. 
 On Sunday afternoon, 22d March, I was in my shpp, , I 
 remember a gentleman coming into the shpp that.,after< 
 noon. He asked at first twenty-five drops of laudanum, 
 which I gave him. After he got the laudanum he asked 
 for a bottle of soda water. I, said we had no soda jfater, 
 but I would give him a soda powder, whidi 1 did. He 
 took it. This was about halt-past five o'clock. I took 
 him to be a military man ; there were several about 
 Drumpeller at the time. He wore a mustache. [Shown 
 photograph of L'Angelier.] This has a resemblance to the 
 person, but I could not be quite certain it is the same; it 
 is like the gentleinan. My shop was dark at the tjme^ so I 
 could scarcely observe, because we don't take olf the 
 shutters on Sunday. "We get the light in by the glass-door. 
 I suppose that he had on a dark brownish coat and a 
 Balmoral bonnet. [Shown bonnet.] The honnet was 
 like this. I remember seeing a handkercliief sticking out 
 of his outside breast-pocket. 
 
 By the Lom ADVOOATE^TsrHe came in ap if he had left 
 
191 
 
 off speaking to some one at the door, but I did not observe 
 any one. I am very seldom in the shop on the Sunday 
 afternoon. A girl came into the shop after he had been 
 in— while he was there. It must have been" some 
 trifling thing she wanted— 1 think castor oil. I don't 
 know who she was. I have seen military gentlemen 
 frequently there. 
 
 The LoED Advooatb — Can you swear that that picture 
 is not one of them ? 
 
 Witness — I am not certain. 
 
 The Lord Advocate— Is it like any of the military 
 men that you have seen ? 
 
 Witness — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 The Loud Advocate— When did you first mention 
 this fact ? 
 
 Witness — Three or four weeks ago. 
 
 The Lord Adv&oate- Who was it to? 
 
 Witness— To Mr Miller. 
 
 The Lord Advocate — Was he the first person you 
 mentioned it to ? 
 
 Witness — He was. 
 
 The Lord Advocate — Yqu'saw Mr "Miller the first 
 time two or three weeks ago ? 
 
 Witness — Yea. , . 
 
 The Lord Advocate— When you first saw him did 
 you tell him this ? ' ' 
 
 Witness — Yes. 
 
 The Lord Advocate — Did you tell him that the man 
 got laudanum the first time you saw him? ■" 
 
 Witness — Ko, 1 told him he had got cigars. I knew, 
 he had got acme other thing besides the powder. 
 
 The Lord Advocate — You recollected that afterwards? 
 
 Witness — Yes, and I wrote Mr Miller to that effect. 
 
 The Lord Advocate— Tell me what made Mr Miller 
 come to you ? 
 
 Witness — I did not know his object. 
 
 The Lord Advocate — What questions did he pat 
 when he, first came ? 
 
 The Lord Justice-Clerk- I suppose .this is Heni;y 
 Miller who was formerly in Glasgow, and afterwards in 
 Xlverpool. He goes about as a messenger, 
 
192 
 
 Tlie Lord Advocate— 'S'ou say you did not tell Millet 
 the first time you had given him laudanum. "Was any- 
 thing said about arsenic ? 
 
 "Witness^ Yes, he inquired if I had, given arsenic. 
 
 The Lord Advocate — ^And you found you had not ? 
 
 Witness— I had not. 
 
 The LOKD Advocate — Were you asked to recollect 
 anything ? 
 
 Witness— Yes ; I was asked to recollect if a person had 
 called that Sunday, and got any medicine at all. 
 
 The Lord Advocate— On that occasion did you recol- 
 lect that he had got any other medicine ? 
 
 Witness — Kot for a few minutes ; but I did on that 
 occasion. . 
 
 Tl>e Lord Advocate— You did not recollect the 
 laudanum on that occasion. Did you afterwards ? 
 
 Witness — Yes. 
 
 The ioRD Jcstice-Clekk^Is that laudanum entered 
 ■ in your book ? 
 
 Witness — We never, enter it. 
 
 The toRD Justioe-Cleek — Why not? 
 
 Witness — It is not required. 
 
 The Lord Justice-Clerk — I don't mean in your register. 
 
 Witness^We never put it down in any book. 
 
 By Mr Young — ^We only enter in our books the sales 
 of arsenic. It is not the practice to do so in any other 
 druggist's shop with which I am acquainted. I was not 
 preoognosoed on the other side here. I was examined by 
 the Procurator-Kscal on Thursday last. I was not 
 examined in any different way by Mr Miller from what I 
 was by the Procurator-Fiscal on Saturday. 
 
 By the LORD Advocate — My shop is about 600 or 700 
 yards" to the west of the inn, in the Glasgow direction. 
 
 The Lord Justice-Clerk — It might be a resemblance 
 of any of th^ mustached gentlemen, that walk about 
 the streets'. What is peculiar about it ? Have you any 
 feeling of assurance in your mind that that is the man 
 yon saw in your shop ? • 
 
 Witness— No ; I oo^ld not be certain. 
 The Lord Justice-Clerk — Have you any assurance at 
 all in your own mind ? 
 
Missing Page 
 
194 
 
 seen a portrait. When I came here I was shown a 
 photograph. [Shown photograph.] This is extremely 
 like the person. who called at my shop. I think he had 
 a white pookethandkerohief in the outside breast-pocket 
 of his coat. 
 
 By the Solicitob-Genekal — I fa on the end of March 
 because one or two Sundays about that ■ time I was at 
 home ; on others I was out visiting. It might have been 
 in April. I don't think it could have been in the 
 beginning of March. I cannot say distinctly as to the 
 time ; as to the Sunday I can't say distinctly. I was 
 asked by the Procurator-Fiscal about the time, and I 
 said it was from two and a-half to three months ago. I 
 think his coat was of a darki^ colour, but I eould not 
 say. There was no person wiffi him in my place. I did 
 not see him in the street. I did not see if any one was 
 with him. It struck me that he spoke in a slightly 
 foreign accent. 
 
 By Mr YoDNO— My shop is off the high road ; it is 200 
 or 300 yards off it. _ > 
 
 By the Lord Justioe-ClEeei — If a person wanted 
 medicine on the road he would require to come to my j 
 shop; thereris no other medical man there-^the mightl 
 have left a companion on the high road andireturned to^ 
 him. He took the laudanum. -.'A '[ 
 
 Dr Adams was recalled and asked by the LoBD 
 JusTiOE-CLERK^Did this person complain of anything ? 
 
 "Witness — T^o, my Lord. 
 
 . The LoKD Jdstiob-Clekk — Did he' swallow the 
 laudanum. 
 
 Witness — Yes. 
 
 The Lord Jdstioe-Gleek — Did you not askihim what 
 he wanted it for ? 
 
 Witness — "So, TD.y Lord. 
 
 ' Mrs Kirk, examined by Mr Young— I am a 
 of Dr Kirk, who keeps a druggist's shop in the 
 Gallowgate, Glasgow. It is on the north side. I 
 know Abercromby Street. It is west of that 
 Btreet. I remember a gentleman coming into the shop 
 
195 
 
 on a Sunday night some time ago ; I can't lemember the 
 date ; I think it was in March, but I oap't say what day 
 of the monthj I think it was about the end of the month. 
 It was a little before or after eight o'clock. He wanted 
 medicine ; I don't lemember what medicine. He got it, 
 but he did not take it at the counter. He took it away 
 with him. I think it was a powder that he got, but I 
 can't say what. I served him. I can't well describe 
 hun. He was a young man about .thirty.^, He was 
 not a tall man — ^rather to the little side. He was 
 not very thin. He had a fresh and rather fair 
 complexion. He wore a mustache. He had on a 
 Glengarry bannet, but for the. rest of his dress I could 
 not say what it was. (Shown photograph.) It is as like 
 him as anything I have ever seen ; it is as good a like- 
 ness as I have seen. I was struck by his appearance at 
 the time, and I noticed it particularly. He paid for the 
 medicine. - He took the money from a little purse. 
 (Shown ilo. 1 of second inventory.) This is the purse. 
 
 By the LoBD Advocate— I think this happened in 
 March. The gentleman was alone. He was about 
 five minutes in the shof>. ' I think that is the 
 purse,. I c^n't remember what the medicine was. V 
 did not enter it in any book. J did not enter the 
 money in any book. "We don't enter the money got over 
 the counter,. There was nobody else in the shop selling 
 anything ; there was a woman in ; I don't know who she 
 was. I was asked if a gentleman had called buying 
 medicine. I had not said there was anybody buying 
 medicine before I was asked. I was asked about a fortnight 
 or three weeks ago. 
 
 By Mr TouNG— There was a woman in the shop at 
 the time ; she spoke of the appearance of the gentleman 
 at the time. The remark was about his dress. She 
 spoke of the hair about the' lower part of his face — his 
 beard',. That was after he went out. He did not appear 
 to be a foreign gentleman — such as I have seen. 
 
 Bohert Morrison examined by Mr Young — I am in 
 the employment of W. &, E. Chambers, publishers and 
 editors of Chamber!?! Jownal. [Shown four numbers of 
 62 
 
196 
 
 Chamher^s Journal.'] These were published in the usual 
 way of the dates they bear. The present circulation is 
 about 50,000. The first of these numbers is December 
 1851 ; the second is June 11, 1853 ; the third, January 9, 
 1856 ; and the foui-th, July 19, 1856. There is an article 
 in each of these numbers on the use of arsenic. I am 
 not aware that they excited a considerable sensation. 
 
 George Simpson, examined by Mr Young — I am in the 
 employment of "W. Blackwood & Sons. [Shown Black- 
 wood's Magazine fpr December 1853.] Tliis was pub- 
 lished by us. The circulation then was about 7000. 
 Messrs Blackwood were also the publishers of the 
 " Chemistry of Common Life," by Professor Johnston. 
 It was published in 1855, but it had before been 
 publi^ed in numbers, which had a very large circu- 
 lation, varying from 5000 to 30,000. The circulation of 
 the separate volumes I suppose has been about 10,000. 
 In Chapter 23d, " The Poisons we Select," the first part 
 is entitled " The Consumption of White Arsenic." The 
 number containing that article sold to the extent of 5000, 
 and the sale altogether to the present time of that number 
 and the volumes is about 16,000. There was a larger 
 sale of the first volume than of the second. 
 
 The Dean of Paculty then put in two letters; the 
 envelope. of the 1st dated "September 18, 1855," and 
 read the letter as follows :— 
 
 Beloved Emile,— I have just received your note. I shall 
 meet you. I do not care though I bring disgrace upon 
 myself. To see yon I would do anything. Emile, you shall 
 yet be happy— you deserve it. You are young ; you who 
 ought to desire life wishing to end it ! Oh, for the sake of 
 your once loved Mimi, desire to live and succeed in this iif« 
 Every one must meet with disappointment. I have suffered 
 from disappointment. I long to see you and to speak to 
 yon. 
 
 The second letter bore the postmark " October 19, 1855," 
 and was as follows : — 
 
 Beloved Emile,— Your kind letter I received this 
 morning. Emile, yon are wrong in thinking I love you for 
 your appearanoer I did and do admire you, but it wai for 
 
197 
 
 yourself alone that I loved you. I can give you no other 
 reason, for I have got no other. If you had been a young 
 nun of some Glasgow family, I have no doubt there would 
 be no objection to you. But because you are unknown to 
 him he has rejected you. Dear Emilo, explain this sentence 
 in your note — " Before long I shall rid you and all the world 
 of my presence." God forbid that you ever do. My last 
 letter was nottllled with ijish promises. No ; these promises 
 written in my last letter shall be kept— must be keplx Not 
 a moment passes but I think of you. 
 
 All extract from a third letter, not dated, was read as 
 follows : — ' 
 
 I am almost well to-day, if the weather would only get 
 warm. I have lost my appetite entirely. It is just auxiety 
 ■and sadness that is the matter with me, hut I am better 
 to-night. Darling, if I were with you. I have laughed at 
 the recollection of a conversation of yours. What queeV 
 creatures you must think young ladies at school. For a 
 moment, do you think their conversations are what you said j 
 Believe me, I never heard a youug lady while I was at 
 school, nearly three years, speak of the subject you men- 
 tioned. But perhaps it was dilferent with me when at 
 school. I had always a bed-room at school, and I waa a 
 parlour boarder. Do you really think they are so bad ? 
 Some may, but not all. 
 
 Dr M, PcUenon,, examined by the Dean — I am a 
 physician in Leith, and have practised there Jor several 
 years. I have seen several cases of suicidal poisoning by 
 arsenic. Tliey were cliiefly young females connected 
 with mills and colour-works; in many cases they had 
 obtained the arsenic about the works ; in others 
 it was purchased.' I was called in to prescribe for 
 them while suffering from the effects of the poison. 
 I saw seven oases in all. They all died, with one 
 exception. I used all the remedies I could think 
 of. In the six oases they submitted to medical 
 treatment without attempting any hindrance. Not one 
 of them disclosed before death that they had taken 
 poison. I asked several whether they had taken arsenic 
 or some other poison, but they all denied it. They sub- 
 mitted to medical treatment like any other patient. The 
 ■erenth cas« wm a recovery. That person did not admit 
 
198 • I 
 
 at first that slje had taken poison. After she had almost 
 recovered from the secondary effects of it she admitted it. 
 She was then aware that she was recovering. In pre- 
 vious stages of her illness she was sullen and morose, and 
 would not speak. Arsenic is used to a large extent in 
 these colour manufactories, and, was used to a larger 
 extent at that time. These cases occurred several years 
 ago. The people about the works had great facility in 
 taking away araenio. 
 
 By tile LoBD Advocate — They were not all about the 
 same time. These seven cases occurred in the space of 
 about eighteen years. The symptoms were nearly similar 
 in all.;. They were oharaoteristio of poison by arsenic. 
 They vomited matter of various colours, depending on 
 what had Veen previously , taken. - The sickness and 
 vomiting ceased in some cases an hour or two .before 
 death, but in most Instances continued till death. They 
 were all known cases ofr suicide. I can't say if any of , 
 them asked for a medical man to see them. I had no 
 precise, means of ascertaining what time elapsed between 
 taking, the poison and, , , the commencement of the 
 symptoms. Death resulted in thirty-six hours, and one 
 in twelve hours, from the commencement of the 
 symptoms. > ' 
 
 BythS LOBD Justiob-Cleek— In casesof suicide the 
 early symptoms are not seen. 
 
 Jolm Fleming, examined by Mr Young — ^I am store- 
 keeper to Todd & Higginbotham, printers 'and dyers in 
 Glasgow. I have been 50 for eleven years; I take charge 
 of the whole chemical substances used in their printing 
 and dyeing operations. Arsenic is one of the substances 
 used in large quantities. We, generally get from three 
 to four cwts. at a time. We generally get it from 
 Charles Tennent & Co. in its. pure white state. It is 
 used by us for mixing with other substances in making 
 colour. It is put in barrels. The arsenic barrels 
 are put' into the store among the other things, quite 
 open. W'hen any of it is taken out of the harrel 
 the lid is loosely laid on again. Three uien and a boy , 
 work in the store with me ; their duty is to weigh out the 
 
199 
 
 different substances as they are wanted by the colour- 
 makers. From eighty to ninety lb. are generally given 
 to the oolourmakers at a time. They get that quajitity 
 several times a month. No person gets into the store 
 except those engaged in it. It is taken from the store to 
 the colourmalcers in open wooden pails. I can't say how 
 many workmen are employed about the works. I would 
 not miss three or four ounces of arsenic if it were taken 
 away. I would miss more. 
 
 Boiert Townsend, examined by Mr YoTJUG — ^I am 
 manager to my brother, Mr Townsend, manufacturing 
 chferaist in Glasgow. He deals largely in arsenic, and we 
 have always large quantities at a time in the premisps ; 
 we have from one to ten tons at a time ; it is kept in a 
 private ofSoe in the counting-house. During the night it 
 ialocked up, not during the day. It stands in casks, as 
 meal does in a meal shop. One cask only is kept open 
 for use. "We employ from 100 to 140 people. I have 
 no doubt they might take arsenic away if so inclined. 
 
 By the Lord Advocate— I have never known it taken 
 away. 
 
 Janet Smith examiueJ by the De.vn of FAOUiTT — I am 
 a sister of Madeline Smith. I am tliirteen years of age. 
 I Was living in my father's house in Blyfchswood Square 
 last winter and spring. I slept down stairs in, the same 
 bed with Madeline. I generally wont to bed before her. 
 We both went at the same time on, Sunday; that was 
 generally the way on Sunday. I remember Sunday the 
 22(1 March ; we went to bed at the same time that night. 
 I am quite sure of- that. "We went to bed at half -past 
 ten, or after that. "We went down stairs together from 
 the dining-room. I don't remember which was in bed 
 first. "We were both undressing at the same time, and 
 we both {!t)t into bed nearly about the same time. "Wo 
 usually take about half-an-hour to undress ; we were in 
 no particular hurry that night in undressing. My sister 
 was in bed with me before I was asleep. I am quite sure 
 of that. She was undressed as usual, and in her night- 
 clothes. I don't know which of us fell asleep first. It 
 
200 
 
 was not long after we went to bed bfef ore I fell asleep. I 
 don't remember papa making a present of a necklet to my 
 sister lately ; I remember him doing so about a year ago. 
 
 By the LoBD Advocate — I have seen my sister take 
 cocoa. I never saw her make it in her room. She kept 
 it in a paper in her room. We had a fire. We went to 
 bed that night at the same tipie as we usually did on 
 Svinday night. I remember the nioi-ning that Madeline 
 went away. I suppose she had been in bed that night ; 
 I was asleep before she came to bed. She was away when 
 I awoke. 
 
 By the Dean — I have seen my sister taking cocoa in 
 the dining-room. I don't know that she had been 
 recommended to take it. No other body in 'the house 
 took it. She took it in the dining-room, and kept it in 
 her own room. On the Monday morning the 23d I found 
 my sister in bed when I awoke about eight. 
 
 Sr Laurie, examined by the Dban — I am a physician 
 in Glasgow, and have been in practice for a good many 
 years. I have not made arsenic a particular study, but I 
 have had my attention recently directed to the effect 
 which it would have on the skin if it were mixed in 
 water. I tried it on myself. I put in water a quarter of 
 an ounce of arsenic from Carrie's shop, mixed with 
 indigo, and I washed my hands with it. I also mixed 
 half an ounce of the same arsenic with water, and washed 
 my face quite freely, but I washed my face afterwards 
 with cold water. I found no disagreeable effects 
 from it. I tried the washing of the face on Saturday. 
 I had tried the washing of the hands previously. 
 The effect of the washing on the hands was as if I had 
 used a ball of soap with sand in it ; the effect was not great, 
 but if at all, it had a softening effect. I don't think that 
 increasing the amount of the arsenic would make any 
 difference, on account of its insolubility. I made the 
 experiments in a common-sized hand basin. I recollect 
 treating one case of arsenical poisoning which presented 
 some remarkable peculiarities. The history of the case was 
 this (avoiding names, places, and dates) : — It occurred dur- 
 ing the prevalence of cholera some years ago in the west. I 
 
201 
 
 was asked to see a gentleman about seven or eight in the 
 evening. I found he had been ill from three or four 
 o'clock in the afternoon. I was in the habit of attending 
 his family. I inquired why I had not been sent for sooner, 
 and I was told that the symptoms had not been suffi- 
 ciently clear to caU for my attendance. I found the 
 patient labouring under the premonitory symptoms of 
 cholera. I prescribed for him as for a case of cholera. 
 I then left, and returned about ten o'clock, when I found 
 the symptoms very much aggravated; there was vomiting 
 and purging, and cramp of the limbs. Some points in the 
 case struck me as peculiar — his voice was not ill the least 
 affected, which it usually is in cholera, and almost 
 uniformly in the later stages. The appearance of the 
 matter vomited was also peculiar, in the colour especially, 
 which was of a reddish yellow. In cholera we expect 
 the rice-water discharges. It occurred to me that this 
 might not perhaps be a case of cholera ; I there- 
 fore asked the gentleman if he -had taken anything 
 or had anything given to him. He said he had 
 not taken anything that day excepting his ordinary 
 food ; he said, I think, that lie had taken some 
 chicken soup. The symptoms went on, and it struck me 
 more that it was not a case of cholera. I again asked 
 him it he had taken anything to account for the peculiar 
 symptoms, and he said he had not. I called a medical 
 friend in consultation, and being satisfied that something 
 was wrong, I again put it to the patient, in presence 
 of the other medical man, whether he had taken 
 anything, and he declared solemnly that he had taken 
 notliiilg. The symptoms went on till I became convinced 
 he was dying, and then I put the question to him as a 
 dying man to tell me whether he had taken anything. 
 His answer a short time before he died was that he had 
 taken nothing. He died I think about two in the 
 morning ; and the symptoms had commenced about thr»e 
 or four in the afternoon. The occurrence had nearly passed 
 out of my mind, when next day, about two in the 
 afternoon, I was informed that a gentleman was anxious 
 to see me. X found he was connected with one of the 
 drug establishments in town ; he said, " You attended so- 
 
202 
 
 and-so last night, and he died of cholera." I said I did ; 
 he said, "I think it my duty to tell you that I sold 
 to him about two o'clock on the day he died half an 
 ounce of arsenic." I cautioned him not to meiition 
 the circumstance. I immediately went to the 
 house, got the matter vomited, put it into a 
 bottle, and got it analysed by an eminent chen^ist. 
 He told me next day that he had found a large quantity 
 of arsenic. I then had the body opened, and the stomach 
 tjkken out and given to the same eminent chemist, and he 
 found that it contained a large quantity of arsenic. The 
 quantity was not determined ; the stomach was full of 
 arsenic. That patient received medical treatment very 
 quietly; just as he had done on previous occasions. He 
 took the prescriptions readily. He was living with his 
 relations, I have a large family practice. 
 
 By the Lord Advocate— In making the experiments 
 as to washing my face and hands with arsenic, I filled a 
 basin with a quantity of water, and washed my face and 
 hands. I put in the arsenic without allowing it 
 to subside ; a large part, of course, fell to the 
 bottom, It is a pi'actice I would have no fear in 
 repeating. I don't think one experiment would justify 
 me in saying it is a safe practice. I felt no smarting of 
 the eye, and no unpleasant feelings, and I would have 
 no hesitation in repeating the experiment. If I had a 
 case requiring it, I would have no hesitation in ordering 
 it to be done. I would not advise it to be made a practice 
 of. If there were vermin on the skin, it might require to 
 be done. I would not hesitate to prescribe it for that. I 
 never did prescribe it, but I would have no fear in doing so • 
 Extrerue thirst is an early symptom in cholera, and in 
 poisoning by arsenic. In cholera it is more towards the 
 later stages. ' 
 
 Dr Douglas Maclagan, examined by the Ddak — I am 
 a physician in Edinburgh. I have had some experieilce 
 in cases of poisoning by arsenic, and hava devoted 
 a good deal of - attention to chemistry. From 
 what I know of the properties of arsenic, 1 
 think that so very little of it is dissolved in cold 
 
203 
 
 water, that I could not conceive it would do any harm 
 to wash the face or hands with it. If agitated with 
 cold water, it dissolves one part, I think, in 400. That 
 is so minute a quantity that I don't think it could do harm 
 to the entire skin. If kept long in contact with the skin, 
 it might produce bad effects; but I should think very 
 little effect would be produced on the hands by washing 
 them in cold water in which a quarter or half an ounce 
 , of arsenic was put. Arsenic will dissolve more readily in 
 hot water. The quantity dissolved'by simply putting it 
 in bailing wa^er is not very great. In order to Aake 
 boiling water a sufSoient solvent of arsenic, yon must 
 continue the boiling of the arsonic for a considerable 
 time ; if you want to dissolve a pretty largo quantity of 
 arsenic, you require to boil it violently for half-an-hour. 
 I thinjc a fortieth part is held in solution after the 
 water is cool. I don't recollect how much it retains at the 
 boiling point. As a general rule, the presence of organic 
 matter in a fluid impairs th^ solvent power of arsenic. 
 
 The LOHD JnSTlCE-CLEBK — Does that point to the 
 quality of the Glasgow water ? 
 
 By the Dean — There does not appear to be a great 
 difference in the case of tea or coffee poured on arsenic 
 from what I have stated as to water. They dissolve but 
 a small quantity. I can't say how much cocoa or chocolate 
 will hold in solution, because you cannot filter them so as 
 to determine the quantity. There is a^ great, deal of 
 organic matter in cocoa or chocolate. Suppose a solution 
 of arsenic appUed , to the skin,, it would not have 
 any poisonous effect ; I don't think it would have any 
 effect one way or another. If kept sufficiently long in 
 contact with the skin, or rubbed in, arsenic might prove 
 poisonous. There are eases in which arsenic pintment 
 has proved poisonous. I remember a case of a person 
 named Davidson who took arsenic, and I published an 
 account of that case. She took it by accident. 
 She was not a very ,strqng-minded person ; she was a 
 hysterical and weak creature. She took it thinking it 
 to be an effervescing powder, and. she did not discover 
 what she had taken till she saw a dog pulling about the 
 room a paper on which " Arsenic" was marked. I have 
 
204 
 
 paid attention to the symptoms of arsenical poisoning. 
 In cases of slight quantities ef arsenic being taken, the 
 symptoms very often resemble those of bilious or British 
 choleraic attacks ; in very severe oases of arsenical poison- 
 ing, terminating fataUy, there is a very remarkable 
 resemblance to persons' labouring under malignant or 
 Asiatic cholera. "Witness stated the symptoms of 
 arsenical poisoning. He never saw jaundice as a symptom. 
 Irritation of the throat was a symptom. It does occur 
 in cases of British cholera, but then it is generally 
 caused by muscular soreness from severe vomiting. 
 
 By the LoBD Advosate— It was possible that jaundice 
 might accompany arsenical poisoning ; it was difficult to 
 deny a possibility in regard to physiological action. 
 But in arsenical poisoning there is no jaundice. .Jaundice 
 is the absorption of bile into the blood. The most 
 probable hypothesis is that the absorption of the arsenic 
 stops the seoretioil of the liver as it does that of the 
 kidnies, and then there is no bile secreted, and no jaun- 
 dice. The presence of organic matter interfered with 
 the holding of arsenic in solution, but it might be held in 
 suspension. A viscous fluid would hold more in suspen. 
 sion, and the more viscous the more it would hold. 
 Great thirst was a symptom of poisoning by arsenic. 
 Did not think water in which arsenic had been mixed 
 would produce any effect on a person washing in it, 
 if he kept his mouth and eyes shut, as most people do. 
 Would not recommend the practice. 
 
 By the Dean — I could not say how much arsenic could 
 be held in suspension in a cup of cocoa ; it would depend 
 on the thickness of the cocoa. In this country cocoa is 
 very thin. In Trance -chocolate is as thick as porridge. 
 
 Hugh Mart, examined by the Dean — I am a druggist 
 in Glasgow. The Bridge of Allan is between two and 
 three miles from Stirling. The distance from Alloa to 
 Stirling is seven to eight miles. 
 
 By the LoED Advocate — Coatbridge is eight miles 
 from the Great Western Road, Glasgow. 
 
 This concluded the evidence for the prisoner, a;nd the 
 Court adjourned at a few minutes to five- o'clock, till ten 
 o'clock next morning. 
 
SEVENTH DAY.— Tuesday, July T. 
 
 The Court met again to-day; at ten o'clock. 
 
 The LoBD Advocate then addressed the jury as 
 follows : — Gentlemen of the jury, after an Investigation 
 which for its length has proved unexampled, I believe, 
 in the criminal annals of this country, I have now to 
 discharge perhaps the most painful public duty that ever 
 fell to my lot. I am quite sure, gentlemen, that in the 
 discharge of that dnty I shall meet with that attention 
 which the deep importance of this case requires, and 
 which you have paid to its details from the commence- 
 ment. Gentlemen, it is impossible, whatever impression 
 may have been produced in' your minds — it is impossible 
 that, during this long and protracted trial, in which we 
 have laid before you so many elements, some of them 
 minute elements of proof necessarily to a certain extent 
 disjointed and unconnected — I say whatever moral 
 impression may have have been produced on your minds — 
 and I fear there is little doubt of what that impression 
 must have been — it is impossible that you can have 
 rightly appreciated the full bearing of those details 
 on the proposition which this indictment contains. 
 It is now my duty, as clearly and as fully I can, 
 to draw these details together, and to present to 
 you, if I can, in a connected shape, the links 
 of that chain of evidence which we have been 
 engaged for the last week in constructing. Gentlemen, 
 I could have rejoiced if the result of the inquiry 
 which it was our duty to make, and of the laborious 
 
206 
 
 collection of every element of proof which we oould find, 
 would have justified us on the part of the Crown in 
 resting content with the investigation into the facts, and 
 wjiihdrawing, our clifirge againgji. th^ , prisoner. Gentle- 
 men, I grieve to say that so far is that from being the 
 result to which we come, that if you give me your 
 attention for I fear tj>e somewhat lengthened trespass on 
 your patience which I shall have to make, you will arrive 
 at the conclusion that every linli is so firmly fastened 
 — that every loophole is so completely stoppedi^that 
 there does not remain the possibility of escape for the 
 unhappy prisoner from the net that she has woven for 
 herself.. Gentlemen, the indictment charges three 
 separate crimes, or rather it charges two separate crimes, 
 one of themhavihg been committed twice, and the third 
 once. It is an indictment which charges two separate 
 acts of administering poison with intent to kill ; and the 
 third charge is the successful administering of poison 
 ■frith intent to kill— viz., murder. They are charges to 
 which, in some respects, different parts of the evidence 
 apply ; bat they hang together ; they throw light upon ' 
 each' other ; they are not unconnected acts of crime. 
 Our case is that the administration with intent to poison 
 was trulypart of a'desigri to kill ; on the other hand, the 
 facts of the death reflects and throws back light on the 
 previous acts of administration. In stating to you the 
 evidence on which we think that these charges must 
 be found' proved, I shall avoid; as far as possible, 
 travelling into a region which this case affords too 
 great materials for— I mean the almost incredible evidence 
 which it has afforded of disgrace, and sin, and degradation 
 — the dreadful social picture which il has reVeaJed 
 — the fearful domestic results wliioh mu^ dnei^itably 
 follow — ^thdse feelings bt commiseration and "horror 
 which the age, the sex, and the condition of the prisoner 
 must produce in every mind — all these are things into 
 which I shall not travel. They might unnerve me for 
 the discharge of my painful public duty. Besides, no 
 language of mine — no language of my eloquent and learned 
 friend — can convey to the mindone tenth pf the impression 
 which the bare recital of the details of this case has 
 
207 
 
 already created throughout the whole of this country. I 
 shall only say that these matters weigh on my mind, as I 
 am sure they do on yours, with a weight and an oppression 
 which neither require nor admit of expression. The 
 ojily other remark of that kind which I |hall make is this, 
 that while a prisoner in the position of this unfor- 
 tunate lady is entitled — ^justly entitled — ^to say that 
 such a crime shall not be lightly presumed or proved 
 against her, yet, gentlemen, if the charges iil the 
 indictment be true, if the tale which I have to tell and 
 have told be a true one, you are trying a case of as cool, 
 premeditated, deliberate homicide as ever justly brought 
 its perpetrator within the compass and penalty of the law. . 
 Gentlemen, the first fact on which I found is one into 
 which it will not be necessary for me to go in ^any great 
 detail. It is a very important fact in the inquiry, but it 
 is one on which you can have no doubt whatever ! this 
 unfortunate man, Emile L'Angelier, died of arsenic. 
 There can be no doubt about that. The symptoms > 
 which he exhibited' on the night of .-the' 22d and 
 morning of the 23d March were in all respects the 
 symptonis of poisoning by arsenic. I may have 
 occasion, in the course of my remarks, to come back 
 upon this ; I do not stop for the present to demonstrate 
 it. His body was opened, and the stomach was analysed 
 by Dr Penny, who found an immense quantity of arsenic 
 in it ; the other parts of the body which were taken out 
 at the exhumation were analysed by Dr Christison, and 
 he found traces of arsenic in every one of them; and 
 therefore, gentlemen, I think you will come to the 
 conclusion — and it is not a; ' concltision on which it is 
 necessary for me to dwell — that the inquiry' starts with 
 this ascertained and cestain fact, that L'Angelier died on 
 the morning of the 23d March in consequence of the 
 administration of arsenic ; whether given him by another, 
 or taken by himself, in whatever way he swallowed it, 
 the cause of his death was unquestionably arsenic.- The 
 next questidn which arises is, by whom was that poison 
 administered?' That truly constitutes the inquiry which 
 you have now, to answer. In passing from the iorpv^ 
 delicti, so to speak— in passing from the cause of 
 
L'Angelifir's death — I do not allude to a theory which 
 barely crossed my mind during the leading of the evidence 
 yesterday as a possible case to be made in the defence, that, 
 notwithstanding the arsenic found in the stomach, his 
 death was to be attributed to other causes, and that, in 
 truth, it arose from biliary derangement or from cholera. 
 Gentlemen, that is a theory which it is impossible to 
 maintain. I pass from that at present, and I shall 
 assume, during the rest of my argument, that L'Angelier 
 died from the administration of arsenic. Passing from 
 that, then, I now proceed to inquire what is the evidence 
 that connects the prisoner at the bar with the death of 
 L'Angelier. And before I state to you in detail — 
 and I must do it with ' very great and anxious 
 precision — ^the evidence on that point, which appears 
 to me conclusive of the guilt of the prisoner, I 
 must, after the course which the trial has taken, and the 
 remarks which have been incidentally made in the course 
 of it, set you right in regard to some matters which have 
 been raised respecting the' conduct of the prosecution. 
 A great deal was said while we were leading our evidence, 
 especially as regarded the documents — a great deal was 
 said on the course that was followed when this inquiry 
 first began after the death of L'Angelier. Those matters 
 that were alluded to were no doubt of considerably 
 importance, but you must draw the distinction carefully 
 between remarks intended to apply to the general system 
 of conducting prosecutions of this kind, and to those 
 matters ^n which the prisoner can state any interest, or in 
 regard to which her defence could in any way be affected. 
 Gentlemen, I said at first, and I say still, that as far as 
 regards the productions in our hands, I know of no case 
 in which any prisoner has had more facilities than the 
 prisoner at the bar ; not too great facilities, for every- 
 thing which we did in the matter had a tendency to 
 elicit the truth, which is the only object of this 
 inquiry. Kor do I think thalt in so rare and 
 singular a case as this, we in the slightest degree 
 departed from our public duty in enabling the prisoner 
 more easily to conduct her defence. But as far as 
 the proceedings have gone, whatever remarks may be 
 
209 
 
 nubde as to the conduct of particular officials, I think I 
 shall show you most clearly that the prisoner has 
 suffered nothing in that respect, and that, in truth, if the 
 matters referred to in these observations have any effect 
 on the case at all it has not been against the prisoner 
 that th^t effect h^ been produced. Un the death of 
 L'Angelier a great quantity of documents was left by him 
 in various of his repositories. His death was sudden and 
 unexplained. Sr Thomson and Dr Steven made a post 
 mortem examination ; but they could not state what the 
 cause of death was. His employers.^ who took an interest 
 in him, grew anxious. They examined his repositories, 
 and they found that in his .desk in the office and in his 
 lodgings there were a variety of letters. The first 
 examined were thogs that were in the desk in the office, 
 yhich were examined by Stevenson and Kennedy ; and 
 the reading of some of them gave them a misgiving as to 
 what the truth of this case might be. L'Angelier died 
 on the 23d, and on the 25th Mr Stevenson made a 
 communication to the Procurator-Fiscal, not charg- 
 ing anybody with a crime, or implicating anybody 
 in the death, but simply calling his attention to 
 the f^ct that L'Angelier had died under these circum- 
 stances, and stating that there were letters left in the 
 desk which might be of importance as throwing light, 
 upon the mystery of his decease. The result was that 
 Stevenson himself brought six or seven letters to the 
 Procurator-Fiscal on that day, and those letters were 
 marked by himself and clearly identified. The investi- 
 gation went on. By the 30th, Dr Penny made his 
 medical report. A warrant was that day issued by 
 the Procurator-Fiscal, notj against Miss Smith, or in a 
 criminal charge at all, but on the case of a sudden death, 
 to search the repositories of the deceased. Gentlemen, 
 that was done. The letters in the desk were sealed up 
 in the presence of Kennedy and Stevenson. They were 
 sent to the Procurator-Fiscal or to the Fiscal's office. 
 They were found with the seals unbroken by Stevenson 
 when he went there, and I think the box was opened in 
 his presence. "Wilson, the Procurator-Fiscal's clerk or 
 assistant, received the bos in that state in the presence 
 
210 
 
 of Mr Hart. He swears that he looked it np at that 
 time, that he deKvered it some days afterwards , to the 
 officer Murray in the state in which he got it. The 
 officer Murray swears that he marked the letters 
 there, and delivered them back in the state in which he 
 got them ; and from that time forward their identifloa. 
 tion is complete. , In.. the lodgings letters^ were found in 
 the portmanteau, in the dpsk, and in the toiirist's bag. 
 The letters in. the portmanteau and in tlie desk were made 
 up into bundles by Murray and'his assistant M'Lauchliil'.' 
 They were carried by M'Lauohlin to liis' own libijse on 
 the nigjht of the ,30th. He swears that they were riot 
 touched during that night — that they renlained in his own 
 room.. Murray got them next day) in the state in which 
 he left them the niglit before, from M'Lauohlin. They 
 two set to -work and marked the documents, keeping 
 them ail under lock ' and tey during the process, and 
 they handed them . over to the Procurator-Fiscal, who 
 marked! them himself. Therefore, gentleiinen, if you 
 believe these officers, the histofy of these letters is also 
 complete. And as regards the lettets in the tourist's bag, 
 the tourist's ' bag was opened in the presence of 
 Steven^son and Hart, and there can be ho doubt, there- 
 fore, of what the letters were that were contained 
 in that repository. Now, it has been said this is a very 
 ' loose and improper mode of conducting ' this business. 
 It has been said that these letters should have been 
 handed over to the SherifF-Qletk, and that he was the 
 proper custodier of ,these documents. Now, I am Very 
 far indeed' from saying thai the proceedings in the first 
 instance were what I should wisli them to have been ; 
 because 1 think it right io say that I know no excuse for 
 an officer in the execution of a warrant, when he recovers 
 documents urider the authority of that warrant, not 
 identifying tliem completely' at thS time. But, on the 
 other hand, that is k question not, a,s I think, relating in 
 the least to the interest of the panel at the bar ; because, 
 if you shall' b^ satisfied that the chain of evidence is 
 complete — tliat these documents have truly come into 
 the hands of the public prosecutor in the statia in which 
 they were, found — why, geiitlemeii, it .these persons had 
 
211 
 
 not been officers of the law at all, fif they had been 
 private individuila dealing with articles fouiid in the 
 repositories o£ a deceased relation, and we had the same 
 amount of evidence in regard to their custody and 
 transmission, that evidence would have been perfect and 
 complete. But it is said they do not know yet what 
 documents were recovered by the Proouratbr-I'iscal. 
 Gentlemen, they are not entitled to say so ; for this 
 plain reason, that they had it in their power at any 
 period if they pleased to ascertain' exactly what documents 
 had been recovered by the Procurator-Fiscal. It seemed 
 to be said that the public prosecutor was in a position 
 in which it depended entirely on his wiU and pleasure 
 what facilities should be given to an accused party — to a 
 party accused of a crime before the Court. I am 
 happy to say, gentlemen, that no such law exists in 
 this land. If documents were in the hands of the 
 Procurator-Fiscal, or of the public prosecutor, which the 
 prisoner was entitled to have access to, the Courts of law 
 were open, and aij application to the Court of Justiciary 
 would at once have prevented the public prosecutor from 
 keeping back a single document to which the prisoner was 
 entitled if he had been inclined to do so. And if they had 
 really wished to know what documents were recovered by 
 the Procurator-Fiscal, and really thought that any 
 dooiiments were retained by him, why did they not 
 before this trial — ^why did they not when the trial began — 
 make an application to the Court to ascertain thatiact in 
 a proper and legitimate manner ? Gentlemen, I will tell 
 you. Becaiise every scrap of paper that passed between 
 the prisoner and the deceased L'Angelier has in one; shape 
 or other been produced in this process. It is not now in 
 the month of the prisoner to say, by cross-examination, , 
 as to matters over which obscurity may in words be 
 thrown — ^it is not in the mouth of the prisoner to say 
 that one single document has been retained that she or 
 the agents for her defence might, if they chose, have 
 taken the proper means to ascertain. There was a 
 complaint made that we had refused access to the 
 original documents. Gentlemen, I did so — we did 
 BO— on our own responsibility; and that we did 
 
212 
 
 rightly there oan be not a shadow of doubt. You 
 have seen the mass of this correspondence, jou have 
 heard it explained in what state the repositories were ; 
 you have seen already, and you will know liiuch more, 
 before this case is concluded, how vital every scrap may 
 be that we have produced to the justice of this case. 
 It was absolutely necessary that we should have the use 
 of the documents to identify the handwriting, ta trace 
 the letters, to ascertain their dates, to ascertain their 
 import ; and it was necessary that we should take care 
 that under no circumstances should those important 
 elements of evidence run the slightest risk of being lost 
 to justice. Gentlemen, the prisoner used the right which 
 the law gives to a person accused in this country among the 
 many other safeguards with which our system above all 
 others surrounds a person accused — I say she used the 
 privilege of what is called "running her letters" imme. 
 dlately after the time when she was apprehended, and the 
 effect of running letters is this, that it compels the public 
 prosecutor to bring the accused to trial within a certain 
 time, otherwise the prisoner must be set free ; and 
 accordingly it was absolutely necessary that within a 
 limited time the case for the prosecution should be 
 prepared ; but the prisoner might have delayed the trial 
 at any time. Xo doubt to a certain extent she would have 
 lost the benefit of the haste with which the prosecutor 
 otherwise was compelled to complete his case ; but if 
 her advisers in such a case as this had really thought 
 that there was injustice done — that there had been 
 improper obstacles placed in the way of her defence — do 
 you imagine that for a fortnight here or there they would 
 have refrained from applying for a deMy of the trial, 
 which they would have got at once from the Indul- 
 gence of the prosecutor without any farther pro- 
 ceedings ; but which, if the prosecutor had been 
 unwilling to grant, the Court, as a matter of course, 
 would have given? Grcntlemen, I have made these 
 remarks because I think that an undue impression may 
 have rested upon your minds in regard to those matters 
 during the discussions that arose on the trial. To what 
 extent the Sheriff ought personally to superintend 
 
213 
 
 precognitions, or whether the Sheriff-Clerk is the proper 
 depositary of these documents, are matters relating to the 
 general administration of the criminal law, upon which 
 different opinions may subsist, and which may 
 be modified by practical difficolties. 1 am glad to 
 think that I speak in the presence of two of the learned 
 Judges who. hav;^ themselves been in the position of 
 Sheriffs, and they know well that I am right when I say 
 that whateyer may be the theory, it. has not been the 
 practice in any county in Scotland for the Sheriff-Clerk 
 to be the custodier of documents under circumstances 
 such as these ; and that, in regard to the taking of 
 precognitions, although the Sheriff is responsible unques- 
 tionably for precognitions that are taken, it is not possible 
 in all cases that he shall personally superintend a 
 precognition taken, nor is "it, I think, a subject for 
 observation on the part of my learned friend that any 
 particular witness has been precognosced on my account 
 without the Sheriff having beeii present. It is perfectly 
 certain, gentlemen, that any such rule as that 
 would in truth paralyse the whole machinery of 
 justice, and this very case is an illustration of 
 what would have been the result if every precognition 
 in which there were important statements bearing on the 
 case had only been taken in the presence of the Sheriff. 
 I venture to saythat the result would have been that 
 this case must have been delayed until it was impos- 
 sible for the public prosecutor to bring the prisoner to 
 trial, or that the. important public interests which in the 
 great community of Glasgow are committed to these 
 important and learned oificials would have been 
 unnecessarily injured. I do not say this for the 
 purpose of in the leist questioning the assertion that 
 the Sheriff ought as far as possible to be present at the 
 precognition of witnesses, especially in a case like this ; 
 nor do I say, in one way or other whether in this 
 particular case this duty was or was not sufficiently 
 discharged, for I have no means of judging of this. What 
 I have said relates to the general administration of the 
 criminal law of this country, and has no bearing whatever 
 on the interests of the panel in this particular case, and 
 
2W 
 
 is not I think a subject for observation in any way, so far 
 as the prisoner at the bar is concerned. ' It lias been 
 said that we should not have produced only a partial 
 correspondence, I feel it is very unfortunate only to 
 have a partial correspondence produced ; but I have 
 produped all the cqfriispoudence to which the ptoseoutor 
 had access. For the most part there was only one side 
 i0f the correspondence, and we had none of the other. 
 We had nearly 200 lettjers, or more than 200 letters, from 
 the prisoner at the bar to deceased — we have only one 
 copy of a letter from deceased to prisoner. There were 
 other writings in the handwriting of the prisoner, but 
 these it seems cannot be used in evidence. I regret that in 
 a case of such importance, while you have on the one hand 
 innumerable letters of the prisoner, you have, on the 
 other hand, only one copy of a letter of deceased. How 
 came that ?, You -will see in the oon-espondenoe that the 
 letters of L'Angelier were not destroyed till a very recent 
 date. You could not have been much surprised if Jt had 
 been otherwise. That a lady should not preserve letters 
 of that description would not be in the least degree 
 remarkable, ' but there is evidence that down to the 
 7th or 8th February last that correspondence was in 
 existence, and we have heard no explanation of any kind 
 as to what has become of it. This we know, and this only, 
 that not one single scrap in the handwriting of L'Angelier 
 has been discovered in this case, excepting those four 
 documents, three of which have not been admitted in 
 evidence ; therefore, in the matter of this correspondence, 
 we have all done what we oould. The only matter in 
 which the prisoner has a legitimate interest as regards 
 this question is, no doubt, one of very great importance. 
 She has an interest that these letters, shall be shown to 
 be prbperly arranged, beciuse it is very often the case 
 that letters bear no date except tlie postmark 
 upon the envelopes; and you must be satisfied that 
 each letter was in its proper envelope. Let mo 
 make this observation, in the first place, upon this 
 veiy important point— that that is a difficulty that 
 necessarily occurs in every case where the evidence 
 consists of letters sent in envelopes. It has been 
 
215 
 
 a misfortune, in the way of tracing the fact of letters 
 being sent in that way, that there never is any means of 
 connecting the envelope with the letter, except the fact 
 of its being found there. Most people, not intending to 
 keep their correspondence, and not of very methodical 
 habits in that way, constantly leave sometimes the letter 
 and envelope apart, sometimes the letter in, the wrong, 
 envelope,, and if the officers in this case had gone to work 
 with the most scrupulous nicety, and if you had it beyond 
 all question that the letters found wore produced in 
 precisely the same state as found, the remark of my 
 learned friend would have been equally well founded if lijs 
 had said — " What evidence is there, that these letters so 
 found in these envelopes were sent in them, and how can 
 we know, when letters are found tossing about in a 
 desk in an office, not made up with regularity, that this 
 person was in the habit of keeping his letters in a manner 
 which would make the envelope proper evidence ?" That, 
 I say, is a remark which occurs in every case of the 
 kind, and which my learned friends are quite entitled 
 to make here. I do not say that the envelopes in 
 which letters are found is an element to enable you to 
 arrive at the truth, but if you find in a series of letters 
 that, in the first place, when a letter is dated on a parti- 
 cular day, the postmark plainly corresponds to that 
 particular day of date— if you can find that a letter 
 bears " Monday night," and the postmark bears the 
 morning spostmark of 28th, or supposing a letter be 
 dated " Mond^iy night,", wlfile there is , no day of 
 the month, and the next day is Tues4ay the 28th, and 
 that is the postmark, or that a letter bears date " Monday 
 morning," and you find that the postmark is Monday the 
 20th February, all that, I think, will necessarily lead 
 you to conclude, if you find it in a uniform series of 
 letters,, that these letters have been kept in their 
 proper envelopes. I do not say that that even is 
 the case, but it is a matter you will judge of as 
 regards the general position of the letters ; and if you 
 find that uniformly throughout the series of lettersi 
 one after the other, you can have no reason to doubt that 
 these. letters have been put ifl", their proper envelopes. 
 
216 
 
 Bat I do not rest the proof of the date of the letters upon 
 that. There is scarcely one letter the date of which I 
 oonld not prove if there had been no postmark or 
 envelope at all, by the facts they tell, and by their 
 relation to each other. In the laborious investigation 
 •which was made into this matter you will find that this 
 is very clearly and distinctly brought out, and I think you 
 will be satisfied that although these postmarks afibrd a 
 strong presumption in regard to the letters being in the . 
 same state as when originally sent, the evidence of 
 theif dates does not depend on that circumstance alone 
 — I think that can be brought out with absolute certainty, 
 so far as we can produce certainty on the human mind. 
 After this somewhat long digression, I come back 
 to the details of the case. My Story is short. 
 This yoiing lady returned from a London boarding- 
 school in the year 1853. She met L'Angelier some- 
 where I believe about the end of 185i. L'Angelier's 
 history has not been very clearly brought out. It 
 is plain, unquestionably, that in 1851 he was in 
 very poor and destitute circumstances. Of his character 
 I say nothing at present but this, that it ds quite clear 
 that by energy and attention he had worked his way up 
 to a position that was at least respectable — a position in 
 which those who came in contact with him plainly had 
 for him a very considerable regard. It is no' part of my 
 case to maintain the character of the unhappy deceased. 
 The facts in this case .make it impossible to speak of him 
 in any terms but those of very strong oond!emnation. 
 But still it is plain that when Miss Smith became first 
 acquainted with L'Ang^lier he was a man moving in a 
 respectable position, bearing a respectable character, 
 liked by. all those who came in contact with him, spoken 
 of by the three landladies with whom he lodged in the 
 highest possible terras — a man of whom the chancellor 
 of the French Consulate spoke as respectable and steady — 
 a man spoken of by his employers and by his fellow-clerks 
 in Huggins' warehouse also in the highest terms. I do not 
 say anything of that at present, but such is the fact These 
 two persons met ; they were introduced, I assume, clan- 
 destinely. After i^ time, it seems an attachment com- 
 
217 
 
 menced, which was forhidden hy her parents. It is only 
 right to say that the earlier letters of tlie prisoner at that 
 time show good feeling, proper affection, and a proper sense 
 of duty. Time went on j the intercourse was again renewed, 
 and in the course of 1856, as you must have found, it 
 assumed a criminal aspect. From tliat time down to the 
 end of the year, not once or twice, but I have evidence 
 ■to show* clearly that rlepeated acts of improper connection 
 took place. It will be necessary for you to take into 
 your consideration tliat she liad so completely committed 
 herself by the end of 1856 that she was, I will not say in 
 L'Angelier's power (he was in her power), but she 
 belonged to him, and could with honour belong to no one 
 else. But her affection began to cool; another suitor 
 appeared ; she endeavoured to break off her connecti9n 
 with L'Angelier by coldness, and asked him to return her 
 letters. He refused, and threatened to put them into the 
 hands of her father. There is mucli that is dishonourable in 
 this case, but not in that. It would no have been honour- 
 able to allow the prisoner at the bar to become the wife 
 o any honest man. It was then she saw the position 
 she was in — she knew what letters she had written to 
 L'Angelier-^she knew what he could reveal— she knew 
 that, if those letters were sent to her father, not only 
 would her marriage with Mr Minnoch be broken off, but 
 that she could not hold up her hed again. She writes 
 in despair to him to give her back her letters ; he 
 refuses. There is one interview — she attempts to buy 
 prussic acid; there is another interview — she bought 
 arsenic ; there is a third interview — she bought arsenic 
 again. Her letters, instead of demands for the recovery 
 of her letters being contained in them, again assume all 
 the warmth of affection they had the year before. On 
 the 12th of March she has been with Mr Minnoch making 
 arrangements for her marriage — on the 21st she invites 
 L'Angelier to come with all the ardour of passion to see 
 her — she buys arsenic on the 18th — and L'Angelier dies 
 of poison on the morning of the 23d. The story is 
 strange^n its horrors almost incredible ; and no 'one can 
 wonder that such a story should carry a thrill df horror 
 into every family. The prisoner is entitled to all the pre- 
 
218 
 
 sumptions which can be given her, but if, as I am certainly 
 bound to do, I bring before youi such proof as to carry con- 
 viction to your mjnds that no reasonable man can doubt 
 — that no reasonable- ray of doubt can penetrate 
 the iudgment — then, incredible as the story is, and 
 fearful as the result, of your , verdict, must be, we 
 ha,ye no alternative, in the discharge of' our public duty, 
 but myself to ask, and you to give, that verdict which 
 ■the facts of the case, if proved, demand. In cases of this 
 
 . kind-t-in occult pases especially — the ends of justice 
 would be perpetually defeatedif you were to say you shall 
 
 . not opnvict a main unless you find some person who saw 
 the crime committed. : But in .the case of administration 
 of poison that remark applies with peculiar force. In 
 truth, the fact of, administering poison before -v^itnesses 
 is so far from affording, in the first instance, a presump- 
 tion of guilt, that it , sometimes is ths strongest proof of 
 innocence. Iremember a case which attracted as much 
 attention in a sister country as this has done in ours. 
 The culprit there sat by the bedside of his victim, 
 surrounded by medical attendants — gssye him the poison 
 in their presence — sat and witnessed its effect — -saw 
 his dying agonies with a coolness that could hardly 
 be believed. There could hardly be a stronger pre- 
 sumption of his innocence than that j and the 
 result was that he very nearly had entirely escaped 
 suspicion from the fact that the thing was dope ^openly. 
 And, therefore, in the case^of the administration of 
 poison, the fac^ of there being no eye-witness to the 
 administration is not an element of much weight in the 
 inquiry. You may assume that if it was done with a 
 guilty intention it was done secretly. The question is, 
 
 ' whether we Iravei evidence to trace the crime from the 
 course' of the oircurastanoes. Wow, having thus given 
 you an outline of the nature of the evidence, I go on to 
 consider that evidence in detail ; aSd I shall endeavour 
 to do that in a manner which shall bring clearly before 
 you how these facts, in their order, bear upon the crime 
 alleged. We have to take the links of different parts 
 of this chain of evidence somewhat oiit of the order 
 in which the evidence has been led. I shall now 
 
219 
 
 proceed to look at them exactly in the older of time, 
 baginning witli the 29th of Apriri856. The first letter 
 which it is necessary for me to refer to is the letter 
 dated 29fch April. I have already given you an outline 
 of the nature of the connection that began between the 
 prisoner and the deceased at that time ; and I intend to 
 read a few passages from that correspondence, with, the 
 connection between them, in order to show you — first, 
 how far the prisoner had committed herself to the crime 
 committed; and, secondly, the moral and mental state 
 of the prisoner herself. You will then be better able to 
 appreciate the coui-se the prisoneir took. That letter o 
 the 29th April 1856 is one of the few letters which bear 
 a date. It has also a postmark, " Helensbui'gh, April 
 30, '56.". In that letter she says : — "Dearest, I must 
 see you ; it is fearful never to see you ; but I am sure I 
 don't know when I shall see yoUi P. has not been a 
 night in town for some time, but the first night he is off 
 I shall see you. We shall spend an hour of bliss. There 
 shall be no risk ; only C. H. shall know" — ^thi? C. H. 
 being Catherine Haggart, who was made the confidante 
 of this amour since its commencement, and the vehicle 
 through whom the letters were transmitted. That was 
 on the 29th of April., On Friday, a letter without a date 
 is written, and enclosed in an envelope which bears the 
 postmark of Saturday, "May 3d, '56." In this letter, 
 dated Friday, the prisoner says : — " P. has been in bed 
 two days. If he should not feel well and come down 
 on Tiiesday, it shall make no difference. Just you come, 
 Only darling. I think if he is in the boat you should 
 get out at Helensburgh. "Well, beloved, you shall- 
 come to the gate — you know it — and wait till I come. 
 And then, oh happiness, won't I kiss you, my love, my 
 own beloved Emile, my husband dear ? I don't think' 
 there is any risk. "Well, Tuesday," 6th May — the gate^- 
 half-past ten ; you understand, darling.'' The next 
 letter is dated " Wednesday morning, five o'clock," 
 ahd bears the postmark, "Helensburgh, 7th." There 
 are two postmarks, but the year and month are not 
 legible, though the month appears from one postmark 
 to be May, and the year 1856. In this letter, dated 
 
220 
 
 " Wednesday morning, five o'clock," and found in an 
 envelope bearing the date 7tU May, you have these 
 •words : — " My own, my beloved husband, — I trust to 
 God you got home sate, and were not much the worse of 
 being out. Thank you, iny love, for coming so far to see 
 your 1 Mimi. It is truly a pleasure to see my Bmile. 
 Beloved, if we did wrong last night, it was in the excite- 
 ment of our love. Yes, beloved, I did truly love you 
 with my soul." Then she says farther down : — " Am I 
 not your wife ? Yes, I am. And you may rest assured, 
 after what has passed, that I cannot be the wife of any 
 other but dear, dear Emile." Then after referring 
 to a journey to lima, which L'Angelier had proposed 
 making, she goes on to say : — " I shall write dear Mary 
 soon. What would she say if she knew we were so 
 intimate ? She would lose all her good opinion of us 
 both — -would she not ?" That letter speaks language not 
 to be mistaken. From that period dates the commence- 
 ment.of the criminal intimacy between the parties. The 
 letters between that date in May and the end of the year 
 are written in a strain that really I do not think I should 
 comment upon. I can say this, that the expressions in 
 these letters — the language in which they are couched — ^ 
 the matters to which they refer — show so entire an over- 
 throw of the moral sense — the sense of moral delicacy and 
 decency — as to create a picture which I do not know 
 ever had its parallel in an inquiry of this sort. That is 
 the character of these letters from May 1856 down 
 to the end of the year. Where the prisoner 
 had learned this it is not for me to say. If my 
 learned friend means to say that L'Angelier had 
 his own share in corrupting her moral sense, I shall not 
 much dispute it. It does not matter to this inquiry 
 whetlji^r that was so or not. There is scarcely one of 
 these ^letters down to the end of December 1856, or 
 beyond that period, that does not allude in ^direct terms 
 to such things as are alluded to in the letters already 
 quoted from. I next refer to a letter dated " Friday 
 night," enclosed in an envelope bearing the postmark 
 " Helensburgh, Friday, 27th May," from which I take 
 the following m a ipeoimsn of the l«tten which pMiad 
 
221 
 
 at this time. In; that letter she says: — "I tjiink I 
 would be wishing you to love me, if I were with you, but 
 I don't suppose you would refuse me, for I know you 
 will like to love your Mimi" — ^three scores being made 
 under "loye." In a letter, which has no date, she swears 
 she will neyer marry any one else, and in another letter, 
 enclosed in the same envelope, she says : — " Our intimacy 
 has not been criminal, as I am your wife before 
 God," Then she says : — " I promise to you, you shall 
 have it (my likeness) some day, so that promise won't 
 be broken. If I did not sign, my name, it was for no 
 reason. Unless it i(l to a stranger, I never do put Smith, 
 only Madeline." The conclusion of that letter is in the 
 same strain as the rest. The correspondence proceeds, 
 and we have a letter dated Saturday night, and bearing 
 the Helensburgh postmark, "July '56." The dates are 
 really not material, as the letters are evidently written 
 in 18S6, and I need not "stop to demonstrate 
 the precise time. If there were more doubt about 
 the postmarks it would make no difierence, as the 
 relations between the parties in 1856 are sufficiently 
 established independent of that evidence. But in that 
 letter she says : — " I shall not see you tiE the nights are 
 a little darker. I can trust C. H. She will never tell 
 about our meetings. She intends to be married in 
 November ; but she may change her mind." In point of 
 fact, C. H., or Christina Haggart, was married in May 
 last, and the references in the letter sufficiently determine 
 the period when it was written. The next letter I refer 
 to is one dated on Thursday evening, in"whioh the prisoner 
 says : — "I cannot see you ere you go, for which J am sorry 
 You forget that my little sister is in my bed-room, and 
 I could not go out by the window, or leave the, house, 
 and she there. It is only.when P. is away I can see you, 
 for then Janet sleeps with. M.'' She then refers to his 
 visit to Badgemore. My learned friend requested that 
 the last passage in that letter should be read, for the 
 purpose of showing that she had read an article in Black 
 wood's Magazine about arsenic. That shows plainly, at 
 anyrate, that it was written in the month of September. 
 At the bottom of the page is this paaeage ;— " I did tell 
 
222 
 
 you at one time that I did not like — (William is first 
 written, but scored out) — Minnooh, but he was so 
 pleasant that he quite raised himself in my estima- 
 tion." That must have been in September 1856, and 
 you will see that in the correspondence to the end of 
 the year, there are constant allusions to Minnoch, by 
 way of preparingii'Angelier'for something in connection 
 with that man. And it turns out, in point of' f afct, that 
 L'Angelier did become extremely jealous of his attentions. 
 The nfext letter has the postmark^ " Helensburgh, 29th 
 Septeniber." She begins by saying : — " I did not write 
 you on Saturday, as C. H. was not at home, so I could 
 not geit it posted. . . .-I don't think I can see you 
 this week. But I think next -Monday I shall, as P. and 
 M. are to be in Edinburgh. But my only thought is 
 Janet'; what am I to do with her ? I shall have to wait 
 till she is asleep, which may be near eleven o'clock. But 
 yon maybe sure I shall do it as soon as I can." Further 
 on, she goes on to say : — "Mr MinnOch has bSen here since 
 Friday. He is most agreeable. I think we shall see him 
 very often this winter. He says we shall, and P. being 
 so fond of him, I am sure he shall ask him in often." 
 You will recollect that Mr Minnoch's house is next to 
 BlythS wood Square. In illus'tration of what I have said 
 that these letters do not require postmarks to prove the 
 dates, I may just say that the last letter is clearly 
 written- some time after the end of August 1856, 
 and that this one is as clearly written, just before the 
 family left Helensburgh to go, for the first time, 
 to the ' Bly'thswood Square house, referring; as it 
 does, to Mr ' Minnoch's vicinity to the family. In 
 - the ndxt letter, writing from Helensburgh on Tuesday- 
 postmark- illegible— she says : — " I forgot to tell you last 
 night that I shall not be able, of an evenifig, to let you 
 in. My room is next to B., and on the same floor as the 
 front-door. (You will find by-and-by that she got over 
 that difficulty.) I shall never be able to spend the 
 happy hours we did last winter." The- next letter to 
 which I refer is one dated Sunday evening, with the 
 Helensburgh postmark of Monday, 20th October, in which 
 she Bays :— " Papa i^ very busy with some election 
 
223 ■ ' 
 
 ina,ttieis," This refars to the oiyio , eleotioija in 
 November,, and fixes the date of, the letter , Ijeyond 
 qiiestibn at tlie en4 of Ootpber. On the Sunday evening, 
 then, before Monday the 20th October, ah? says :-J-" Janet 
 is not well ; she has a bad cold. Do you kAow I have a 
 great dislike to C, H. I shall try and do without her aid 
 in the Tvint,er, .;Sh£s has been .with us four years, and I, 
 am tire^ of her, but I won't show it to her." The next 
 'letter is dated ''Friday night, twelve o'clock," , and is 
 , posted in Glasgpw onthe 18th JTovember,; In this letter 
 ,she, . says : — " Sweet , loye,— Tou, should get those 
 brown envelopes ; . they would not be so miuoh seen as 
 white ones, put down, into my window.. You should 
 just stoop down to tie your shoe, and then, slip it in." 
 This is the firsi; letter, then, in which instructions are 
 given as tojiow the correspondence is to .tak§'place at the 
 Blythswpod Square, house. I shall now wish you to look 
 at the plii,;i,of the house... ' , After referring to the various 
 apartments, in the front and back floors,- and to their 
 connection with eaph, other, which, however, would be 
 quite unintelligible to .our readers without the plan itself, 
 his Lordship continued :— ^This letter, among ^ other 
 things, contains .this passage : — " I saw Kobert Anderson ; 
 he was speaking of the Huggins', but did , not speak of 
 you. I am so fond of any one speaking of you, beloved 
 L'Angelier." Then, after some expressions of the kind 
 I have alluded to, the letter ends thus :— r"I have beeiv 
 ordered by the, doctor, since I came to town, to. take a 
 fearful thin^, called peasemeal — such a nasty thing. But 
 I don't think t can take this meal. I shall rather take 
 (jocoa.'' And you .have it in evidence that she, did so. 
 His Lordship, in again referring to the plan of the house, 
 said — I make, a remark to this just now for tliB purpose 
 of stating th^t a person coming, iptp the .front-door coidd 
 get into the dining-room without attracting any 
 attention whatever from those occupying the bed- 
 rooms at the back of the house. It is also apparent from 
 the plan that any one could go to the kitchen from Miss 
 Madeline's bed-room on the sunk floor without attract- 
 ing attention; and, what is more, a perspn going 
 out from Miss Madeline's bed-room could go up the 
 
224 
 
 nner stalrcaae withoui attracting the attention of those 
 occupying the bed-rooms in the back of the honse, or any 
 of the other bed-rooms. I think you have here the 
 position of these rooms ; and now, gentlemen, I will call 
 your attention to a letter dated Monday evening, having 
 no postmajrk, but stating that it is " the first letter I have 
 written in my Blythswood Square house." In this letter 
 there are various repetitions of matters mentioned in 
 f otiner letters that I have referred to. This, then, brings 
 them to the house in Blythswood Square, and now you 
 will see the course that the correspondence takes. In one 
 letter she says : — "I don't think I can take you in as I did in 
 India Street," plainly showing that she had taken him in 
 there. Then she says on the next letter, which is dated 
 " Thursday evening, eleven o'clock," and bears the post- 
 mark of "Friday, Nov. 21," and which was evidently 
 written in Blythswood Square honse : — " Now, about 
 writing, I wish you to write me and give me the note on 
 Tuesday evening next. You will, about eight o'clock, 
 come and put the letter down into the window — (just 
 drop it in — I won't be there at the time) — ^the window 
 next to Minnoch's close door. There are two windows 
 together with white blinds. Don't be seen near the 
 house on Sunday, as M. won't be at church, and she will 
 watch. In your letter, dear love, tell me what night of 
 the week will be best for you to leave the letter for me. 
 If M. and P. were from home I would take you in very 
 well at the front-door, just the same way as I did in India 
 Street, and I won't let a chance pass — I won't, sweet 
 pet of my soul, my only best-loved darling." I have 
 told you, gentlemen, that she could perfectly well take 
 him in at the front door. She could leave her own 
 room, go upstairs, and she had only to open the hall, 
 door Sufficiently to enable L'Angelier to get into the 
 dining-room, so as to prevent the possibility of being 
 heard from any of the back-rooms of the house. And 
 this letter proves that it was not a mere theoi'y, but 
 what she proposed to do. The next letter b^ars no 
 date, but it is posted 6.23 P.M. on Friday the 26th Deo. 
 1856. Gentlemen, I only allude to this let^ier for the 
 purpose of making an observation with regard to dates. 
 
225 
 
 She says she is going out oh Wednesday night, but that 
 she will try and write on Thsrsday. There is a postscript 
 to the letter, which bears this : — " Thursday, 11th 
 December, six or eight o'clock." Now this you miglit 
 at first take for a date, but it is simply the date of an 
 assignation. And this proves two things : first, that the 
 letter was written before Thursday, and after the Thurs- 
 day of the precediiog week, as the postmark bears Friday. 
 Then the next letter is on a Tuesday morning, and bears 
 the postmark of the 14th of the month. Gentlemen, it 
 seems plain that there was at this time a serious inten- 
 tion on the part of thesei persons to make an elopement. 
 You had it proved by many witnesses. You had it 
 proved by the landlady, Mrs Clark, as to the intention to 
 have the bans proclaimed on Sunday, and the marriage 
 to take place on Monday. There are, besides, various 
 allusions in the letters to getting married by a Justice of 
 the Peace. The letter No. 71 I only refer to for the 
 purpose of showing that, on a particular occasion, the 
 proclamation of the bans was spoken about ; and you 
 will find mention of it otherwise. No. 73 bears the date 
 of Thuraday night, and the 16 fch December was Friday ; the 
 postmark bearing date the 17fch of a month which is not 
 legible. In the next letter she says : — ^"I am going to a 
 concert to-morrow, but it is the last one. • I don't know 
 if Minnoch is going. James and Jack (her brothers) 
 have sent out fifty invitations for the 29th. Jas. is to 
 be at home on Friday." That is dated Tuesday, and the 
 next letter is dated Thursday. Now, Thursday was the 
 18th December, and it bears the postmark of the 19th. 
 Now, you see gentlemen, that in almost every instance in 
 the letters which I have read to you, the day of the week 
 precisely corresponds witR the postmark on the envelope. 
 It has been proved that this was one of the letters 
 found in the desk of the deceased, and taken to the 
 Proourator-Fiscal's office, where it was marked by Mr 
 Stevenson. No. 75, which is the next of the series I have 
 to allude to, was plainly written after the last letter I 
 read, and I mention this to show howthedates correspond, 
 because in this letter ■ she ' says she was going 
 with Mr Miimoch to a concert, and she says : — " You say 
 H 
 
226 
 
 you heard I took M. to the oonoert against his inclination, 
 and forced him to go. I told you the right way when I 
 ■wrote. But from your statement in your letter of 
 to-night you did not believe m^ word. Emile, I would 
 not have done this to you. Even now I would write and 
 teU you. 1 would not believe every idle report. No ; I 
 would not. I would, my beloved Emile, believe my 
 husband's word before any other. Bat you always listen 
 to reports about me if they are bad. Yon know I could 
 not sit, a whole evening without talking, but I have 
 not flirted." Gentlemen, there is evidence here, which 
 you have under the hand of the prisoner farther on, that 
 after the first paroxysms had subsided, her affection 
 towards L'Angelier had cooled. The reason of that it is 
 not necessary that we should discern. He seems to have 
 been rather exacting ; but whatever the reason might be, 
 it is quite plain that a change came over her affection 
 about this time. I have now brought them down to the 
 J Sth December 185C, and she says herself in a subsequent 
 letter that her coolness began in November, when they 
 came to Glasgow. Not only so, but she begins to do 
 what , L'Angelier called flirting with Mr Minnoch. Mr 
 Minnoch has told you th,^t during the whole of this 
 winter there was a tacit understanding between them 
 that they were lovers. iShe alludes to this in her 
 letter when she refers to the reports about her, 
 and denies that there is any truth in them. On the next 
 day she says : — " For your sake I shall be very cold to 
 everybody. I am rather more fond of C. H. She is very 
 civil. I will trust her." Gentlemen, there is in the rest 
 of this letter what I will not read, but there is a plain 
 and obvious reference to tho pos.sibility of her becoming 
 a mother, which, under the circumstances, it is impossible 
 not to see the force of. Then the ^ext letter occurs on 
 Thursday. Thursday was the 23th of December, and it 
 is posted on the 2Gth or 28th of the month. But the one 
 following. No. 79, is one of great consequence, because it 
 refers to the meetings in the Blythswood Square house. 
 It is dated Monday. Monday was the 22d of December, 
 but there is no date, or the postmark has been obliterated. 
 I think, however, there is internal evidence that it was 
 
227 
 
 written on a. Monday. She says : — " Beloved Emile, — 
 We most meet. If you love me you will come to me when 
 P. and M. go to Edinburgh, which wiE be tho 7th or 10th 
 January," and then she goes to speak of Christmas 
 dinners, and says that they are " great bores." She then 
 goes on to say : — " Will you give me a letter on Friday at 
 six o'clock, as I have promised to go with Jack to the 
 pantomime," and at the top of the page she speaks about 
 James giving a party. You remember, with reference to 
 Jack and James giving a party two days preceding, and 
 as this letter alludes to the parby, it proves unquestion- 
 ably that it must have been written about the date 1 have 
 assigned to it. And as it bears the date of Monday night, 
 I think I am right in assuming it to be Monday the 22d. 
 There is the further allusion to a merry Christmas and 
 to going to Sauchiehall Street, which shows it to 
 have been about that time. It was plainly written 
 before Christmas 1856. You will find a reference in 
 a subsequent letter to her having gone to the panto- 
 mime. She says : — " P. and M. thought of going to 
 Edinburgh," and then she continues : — " If P. and 
 M. go, will you not, sweet love, come t3 your 
 Mimi? Do you think I would ask you if I saw 
 danger in the house. No, love, I would not. I shall 
 let you in ; no one shall see you. We can make it late 
 — ^twelvOj if you please. You have no long walk. No, 
 my own beloved. My sweet dear Emile. Emile, I 
 see your sweet smile. I hear you say you will come 
 and see your' Mimi, clasp her to your bosom, and kiss 
 her, call her your own pet, your wife. Emile will not 
 refuse me. . . . .1 need not wish you a merry 
 Cliristmas, but I shall wish that we may spend the next 
 together, and that we shall then be happy." This means 
 that he shall come into the house as he had done before, 
 and it speaks of his clasping her to his heart. The 
 next letter bears the date of the 27th, and keeping in 
 mind what was said about the pantomime— and that 
 Saturday is the date of the letter— the postmark shows 
 that it must have been posted on the 21th of December. In 
 this letter she says : — "Now, I must tell you something you 
 may hear. I was at the theatre ; and people, my love, may 
 ■ ■ " h2 
 
228 
 
 tell you that M. was there too. 'Well, M. was there, but 
 he did not know of my going. He was in the Club 
 Bos, and I did not even bow to him. To-day, when 
 B., mamma, and I were walking, M. joined us, took a 
 walk with us, apd came home. He was most, civil and 
 kind. He sent Janet such a lovely flower to-night, to 
 wear on Monday evening.. Now I have told you this, 
 sweet pet, I know you will be angry ; but I would 
 rather bear your anger than that you shoul<J perhaps 
 blame me for not telling you, as some on,e will be sure 
 to inform you of me." Then she says : — " Will you drop 
 lao a note at six, eight, or ten o'clock ? I hope you may 
 be happy, but what are you to do on New-Year's Day ?" 
 This proves beyond all possibility that it was after the 
 letter in which she had proposed to go to the pantomime. 
 There is no interval between the 27th of December till 
 Friday evening,. January 9th. Andnow, gentlemen, .having 
 traced the cori'espondence down to this date, proving the 
 greatest intimacy between the parties, proving the corre- 
 spondence to be of such a character that no eye oojild see 
 it without her character being utterly blasted, proving 
 also vows, over and over repeated, that, after her intimacy 
 with him, she could be his wife and, that of no other, as 
 to be so would be a sin — having intimated in as strong 
 language as she could that for Mr Minnoch she had no 
 affection whatever — that she had at no time whatever^ 
 flirted with him or any one elsej being his wife— having 
 proved all this down to the end of 1856, we now come 
 to the crisis, and I must ask you to keep the dates in 
 mind from this time forth. Tlie next act . in this 
 tragedy begins, you will see, on the 9th January 
 1857. This is the only letter that boars a date, and 
 it is dated "Friday, 9th January," and was posted 
 in the feceivhig-offioe in Glasgow, January 10th. The 
 envelope therefore shows the correspondence, with the 
 date. In this letter she says :— " It is past eleven o'clock, 
 and no letter from you, my own ever dear beloved 
 husband. "Why this, sweet one ? I thiflk I heard your 
 stick this evening. Pray, do not make any sounds what- 
 ever at my window. If it were possible, sweet one, 
 would you not les,ve my notes at six as 4t ten, o'clock? 
 
29 
 
 The moon is up, and it is light. Sweet Emile, I am 
 truly your fond love. Yoa have all my heart and soul." 
 And then she goes on to say : — " How do you keep your- 
 self warm in bed ? I have Janet beside me ; but I often 
 wish you wore with me. Would you not put your arms 
 around me, and keep me warm ? Ah, yos, I know you 
 would." Then at page 2 she has an observation which I 
 think you will find of sossie consequence. She says -.—''l 
 wish I could see you ; bu'; I must not look out of the 
 window, so just leave your note and go away." This was 
 a general intimation, as much as to say. If you come to 
 my window, and I don't hfSk out, you must assume there 
 is some reason why I don' t pretend to see you, so just 
 leave my note and go awny. The next letter is dated 
 Saturday night. Saturday was the 10th of January, and 
 it bears the postmark of 11th January. It says : — " My 
 own dear beloved Emile,- I cannot tell you how sorry 
 I was last night at not liearin;; from you. ... If 
 you would risk it, my sweet beloved pet, we Vi^ould have 
 time to kiss each other and a dear fond embrace; and 
 though, sweet love, it is only for a niinuto, do you not 
 think it is better than not meeting at all ?" Observe 
 that the preceding day was January the 9th. In 
 the next letter there is nothing uiatorial. She tells 
 him that her father wished tVicy had a larger plaeo than 
 Row, and that thsy would not likely go back there again. 
 Now, at this very time Mr Minnoch has told you that a 
 few days afterwards he asked the prisoner to be his wife, 
 and yet she writes to L'Angelier on Monday night — 
 " Sweet love, come if yon can." The next letter is 
 dated Monday, and this must be Monday the 12th. It 
 seems thai tliBy had been in the habit of having inter- 
 views under' the windows — in one instance it appears 
 that he left a letter at the window, and got, I suppose, 
 an answer to it in the same way. This letter was posted 
 on the 14th, aijd I am not very sure if there is' anything 
 material in it, excepting that she says in a postscript that 
 she does not hear of their going froin home, thai she is 
 afraid there is no chance tor them, and that she does 
 not see how they cbuld^ be married in Edinburgh. 
 She also speaks of Mr Minnoch, and that if L'Angelier 
 h3 
 
230 
 
 saw him she thinks hs Would like him, as she liked him 
 better than she used to do. Then, gentlemen, came 
 Friday afternoon, and posted the same day, because, 
 ■when she writes during the day, she posts her letter the 
 same day, and, if at night, not till the day after. In this 
 letter she asks L'Angelier if his cold is better, and wishes 
 he would get well as soon as he could. There 
 is also a reference to Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer, 
 who was about that ^time made Lord Rector, and 
 she wishes, if she should go to Edinburgh, that a note 
 should be left for her on Sunday at six o'clock, or on 
 Monday at the same hour. The next letter is dated 
 Monday, five o'clock. Now Monday was the 19th 
 January, and it bears the postmark of Glasgow 19th 
 January. It is one of those that were found in the desk 
 of L'Angelier, and taken to the Fiscal by Mr Stevenson. 
 In this letter she says : — "My sweet Emile, I hope you 
 are well." Gentlemen, let me make this remark, that 
 though, the expressions from this time forward are muo'H 
 to the same in eifeot, there is a manifest chill in them— 
 the letters are shorter and curter than before. She goes 
 on to say in it : — " I am your wife ; I did love you so much 
 when you were at the window last night." And so accord- 
 ingly he was at the window on Sunday the 18th Janifary. 
 Now, gentlemen, go back to the letter of the 9th January ; 
 you "will see that it contains this passage : — " When we 
 shall meet again I oannbt tell." In the letter of the 10th 
 January she says : — " My dear sweet pet, I would so like 
 to spend three or four hours with you to talk over some 
 things, but I don't kuow when we can meet. Perhaps in 
 ten days I may see you for a minute — same arrangement 
 as last. If you wojild risk it, my sweet beloved pet, we 
 would have ti e to kiss each other, and a dear fond 
 , embrace, and gh, sweet love, it is only for a minute, 
 do you not th t is better than not meeting at all." 
 In the course n days they v/ere to meet ; *they had 
 
 met before, but their meeting was postponed for the 
 present. I have been reading to you previously from the 
 letter of Monday, 19th January. Now, there is a letter, 
 No. 97, enclosed, bearing the date Glasgow, January 
 27, and written on Friday; this letter was shown to 
 
231 
 
 ihe prisoner, and she recognises the envelope, fiut 
 in this envelope there is another letter, bearing no date 
 but " Sunday night." At first it is not easy to say how 
 it was enclosed in the envelope of Friday the 23d January, 
 but that letter is written in pencil, and in all probability 
 was never in an envelopp at all. It says : — " Bmile, my 
 own beloved, you have just left me. Oh, sweet darling, 
 at this moment my heart and soul burns with love for 
 thee, my husband, my sweet one. Emile, what would I 
 not give at this moment to be your fond wife. My night- 
 dress was on when you saw me ; would to God you had 
 been in the same attire." Now, I think it plain that the 
 true date of this letter is Sunday the 18th, because the ■ 
 letter of Monday the 19bh says : — " I did love you so 
 much last night when you were at the window." The next 
 dite is " Wednesday forenoon, five o'clock," the post- 
 mark " 21st January 1867," and Wednesday was the 21st 
 of January 1857. This is a very short letter. It says : — 
 "I have just five minutes to spare. Why no letter, 
 pet ? On Monday night it was such a disappointment 
 to your Mimi. I cannot see you on Thursday as T 
 hoped. The next letter is dated "Thursday, twelve 
 o'clock ;" the envelope bears the postmark of 23d 
 .lantiary, and Friday was the 23d of that month. The 
 letter, therefore, was written on Thursday. She had 
 said-iri the former letter : — " I cannot see you on Thurs- 
 day as I hoped." Then she writes in this letter : — "I 
 was so very sorry that I could not see ,you to-night. I 
 had expected an hour's chat with you ; but we must 
 just hope for better the next time." That letter also 
 was found in the desk, and was spoken to by the 
 prisoner in her declaration. She says in it : — " M. is not 
 well enough to go from home ; and my dear sweet little 
 pet, I don't see we could manage in Edinburgh, because 
 I could not leave a friend's house without their knowing it. 
 So, sweet pet,it must at present be put off till a better time. 
 I see no chance before March, but rest assured, my dear 
 love, Emile, if I see any chance I shall let you know of it." 
 That this was written about the 23d there is no question, 
 because she identifies it in her declaration. Wow, gentle- 
 men, mark this— On the 28th of the month of January the 
 
232 
 
 prisoner accepts Minnoch. The two next documents are 
 two envelopes, and they bear date the 24th and 26th 
 January. You will immeiliately see why there are no 
 letters in them. 1 will pass them over in the meantime, 
 and I now come, to two letters of the deepest possible 
 consequence. They are enclosed in envelopes, and the 
 postmark is Glasgow, ■ ■ 1857. They are deliver- 
 able in the morning. Just before I reac} them let me 
 refer to thi evidence of Mi- Kennedy upon this most 
 material point. She had, as I have told you, accepted Mr 
 Minnoch on the 2Sth. Kennedy says that on a morning in 
 February— he thinks a fortnight before the 23d— L'Amgelier 
 had come to the counting-house with tears in his eyes, and 
 said that Miss Smith had written to him for her letters, 
 and breaking off the engagement ; that she said there 
 was coolness on both sides ; that he had got the letter 
 that morning ; that he would not give up the letters j 
 and that she should not marry any one else while 
 he lived. L'Angelier tells this to Kennedy on the 
 day that the letter tame ; you can have no doubt, 
 therefore, that the two letters I am about to read to you 
 were' sent to L'Angelier. She says: — "I feel truly 
 astonished to have my last letter returned to me, but it 
 will be the last you shall have an opportunity of return- 
 ing." There are two envelopes produced, I have said, 
 and one of the letters which they contained must 
 have been returned to Miss Smith by L'Angelier. 
 "I feel astonished," she says, evidently because' 
 the letter from him was not couched in the 
 ordinary language of affection. There is a " 2" on 
 the postmark, and that it was written on the 
 2d is beyond all question ; and of course it arrived 
 on the 3d. It says : — " When you are not pleased 
 with the letters I send you, then our correspon. 
 dence shall be at an end; and as there is a coolness 
 on both sides, our engagement had better be broken." 
 Now, these are the very words that Kennedy told you 
 L'Angelier repeated to him on the morning when he 
 entered the counting-house so much distressed. She 
 says : — " You have more than once returned me my 
 letters, and my mind was made up that I should not 
 
233 
 
 stand the same thing ag^in. And you also annoyed 
 mo much oa Saturday by your condiiot' in coming so 
 near me; altogether, I think; owing to coolness and 
 indifference (nothing else) that we had better for the 
 future consider ourselves strangers. I trust to your 
 honour as a gentleman that you will not reveal anything 
 that may have passed between us. I shall' feel obliged 
 by your bringing me my letters and likeness on Thursday 
 evening at sevrin. Be at the area gate, and 0. H. 
 (CJhristina Haggart) will take the parcel from you. On 
 JFriday night I shall send you all your letters, likeness, 
 &c. I trust that you may yet be happy, and get 
 one more worthy of you than I. On Thursday at seven 
 o'clock." She says that slie had found coolness and indif- 
 ference on both sides, and for that reason, and as she 
 affirms for nothing else, the engagement had better be 
 broken off. But remember, gentlemen, four days before 
 that letter was written she had been engaged to Mr 
 Minnoch. She was to return L'Angelier's letters to him ; 
 therefore she had them. On the 2d of February she had 
 his letters ; she was to return them on the Friday ; and 
 she was also to return L'Angelier's likeness. It was 
 found in her chamber.' "What became of these letters 
 we have no explanation of whatever. There is a post- 
 script to this important letter. She says : — " You may 
 be astonished at this sudden change, but for some time 
 back you must have noticed a coolness in my notes. My 
 love for you has ceased, and that is why I was cool. I 
 did love you truly and fondly, but for some time back I 
 have lost much of that love. There is no other reason 
 for my conduct, and I think it but fair to let you know 
 this. 1 might have gone on and become your wife, but I 
 could not have loved you as I ought. My conduct you 
 will condemn, but I did at one time Ipve you with my 
 heart and soul. It has cost me much to tell you — sleep- 
 less nightst— but it was necessary that you shoiild know. 
 If you remoiin in Glasgow or go away, I hope you may 
 succeed ' in all your endeavours. I know you will never 
 injure the character of one you so fondly loved. No, 
 Emile, I know you have honour, apd are a gentleman. 
 ■What has passed you will not mention. I know when I 
 
234 
 
 ask you that you will comply." Gentlemen, what a 
 labyrinth ! — what a wilderness thi's unhappy girl, first by 
 her love, and then by her want of truth, was driving 
 herself into ! Shetriestobreakoffthisengagementbeoause 
 she says there was coolness on both sides, which I dare say 
 on her part was not affected. She says she has no other 
 reason for her conduct but that she has lost her love for 
 L'Angelier — she says this when she knows that the actual 
 reason is that she has pledged her word to another. §he tells 
 L'Angelier that her affection was withdrawn, in the hope 
 that his, indignant spirit would induce hiin to turn her 
 off, when she would be free to form another engagement. 
 But, gentlemen, she had the dreadful recollection of the 
 existence of the correspondence. She did not know how 
 much L'Angelier had, but she knew that she was 
 completely in his power. Gentlemen, she did not hear 
 from L'Angelier for more than 'a week. She accordingly 
 wrote this second letter, which bears 'the postmark of 
 the 9th February; and its contents prove that it was 
 then written. " I attribute to your having cold that I 
 had no answer to my last note. On Thursday evening 
 you were, I suppose, afraid of the night air. I fear your 
 cold is not better. I again appoint Thursday night 
 first — same place — street' gate — seven o'clock. — M." 
 Now, gentlemen; the first Thursday in February was the 
 5th, and the next consequently was the 12th, therefore 
 this letter was written after the 4th, and some days 
 before the 12th. She adds in the same letter : — " If 
 you bring me the parcel on Thursday, please write a note 
 saying when you shall bring it, and address it to C. H. 
 . . . Send it by post." She had got no answer to the 
 demand foB her letters, and she writes this cold letter in 
 the tone of the former, saying everything is broken off 
 and making a second appointment for the delivery of her 
 letters. Gentlemen, L'Angelier refused to give up the 
 letters. He refused to give them up to her. He told 
 Miss Povry, and he told Mr Kennedy, that he would not 
 give up the letters, but that, on the contrary, he would 
 show them to her father. Kow, gentlemen, i» other 
 oircamstanoes, and had matters not gone so far between 
 these unfortunate persons, it might hav? been considered 
 
235 
 
 a dislionouTable and ungenei-ous thing in a man in 
 L'Angelier's position. But whether it was or no is not 
 material to the matter in hand. I must say, however, 
 that in the position in which the prisoner and L'Angelier 
 stood, I do not see how he, as a man of honour, oould 
 allow this marriage with Mr Minnoch to take place and 
 remain silent. It i»ay be doubted whether or not they 
 were man and wife by the law of the land. It is needless 
 ' to discuss this question. There are materials in this oorre" 
 spondenoe to show that this view might be maintained by 
 L'Angelier had he choosed to do it, and that he consi- 
 dered the prisoner his wife though they had not been 
 married in a regular and respectable manner. He con- 
 sidered hei' his wife, and so thinking he had a right not to 
 give up the letters. I do not think, therefore, that much 
 can be said about L'Angelier not giving up these letters. 
 It matters not. The fact is he refused, and the fact is! 
 you will find he made the threat to herself, as he said to 
 Kennedy he would do, as well as to Miss Perry and others. 
 Gentlemen, just listen to this. It is a letter dated 
 Monday night ; Monday night was the 9th Sebruary ; it 
 is posted in Glasgow on the 10th, the month illegible ; tlie 
 appointment is made for the 13th, and recollecting the 
 strain of the letters that went before, listen to this : — 
 '* Monday night. — Emile, — I have just had your note. 
 Emile, for the lOve you once had for me do nothing till I 
 see you. For God's sake do not bring your once loved 
 Mimi to an open shame. Emile, I have deceived you. I 
 have deceived my mother. God knows she did not boast 
 of anything I had said of you, for the poor woman thought 
 I had broken off with yon last winter. I deceived you by 
 telling you she still knew of our engagement. She did 
 not. This I now confess, and as for wishing for an 
 engagement with another, I do not fancy she ever thought 
 of it. Emile, write to no one — to papa or any other. Oh 
 do not till I see you on "Wednesday night. Be at the 
 HamUtons' at twelve, and I shall open my shutter, and 
 then you come to the area gate, and I shall see you. It 
 would break my mother's heart. Oh, Emile, be not 
 harsh to me.> I am the most guilty miserable wretch on 
 the face of the earth. Emile, do not drive me to death. 
 
When I ceased to love you, believe me it was not to love 
 anotljer. I am free from all engagement at present." 
 Unfortunately, the course of deliberate falsehood into 
 Vfhioh this unhappy girl had brought herself is not one of 
 the least of her crimes. " Emile, for God's sake," she 
 continues, " do not send my letters to papa ; it will be 
 an. open rupture. I will leave the house. I ■will die. 
 Emile, do nothing tilll see you. One word to-morrow night 
 at my window, or I shall go inad. EmUe, you did love 
 me. I did fondly, truly love yoa too. Oh, dear Emile, 
 be not so harsh to me. WilLyou not ? But I cannot ask 
 forgiveness — I am too guilty for that. I- have deceived. 
 It was love for you at the time made me say mamma knew 
 of our engagement. To-morrow one word, and on 
 Wednesday we meet. I would not again ask you to love 
 me, for I know you could not." I would remark that 
 throughout all this despair there is no talk of 
 renewing her engagement with L'Angelier. Her object 
 was to be in a position to fulfil ier engagement 
 with MinnOch: — "But, oh, Emile, do not make me go 
 mad. I will tell you that only myself and C. H. knew 
 of my engagement to you. Mamma did not know since 
 last winter. Pray for me — for a guilty wretch — but do 
 nothing.. Oh, Emile, do nothing. Ten o'clock to-morrow 
 night— one line, for the love of God. —Tuesday morning. 
 — I am ill. God knows what I have suifered. My 
 punishment is more than I can bear. Do nothing till I 
 see you. For the love of Heaven do nothing. I am 
 mad. lam ill. — Sunday night." Now, gentlemen, we- 
 have traced the matter up to this point. She is so 
 committed that she cannot extricate herself, and yet, if 
 not extricated, her character, her fame, her reputation, 
 her position, are forfeited for ever. But she does-., 
 receive a letter from L'Angelier which we don't possess ; 
 but on the Tuesday evening she again writes to him. 
 This is one of the letters found in his desk. It was not 
 posted at all. It was delivered, and was found in an 
 envelope ; but it refers plainly to the letter that went 
 before, and to the assignations that ivere made. I shall 
 read every word of that letter, long as it is, for it is per- 
 haps the point on which this case turns : — [Read letter 
 
I23r 
 
 107, down to " I put on paper what I should not."] Doubt- 
 less, poor creature, she had done that, and throughout this 
 unhappy history o£ the gradual progress of an Ul-regulated 
 mind, one cannot see all this without — what I am sure I 
 feel from the bottom of my heart — the deepest commi- 
 seration. Doubtless L'Angelier had abused his oppor- 
 tunities in a way that no man of honour ought to have done, 
 and had stolen into that family and destroyed their peace 
 for ever. She had no doubt put on paper what she should 
 not — [The Lord Advocate then read other portions of the 
 letter.] — Gentlemen, I never in my life had so harrowing a 
 task as raking up and bringing before such a tribunal and 
 audience as this the outpourings of such a despairing 
 spirit, and in such a . position as this miserable girl was. 
 Such words as these paraded in public under any circum- 
 stances would be intolerable agony, but the circumstances 
 of this case throw all these considerations utterly into the 
 shade, and if for a moment they do obtrude themselves 
 upon us they must be repelled, for our duty is a stem one 
 and cannot yield to such considerations. Then, gentle-, 
 men, pausing there for a moment, let me take in some 
 ' surrounding circumstances, at the same time. L'Angelier, 
 whatever were his faults, was certainly true to her. He 
 spoke to Kennedy about her. He said his love for her 
 was infatuation, and that it would be the death of him. 
 It was not revenge that he wanted ; he wanted his wife, 
 and he plainly had told her that he would not permit 
 their engagement to be broken off, and that he would put 
 these letters into her father's hands. As I have 
 already said I do not know thai in the circumstances 
 he was altogether wrong in so doing. But, gentle- 
 men, at this time, a very remarkable incident takes 
 place : , More than four, and leas than eight, as one 
 witness says, about six weeks, as two of the witnesses say, 
 prior to the apprehension of the prisoner, and the news 
 of the death of L'Angelier becoming public, that is to 
 say, between four and eight weeks prior to the 26th 
 March, or, in other words, on the second week of Feb- 
 ruary, the prisoner asked the boy, the page who sei-ved in 
 the family, to go to a druggist's with a line for a bottle 
 of prussio acid. The date, I think, is brought out quite 
 
238 
 
 clearly witliin that period for any purpose I have in 
 view, and aix weeks before the 26th March would just 
 be between the 6th an(i 12fch of February. You have 
 seen' the state of mind she was in. Some extrication 
 was inevitable if she hoped to save her character, and 
 with » strength of will which I think she exhibited in 
 some more passages in "this case, she resolved she would 
 not go back to L'Angelier ; she had ceased to love 
 him ; she had determined to marry another. And 
 i.hroughout all this, while she is in utter despair, and tries 
 to move him by her protestations, there is not the 
 slightest indication of an intention to go back and love 
 him, and be his wife. Quite the contrary ; but on that 
 clay, at the door of her bed-room, she give's Murray a line 
 for prussic acid. For what purpose ? Tor what purpose 
 on earth could she want it? and for what purpose did she 
 say she wanted it ? For her hands. This is the first 
 i ndication we have that her mind is running in that way. 
 Tills is the first suggestion we 'have of the means she 
 proposes for her extrication. Why did she want prussic 
 a^id for her hands ? As a cosmetic! Did you ever hear, 
 gentlemen, of pnissio acid being used for the hands? 
 Ther& has been, among a great deal of curious medical 
 evidence in this case, no suggestion that prussic acid was 
 ever used for the hands. Biit it will hot escape your 
 notice, that not only is her mind now beginning to run 
 on poisons, but it is also beginning to run on the excuses 
 for wanting them. She did not get the prussic acid ; but 
 ii is perfectly clear that the time when she wanted it 
 was ihfi date of these despairing letters, imme- 
 diately before the meeting which she appointed for 
 Wednesday the 11th, and regarding which she says : — 
 " If I cannot get you in at the baok-door, I will take 
 you in at the front-door." Another incident happened 
 at this tune. Christina Haggart says that one day some 
 weeks before the apprehension of Miss Smith, but not 
 two months, an interview took place between the 
 prisoner and L'Angelier in the house in Blythswood 
 Square. Christina Haggart did not see L'Angelier, but 
 she told you plainly she knew it was he, and that he 
 and the prisoner remained alone for nearly an hour in 
 
239 
 
 her room, and. that she (Christina Haggart) remained in 
 the kitchen while L'Angeller and the prisoner were 
 together. There can be no doubt about the date, though 
 my learned friend tried to throw some obscurity over it. 
 What she said was that less than two months, but weeks 
 before the apprehension of the prisoner, this took place. 
 Now, you recollect that the letters I have been reading 
 to you, from No. 85 onwards, being dated January 
 9, showed that for some time there had been no 
 meeting between the parties at all. In No. 87, 
 she says — " I may see you possibly in ten days ;" but 
 before the ten days are out the quarrel .has begun, 
 the coolness has been commenced, she had asked 
 her letters back, and you have these despairing remon- 
 strances from her, and a meeting fixed for "Wednesday 
 the 11th February. There can, therefore, be no ques- 
 tion whatever that that meeting did take place, and take 
 place in terms of this appointment. There is no other 
 occasion that it could possibly have taken place 
 consistently with Christina Haggart's evidence. Two 
 months before the apprehen&ion of the prisoner woidd 
 bring you back to the 30th January. It was not two 
 months, though it was weeks, says the witness, and that 
 fixes the time pretty clearly. But, gentlemen, w^hen M. 
 De Meau asked the prisoner how she and L'Angelier 
 met, she denied he had ever been in that house at all, 
 plainly and positively. I have shown to you from her 
 letters he had been more than once in that house before, 
 but probably not in the course of 1857. Bat she 
 positively denied he ever had been there at all. 
 you will find allusions in these letters to embraces, 
 nterviews, and things that could only have taken place 
 u the house, and she says distinctly that he might come 
 without fear, for no one would see him, and that they 
 might have an interview. That one interview took placo, 
 we have the direct testimony of one witness. What took 
 place at that interview we cannot tell ; but we find this, 
 that, in one w^y or another, this feud had been made up — 
 that the whole tiling had been arranged ; and how 
 arranged? Not certainly, gentlemen, on the footing of 
 giving up the letteiB — not certainly on the footing of the 
 
340 
 
 prisoner not ooiitinuing her engagement with L'Angelier ; 
 but, on the opposite footing, upon the footing of the 
 engagement continuing. How was that to extricate the 
 prisoner ? "What did she propose to lierself to do ? She 
 had found that L'Angelier would not give up the letters. 
 She did not go on to endeavour to induce him to do so by 
 despairing protestations. She took another line, and 
 that line was pretending — ^because it could not be real 
 — pretending to adopt the old tone of love and affec- 
 tion ; all this time keeping up the engagement with Mr 
 Minnoch, receiving the congratulations of her friends, 
 receiving presents from him, and engaged in fixing the 
 ti^ie of her union. But they met that day ; and the next 
 letter was foimd in the desk, and was one of those 
 brought by Stevenson to the Procurator-Fiscal. It bears 
 date "Osborne Buildings, Receiving Office, Glasgow, 
 14th February 1857." It was written apparently on 
 Saturday the 14th : — "My dear Emile, — I have got my 
 finger cut and can't write ; I was glad to see you looking 
 so well yesterday." I don't think that refers to their 
 interview ; she was in the habit of passing his window 
 and looking up at his window, for you find that referred 
 to in subsequent letters, and the probability is that that 
 is what is here refeirred to. The interview took place, 
 as I have shown, on Wednesday night : — " I want the 
 first time we meet that you will bring all my cool 
 letters back — the last four I have written — and I 
 will give you others in their place" — these are the 
 only letters she asks for now — the cool letters; she 
 asks for' those letters that she had written in her 
 cool moments, to convince L'Angelier that she is as true 
 to him as ever; but she makes an appointment for 
 Thursday, and if that letter was written according to 
 the postmark, plainly the quarrel has been made up, 
 and it must have been after the date of these despairing 
 letters. The day was Thursday, 19th February. Be 
 kind enough to bear that in mind. We are now coming 
 to the very crisis of the case. On Tuesday the 17th 
 February L'Angelier dined with Miss Perry ; he told her 
 he was to see Miss Smith on the Thursday. Thursday 
 was the 19th, and you find in this letter a corroboration 
 
241 
 
 of that statement of Miss Perry's ; he told her that he 
 was to see Miss Smith on the 19th ; she says—" Write 
 me for next Thursday ;" he must have called with the 
 letter ; he had that ' appointment with her, itiid he 
 had told Miss Perry that he had seen her on the 
 19th — some day before the 22d of February, as I 
 say the 19th of February, and you wiU see whether 
 that is proved or not iinmediately. L'Angeller in the 
 middle of the night was seized with a sudden illness. 
 You heard it described by his landlady, Mrs Jenkins ; it 
 was vomiting, purging, vomiting of a green stuff, and 
 excessive pain. He lay on the floor all night ; he was so 
 9 ill that he could not call for assistance for some time ; and 
 his landlady found him in the morning. At last he was 
 relieved, but only after a great deal of suffering. These 
 symptoms were the symptoms of arsenic. My learned 
 friends say that it might be cholera. Never mind at pre- 
 sent whether it might be cholera or not — these symptoms 
 were the symptoms of arsenic, the symptoms of an 
 irritant poisoh. I sliaE consider by-and-by whether 
 the symptoms of cholera are precisely the same. It 
 is enough that they were the symptoms of arsenical 
 poisoning. He recovered ; and he went out on the 
 day after, on the 20th. On the 2lBt, the prisoner 
 purchased arsenic at the shop of Mr Murdoch — a 
 very singular purchase, gentlemen, for a person in 
 her position to make. But it was not the first time in 
 the history of this, case that she had tried to buy poison. 
 She had tried to buy poison before that meeting of 
 Wednesday the 11th. I shall not stop just now to discuss 
 the question of the reason which she gave for it, because 
 my object at present is simply to give you the facts 
 historioSlly, although if you should find that the excuse 
 she gave for the buying of the poison was a false one, 
 it is evident how strong and inevitable the conclusion is 
 which' you must necessarily draw from that single fact. 
 But she went to Murdoch's shop ; she asked for the 
 arsenic openly, but the story she told in regard to its use 
 was, upon her own confession, an absolute falsehood ; 
 she said she wanted it to poison the rats at Kow. A 
 different excuse is afterwards given for the purchase of it. 
 
242 
 
 but you have this singular and startling fa<:t, that oh 
 the 21st she goes into Mr Murdoch's , shop alone ; 
 she asks foi^ arsenic ; says that the gardener at Bow 
 wants it to poison rats ; she. says he has tried phosphorus 
 paste, but that that will not do, and that he wants to 
 try arsenic. Gentlemen, that was an utter falsehood — 
 an admitted falsehood. We shall see immediately what 
 she says the real reason was, and it was different from 
 the one she. gave in the shop. Having purchased that 
 'arsenic on the 21st, according to my state];asnt, 
 L'Angelier saw her on the 22d, which was a Sunday,^nd 
 on the night of the 22d and the morning of the 23d he 
 was again seized with the very symptoms that he had 
 had before — the identical symptoms, in a somewhat 
 milder form — vi?., the green vomiting again, the purging 
 again, pains again, the thirst again — ^everything, in short, 
 which you would expect in a case of arsenical poisoning. 
 Gentlemen^ I deseribed these eymptoms to Dr 
 Christison, and you heard what he said he would 
 have concluded. Dr Thomson, who attended the 
 patient, said that the symptoms which he himself saw 
 were the symptoms which he would have expected in a 
 case of arsenical poisoning. And for the present, for the 
 purpose of what I am now maintaining, it is quite 
 enough for my story that the symptoms were in 
 substance those which follow /rom arsenical poison, 
 ing. And that is on the 22d. There is no 
 doubt about that date. It is Monday the 23d and 
 Sunday the 22d, it is the evening of Sunday and ihe 
 morning of Monday about which we are now speaking. 
 Now, gentlemen, it is most material to give me your 
 attention at this particular part of the case. If you 
 believe Miss Perry — ^and Ithink you wiU find no reason to 
 disbelieve her — L'Angelier told her that he had seen the 
 prisoner on the 19th, that he had been ill immediately 
 after the 19th, and that he had afterwards been ill — after 
 the 22d and 23d— I don't know that she named these dates, 
 but she certainly said he was twice ill before she saw him, 
 and he told her this that these two iUnesses had followed 
 after receiving coffee one' time and chocolate another time 
 from the hands of the prisoner, Kow, if that be true, 
 
iuid if he oertainly said so, then it is certain that he saw 
 her upon the 19th and that he saw her upon the 22d ; 
 and in corroboration of that will you listen to this letter 
 which was found in the tourist's bag, tad which un^iues- 
 tionably was in the state in which it was when found. 
 And I think you will consider this letter of the deepest 
 importance to the facts of this case. It was posted at 
 Glasgow, the date was illegible, and we had a great deal 
 of discussion with the witness from the Post Office as to 
 what really was the postmark. He thought at last he 
 saw a letter which indicated March. My learned friends 
 disputed the accuracy of his inspection, and I am inclined 
 to dispute it too, and, indeed, I do dispute it. The man 
 was wrong. I believe the postmark is entirely obliterated. 
 If you have any curiosity, or rather, if you think you 
 should look at it, as my learned friendsproposed you'should, 
 I am sure I have no objection whatever, but I will tell 
 you the real date of it, and I shall prove it irrespective 
 of the postmark. Its date was Wednesday the 25th 
 February ; and now I shall read it : — " Tou looked bad 
 on Sunday night and Monday morning." That could only 
 be Sunday the 22d, and Monday the 23d February. " I 
 think you got sick with walking home so late, and the 
 long want of food, so the next time we meet I shall make 
 you eat a loaf of bread before you go out. I am longing to 
 meet you again, sweet love. My hand aches so, and I 
 am looking so bad that I cannot sit up as I used to do • 
 but I am taking some stuff to bring back the colour. I 
 shall see you soon again. Put up with short notes for a 
 little time." Now, gentlemen, if that was written on 
 the 25th, it proves that he saw her on Sunday and 
 Monday the 22d and 23d. It proves that he was sick at 
 that time and was looking very bad. According to my 
 statement, he was ill on the 19th. It proves that she was 
 thiri"kingabout giving him food, that she was layingafounda- 
 tion for saying that she was taking stuff to bring back her 
 colour. It proves that she was holding out a kind of 
 explanation of the symptoms which he had, because she 
 says she is ill ' herself ; and it proves that all this took 
 place the day aftei: she had bought arsenic at Murdoch's. 
 1/ Angelier said that it took place after receiving a cup of 
 
244 
 
 coffee from herself j and? she says in her own declaration 
 that npon one occasion she did give Mm a cup of coffee. 
 As to the date of this letter, these tew facts determine 
 it absolutely. In the first place, it was after his iUness ; 
 it is dated on Wednesday, and it is after his illness, after 
 he was unable to go to the office in consequence of illness, 
 for it says — "I am so sorry to hear you are ill," &o. 
 The prisoner is shown that letter, and refers to it in her 
 declaration, as alluding to his recent iUness. She says it 
 was a mere jocular observation that about the want of 
 food ; and that, as she attributed his illness to'the want 
 of food, she had made that observation about the loaf of 
 bread. If she knew he was ill, it could not be 
 "Wednesday the 4th March, because she says in 
 this letter dated "Wednesday : — "I cannot see you on 
 Friday, because M. is not away, but I think on 
 Sunday she will be away, and I might see you, but I shall 
 let you know." Npw, the first "Wednesday of March was 
 the 4th, and there is a letter of 3d March, in which she 
 tells him they are going to the Bridge of Allan on Friday 
 the 6th, and therefore it is perfectly impossible that on 
 "Wednesday the 4th she could write him she could see 
 him on Sunday. They were going to the Bridge of Allan 
 on Friday, the 6th, and therefore it could not be that 
 "Wednesday (the 4th) she wrote on. The next "Wednes- 
 day was the 11th, and by that time slip was at the Bridge 
 of Allan, and L'Angelier was in Edinburgh. The next 
 "Wednesday was the, 18th, and that is the day L'Angelier 
 was in , Glasgow, and it is quite, plain she never could 
 have, written ; a letter on that day saying— " I am 
 so sorry to hear you are ill. I hope you will 
 soon he better — take care of yourself," because on 
 "Wednesday the 18th he was greatly better, and had just 
 returned ;from Edinburgh. ISTow, that I have shown 
 you how the matter stands up to Wednesday the 
 25th February, what do you think of it ? No doubt the 
 illness of the 19th takes place when I cannot prove the 
 prisonerha jl any arsenic in the house — that is perfectly true. 
 The prisoner took some pains to prove that arsenic might 
 be had without being purchased in a druggist's shop, but 
 you will look at the smrounding circumstances in the 
 
246 
 
 case — at the fact thai L'Angelier said his two first 
 Uliiesses had arisen immediately after receiving a cup of 
 coffee one time and a cup of cocoa or chocolate the other, 
 that she admits she did give. him a cupiof cocoa, that she 
 had the means of making it in the house, that the illness 
 the secondtime was the same as the first time, and that upon 
 both occasions these illnesses were symptomatic of arsenic. 
 You will also consider, what weighs on my.mind, what 
 was the nature of the arrangement between L'Angelierand 
 Miss Smith. How did she propose to extricate herself 
 from the difficulties iu which she found herself placed ? 
 She had everything at stake — character, fame, fortune, 
 and everything else. She knew she could not get back 
 her letters by entreaties, and she did not endeavour to 
 get them by that means any loiiger, but professed to 
 adhere.to their engagement. What did she contemplate 
 at that moment ? For the first time she begins to pur,- 
 chase, or endeavour to purchase, prussic acid. And now, 
 gentlemen, for the arsenic. "Wliat reason does she give 
 for the purchase of arsenic ? She says she had been 
 told when at school in England, by a Miss Gaibilei, that 
 arsenic is good for the complexion. She came from 
 school in 1853, and, singular enough, it is not till that 
 week of February prior to the 22d that she ever thinks 
 of arsenic for that purpose. Why, gentlemen, should 
 that be ? At that moment I have shown you she was 
 frightened at the danger she was in in the highest degree, 
 and is it likely that at that time , she was looking for a 
 new cosmetic ? But what is the truth as to what she had 
 heard, or very likely read? Wkat is the use of the. 
 arsenic, and what does she say ? She says that she 
 poured it all into a basin, and washed her face with it. 
 Gentlemen, do yon believe that ? If she was following 
 out what siie found iu the Magazines, that was 
 not what she found there ; for they say that the 
 way to use arsenic is internally. Therefore do you 
 believe that she got the arsenic for the purpose she says ? 
 A very respectable gentleman came into the box yesterday 
 to swear that 'arsenic might be safely used in that way, 
 and he actually had the courage to try the experiment 
 on Saturday. I should not like to say anything to shake 
 
246 
 
 the nerves of that gentleman, but the experiment cannot 
 be said to be yet completed, and yrhat he 'did on Satur- 
 day may produce some illness hereafter. "With all 
 deference to Drs Maclagan and Laurie, we have heard 
 from the two first authorities in Europe, that such 
 practices may be attended with danger. Dr Maclagan 
 says that if you shut your mouth and eyes the experiment 
 may be safe ; but Dr Penny and Dr Christison tell you 
 plainly they would not like to wash in it. But has ihe 
 prisoner shown you, or has her counsel, with all their 
 ability, that any man anywhere ever propounded washing 
 with arsenic as a cosmetic ? Before ^ou can take such a 
 preposterous story, she must show that in some 
 reasonable and rational manner she was led to believe 
 that this cosmetic might be usefully and safely used. 
 But aU that has been referred to is the swallowing of 
 arsenic. She says she used the whole quantity each 
 time in a basin of water. I fear, gentlemen, there is but 
 one conclusion, and that is, that there is not a word of 
 truth in the excuse ; and if therefore you think there are 
 two falsehoods here about the poisoning — the first told in 
 the druggist's shop, and the second made in her declara- 
 tion — I fear the conclusion is inevitable that the purpose 
 tor which she had purchased it was a criminal one, and 
 that, taking all the circumstances together, you cannot 
 possibly doubt that the object was to use it for the 
 purpose of poisoning L' Angelier. But this time it failed ; 
 he is excessively ill, but recovers. How she got the 
 poison on the 19th.I say at once I am unable to account 
 for. But you will recollect what the symptoms were. 
 You will also recollect the letter, and that this letter 
 proves' the conclusiveness of what has been said 
 before, that L' Angelier was sick at the time of their 
 meetings And that reminds me of what I had 
 forgotten. The witness Thnau, you will remember, 
 asked L' Angelier if he had seen Miss Smith on the 
 occasion of his illness, and he said he had. If that 
 took place on the 19th, and I think I have proved it, 
 then you have additional evidence that the 19th was the 
 day. It is quite true that Mrs Jenkins says that she did 
 not think that L' Angelier was out on the 22d, but she 
 
247 
 
 said BO with liesit»liion, and it is quite plain that her 
 reoollection of the period is not very accurate unless she 
 has something to guide her. Bat jf that letter on the 
 25th be truly written on tlie 25bh, then unquestionably, 
 he was out on the Sunday night until Monday morning, 
 and told Miss Perry accordingly. He gets better, and 
 on the 27th of February, a letter, found in the tourist's 
 bag, clearly identified, bearing the postmark of 27th 
 February 1857, is sent from the prisoner in these terms : 
 — "My dear sweet Emile, — I cannot see you this week, 
 and I can fix no time to meet with you. I do hope you 
 are better — keep well and take care of yourself. I saw 
 you at your window. lam better, but have got a bad 
 cold. I shall write you, sweet one, in the beginning of 
 the week. I hope we may meet soon. We go I tlunk 
 to Stirlingshire about the lOch of March for a fort- 
 night." . That pro\res, if there were anything 
 to prove, that the Sunday night and Monday 
 morning were not subsequent to the 27th February, 
 Observe she says: — "I do hope you are better. 
 I am better, but have got a bad cold." There- 
 fore this letter of the 27th is quite clearly, con- 
 nected with the letter of the 25th, in which she say#, 
 " I am sorry to hear you are ill ; I am not well myself — 
 my head aches so." Then she writes on Friday to say, 
 " I hope you are better, &c." Now, what was L'Angeiier 
 about all this time ? We have very clear evidence of that 
 from Kennedy, Miss Perry, and Dr Thomson. The man 
 was entirely changed ; he never recovered his looks ; he 
 never recovered his health ; he appeared in the ofiice, as 
 Miller told you, with his complexion gone, and a deephectic 
 spot on either cheek. He appeared in Miss Perry's on 
 the 2d March, a man entirely altered from what he used 
 to be. He was advised to go away from his office ; he 
 followed the advice ^iven hun, and did not return 
 till next week; and it is proved by Mrs Jenkins, 
 Dr Thomson, and Kennedy that this was the only occa- 
 sion on which he was detained by illness from the office. 
 He was recommended to leave town for the good of his 
 health, and he got leave of absence from the office. 
 While I am here, let me just Allude in a single 
 
248 
 
 sentenca to the cotiT^eisation that took place between 
 Miss Perry and L'AngeUer. Gentlemen, you could not 
 fail to be Btruck with It. ' He said his love for Miss Smith 
 was fascination, and he used the remarkable expression.— 
 "If she were to poison me I would forgive her." He 
 had said before and elsewhere to Kennedy that he was 
 perfectly infatuated about her, and that she would be the 
 death of him. He used the expression — " If she were to 
 poison me I would forgive her" — in connection with the 
 statement that his iBness had immediately followed 
 his taking a cup of coffep or cocoa from her. Unless 
 it were true that he had felt ill with a cup of coffee on 
 one occasion and a cup of cocoa on the other, what 
 could have put it into his head to say — " If she was to 
 poison me I would forgive her." If you believe Miss 
 Perry's story, that he got a cup of coffee the first time 
 and a cup of cocoa the second, and take into account the 
 effects that followed, would you think it strange that he 
 should say, " It she was to poison me I would forgive 
 her ?" "With the other evidence I have brought to bear 
 upon this critical period — from 19bh to 27th Febniary^-I 
 leave you to judge whether at all events it is not certain, 
 first, that they met on these two occasions ; second, that 
 he got something from her on both occasions ; and third, 
 that his illness succeeded immediately after having got a 
 cup of coffee in the first place, and a cup of cocoa in the 
 'second ; and that, in the last place, these illnesses took 
 place under circumstances which led him to say, half iii 
 joke, half in earnest, " If she was to poison me I 
 would forgive her." Miss Perry does not say this 
 was a serious belief. It would appear to have 
 been a floating notion which coursed through his brain, 
 and I suppose he drove it away. We shall see what 
 happened to drive it _away ; we shall see protestations 
 of renewed love, which probably made him believe that 
 that phantom, suddenly conjured up, was after all a 
 mere delusion of his brain. In regard to Miss Perry's 
 evidence I will say that it was a remark made in the 
 Fiscal's office which made Miss Perry think again as 
 to the day of L'AngeUer's first illness— that at first she 
 thought the 19th was not the day, but ' she began to 
 
249 
 
 reflect, and she found it must be so ; because he was 
 dining with her on the 17th in 'Sood health. He had 
 been dining with her before in good health, and there- 
 fore as he had told her he had an engagement oa 
 the 19tli, she knew that that must be the day. While 
 L'Angelier was reooV'ering, the prisoner writes a letter 
 dated Tuesday the 3d of March. It appears that 
 L'Angelier had proposed to go to tha Bridge of Allan, 
 and on Tuesday the 3d of March the prisoner writes 
 this letter to say that they intend to go to Stirling 
 for a fortnight, and to go on Friday the 6tli. But it 
 seems that L'Angelier had some thoughts of going to the 
 Bridge of Allan too : — " My dearest EmUe, — I hope by 
 this time you are quite well, and able to be out. I saw 
 you at your window, but I could not tell how you looked 
 — well, I hope. I am very well. I was in Edinburgh on 
 Saturday to be at a luncheon of forty at the Castle. It 
 was a most charming day, and we enjoyed our trip very 
 much. On Friday we go to Stirling for a fortnight. I 
 am so sorry, my dearest pet, I cannot see you ere we go — 
 but I cannot. Will you, sweet one, write me for Thurs- 
 day, eight o'clock, and I shall get it before two o'clock, 
 which wiU be a comfort to me, as I shall not hear from 
 you till I come home again ? I am very well ; and I think 
 the next time we meet you will think I look better than I 
 did the last time. You won't have a letter from me this 
 Saturday, as I shall be off ; but I shall write the beginning 
 of the week. Write me for Thursday ; sweet love, and 
 with kind love ever believe me to be yours with love and 
 affection,— Mini." The terms of this letter prove 
 distnctly, I think, that this letter, which I have 
 presumed to be dated on the 25 bh, could not by 
 any possibility have been written after that. She writes 
 the next day a letter posted on the 4th March, and 
 clearly written at that time : — " Dearest Bmile, — I have 
 just time to ,write you a line. I could not come to the 
 window, as B. and M. were there, but I saw you. It 
 you would take my advice you would go to the South of 
 England for ten days ; it would do you much good. In 
 fact, sweet pet, it, would make you feel quite well. Do 
 try and do this. You will please me by getting strong 
 
250 
 
 bnd well again. I hope you won't go to B. of Allan, as 
 P. and M. would say it was I broaght you there, and it 
 would make me to feel very unhappy. Stirling you need 
 not go to, as it is a nasty dirty little town. Go to the 
 Isle of Wight. I am exceedingly sorry, lore, that I 
 cannot see you ere I go. It is impossible, but the first 
 thing I do on my return will be to See you, sweet love. 
 I must stop, as it is post time. So adieu, with love 
 and kisses, and much love. I am, with love and 
 affection, ever yours. — Mini." She had made the 
 attempt at poison on two occasions, and had failed. 
 Apparently her heart was somewhat touched, and "pro- 
 bably she thought that if she could get him out of the 
 way she might have her marriage with Mr Minnoch over 
 without his knowledge, after which it would be easy 
 to get her letters, as there would be no motive for 
 keeping them. You will see what L'Angelier says to 
 this proposition to go to the Isle of Wight. It cannot 
 but have struck you that these last letters, though 
 written in the words, are not written in the old spirit of 
 the letters between these persons, And, as it must have 
 struck you, so it "struck L'Angelier himself. And I am 
 now to read to you what I regret to say is the only scrap of 
 evidence under the hands of this young man that I am 
 able to lay before you. But that letter is of some conse- 
 quence. It shows the tone of his mind, and his position 
 altogether, after what had taken place between them 
 since the reconciliation ; and indicates very plainly 
 what at that time his suspicions were. The 
 Lord Advocate then read L'Angelier's letter, dated 
 " Glasgow, March 6," in which he expresses suspicion 
 that there is foundation for the report of the prisoner's 
 intended marriage with Mr Minnoch, demands an expla- 
 nation about the necklace presented to her, direct 
 answers to the questions she had before evaded, and asks 
 why she wishes so very much that' he should go 500 
 miles off to the Isle of Wight ? Observe, gentlemen, 
 that in that letter he says very plainly that, after the 
 meeting of the 22d, he was " forgetting all the past." What- 
 ever had floated through his mind on the subject of the 
 strange oolnoidence of his illnesses on the one hand, and 
 
251 
 
 his visits to the prisoner on the other — all that he put 
 away ; and he says that he was "forgetting all the past." 
 "But now," he says, "it is again beginning. Mimi, 
 I insist on having an explicit answelr to the (^viesiions 
 you evaded in my last. If you evade answering this 
 time, I must try some other means of coming to the 
 truth." This was written on the 5th March. He says 
 he won't go to the Isle of AViglit, and that the doctor 
 tells him he must go to the Bridge of Allan. The 
 prisoner buys her second ' ounce of arsenic next 
 day. But before she does it, she writes this letter 
 on the 5th. It plainly was written on the 5th, 
 because the press copy of the letter from L' Angelier 
 bears date the 5th, and it is an answer to that. " My 
 dear sweet pet," she says, "lam so sorry you should 
 be' so vexed ; believe nothing, sweet one, till I tell you 
 myself. It is a report I am sorry about, but it has been 
 six months spoken about. . . . We shall speak of 
 our union when we meet." Keeping it up, you see, 
 gentlemen, till the last ; for when she was at the Bridge 
 of Allan she made all her arrangements for her marriage 
 with Mr Minnoch in June. " I wish, love, you could 
 manage to remain in town till we come home, as I know* 
 it will be a grand row with me if you are seen there. 
 . . . Neither M. nor his sisters go with us." No, but 
 she knew that they were going there at the same time. 
 " If you do not go to Bridge of Allan till we come'home, 
 come up Mains Street to-morrow, and if you go, come 
 your own way." As I told you, next morning she 
 went into Currie's shop with Miss Buchanan to pur- 
 chase arsenic for the alleged purpose of killing rats 
 in the Blythswood ' Square house. She asked for 
 sixpence-worth, having bought the very same quantity 
 on the 21st February. After she gets a letter 
 from L' Angelier, saying, " If you won't answer my 
 questions, I will not any longer put them to you, but 
 will find another way of satisfying myself," she writes 
 him: — "Do not come to Bridge of Allan, but go to the 
 I«le of Wight. If you come to Bridge of AUan, come 
 your own way." But in the expectation that he might 
 come to Bridge of Allan on *he 36th. — [Lord IvoRT 
 
252 
 
 directed the attention of the Lord Advocate to the words 
 in the prisoner's letter last referred to — " I wiU tell and 
 answer you all questions when wo meet."] — The Lord 
 Advocate, after reading the sentence pointed out, pro- 
 ceeded — The prisoner purchased that arsenic unquestion- 
 ably upon a false statement. The statement was that it 
 was rats that were to fee poisoned, and that there would 
 be no danger, as the house was to be shut up, and all the 
 servants were to -be away. "Well, all that . story was 
 absolute falsehood ; the servants were not leaving Blyths- , 
 wood Square house, and there were no rats there to kill. 
 Again, it is said to be for her complexion. Do you 
 really think that it did her so much good the time 
 before that she came back for more of it ? No one in 
 that' witness-box has had the courage to say that 
 arsenic, when applied to the skin, had any other than 
 an irritant effect. It could not have been used as a 
 cosmetic, and at the very lowest, could not have been 
 found to have so beneficial an effect as to induce a repeti- 
 tion of the experiment. But when the prisoner found 
 the toils coming closer around her— -Xi'Angelier deter- 
 mined not to be put off— and she herself pledged to an 
 absolute falsehood — viz., that the report of her marriage 
 is not true — she purchases ailother dose of arsenic. Draw 
 your own conclusion, gentlemen ; I fear you will find but 
 one at which it is possible for you to arrive. It is said, 
 what did she do with all this arsenic ? she could not use 
 the half, the tenth, the twentieth part on the former 
 occasions. It is not difficult to account for that ; when- 
 ever she used so m^ch as she required, the rest was thrown 
 into the fire. She did not go to the Bridge of Allan, and 
 . had therefore no occasion to use it there ; and when she 
 found she had no use for it, she disposed of what she had 
 bought. The two last letters she wrote were' from the 
 Bridge of Allan. They are cold letters enough. The 
 first of them bears the postmark Bridge of Allan of the 
 10th March ; and she says among other things in it, that 
 she shall be home on Monday or Tuesday, and will write 
 him when they shall have an interview. Observe 
 that it is an interview she speaks of, and you will imme- 
 diately see with what feverish . impatience L'A.ngelier 
 
253 
 
 waited for receipt of that letter appointing the interview. 
 The last letter from her at the Bridge of Allan is dated 
 13th March, in. which she says: — " I think we shall be 
 home on Tuesday, so I shall let you know, my own 
 beloved sweet pet, when we shall hare a dear, sweet 
 interview, when I may be pressed to your heart, and 
 kissed by you, my own sweet love." Then she saya, "I 
 hope you will enjoy your visit here." By that, time it 
 had been arranged that L'Angelier should postpone his 
 visit till the Smiths came back. The marriage with Sir 
 Minnoch at this time was all settled — the day was fixed — • 
 the prisoner was committed beyond all hope of recovery, 
 and had but one way out. But leaving her there for the 
 present, let us follow the fortunes of L'Angelier for 
 the next most critical ten days of his life. He gets 
 leave of absence on the 6th, goes to Ediubui'gh for 
 a week, sees a variety of persons, and gets much 
 better. Several witnesses have told you how he 
 ate — how he talked about his illness, and you have 
 heard how he repeated in the house of Mi- Towers 
 the singular statement he had before made to Miss 
 Perry that he had got coffee and cocoa from somebody, 
 and that illness immediately succeeded on taking these 
 two substances. He says, "I do not wonder so much that 
 X should be ill after cocoa, for I am not accustomed to 
 that, but that I should be 01 after coffee, which I take 
 regularly, I cannot account for." And they were so much 
 struck with the remarkjihat they said to him, "Has any 
 one any motive in poisoning you ?" To that he made no 
 answer ; bijt you will not omit to see the corroboration 
 that gives to the story of Miss Perry, and to the real 
 circumstances, as I have explained them -to you. The 
 week after he was to have a letter appointing an inter- 
 view. He had not had one since the 22d, and he was 
 -longing for it with impatience. He came back to Glasgow 
 on Tuesday the 17th, and said, " Is there no letter waitmg 
 for me, for they were to be home on the 17th, and she 
 was to write and say when the interview was to be." He 
 stayed at home all Wednesday, better in health, but low 
 in spirits, expecting a letter. He went to Bridge of Allan 
 onThursdaythel9th,audafterhe t)ad gone, alettercame. 
 
254 
 
 He did not get that letter at bis lodgings, hut he had 
 left his address with M. Thuau, with instructions to 
 forward any letter which came ; and the envelope is 
 found addressed to his lodgings, and pasted between 
 8.45 A.M. and 12.25 p.m. on Thursday. That envelope 
 was found in the tourist's bag, and I make that remark 
 in consequence of an observation made by my learned 
 friend. That letter has never been found. We do not 
 know what became of it, but this is certain, that the 
 envelope without the letter was found in the bag ; and as 
 the things in the bag were marked at once, there can be 
 no doubt whatever as to the state in which they were 
 found. I regret the absence of that letter as much as 
 my learned friend can, though I think there is external 
 evidence of what that letter set forth. It arrived, 
 however, on the 19th March, Thursday, and Thuau on 
 the same day addressed it to the Post Office at Stirling ; 
 and that was posted at Franklin Place on the night of 
 the 19th March, and reached Stirling about nine o'clock 
 on the 20th. On the 20th L'Angelier writes to Miss 
 Perry, and says : — " I should have come to see some one 
 last night, but the letter came too late, so we are both 
 disappointed." After a letter or two which are not 
 material now for me to read — though they were material 
 as identifying the course L'Angelier took, as proved other- 
 wise—after a letter or two from Mr Stevenson and others, 
 we come to the last of the series. (His Lordship then 
 read the letter from panel, with postmark " Glasgow, 
 March 21," beginning : — "Why, my beloved, did you 
 not come to," &c. . . . "I wiU wait again to- 
 morrow night, same hour and arrangement.") That 
 letter was posted in Glasgow, it at a box, between 9 
 A.M. and 12.30 P.M., and if in the General Post Office, 
 between 11.45 a.m. and 1 p.m. That letter was found in 
 the pocket of the coat. About that letter and envelope 
 there is no dispute nor question whatever. Tliere was 
 an appointment for Thnrs(iay the ]9th. On Wednesday 
 the 18th she bought her third packet of arsenic She 
 went back to Currie's shop on the 18th, told him that the 
 first rats had been killed, that they had found a great 
 Bjany laige ones lying in the house, and, as she had got 
 
255 
 
 ^senio before, appeared to be a respectable person, and 
 told her story without hesitation, on the 18th March, she 
 got her third packet of arsenic. That letter was enclosed 
 by Thuau to L'Angelier on the same day with the rest. 
 He enclosed it in a letter of his own, in which he says 
 that the letter came at half- past twelve, and that he hastens 
 to put it into the post, if there is time. L'Angelier 
 got that letter after nine o'clock at Stirling on Sunday 
 morning. He left shortly after the evening service had 
 begun. It is proved by his landlady that he left at that 
 time^t is proved by the postmaster that he got a letter — 
 it is proved that he was in his usual health. He walked 
 to Stirling, started instantly, taking the letter as an 
 appointment for Sunday night. The question whether 
 it was so or" not is immaterial. The guard recognised 
 him as a, gentleman who travelled from Stirling to Coat- 
 bridge, handed him over to Ross, the auctioneer, and he 
 swears these two were the only passengers in that train 
 who stopped at Coatbridge. They had food together in 
 the inn ; the guard, Fairfowl, saw him start with Ross in 
 perfect health at Coatbridge to walk to Glasgow. Ross 
 swears that he walked with him to Glasgow, that he was 
 quite well, walked briskly, did not tire, stopped at no 
 place on the road, and arrived in his lodgings a little after 
 eight ; and, Mrs Jenkins says, looking infinitely improved 
 since he left her on the 19th. He came home in the 
 greatest spirits, and told them that the letter had brought 
 him home. They knew, and he made no secret of, why he 
 had come home. The landlady knew so well that when he 
 went out at night he was going to see his sweetheart, that 
 she never asked him any questions on these occasion's. He 
 stayed in the house, took some tea, and left the house in 
 'his usual health a little after or before nine o'clock. He 
 is seen sauntering along in the direction of Blythswood 
 Square about twenty minutes past nine. It is too early. 
 He knows the ways of the house, and knows that they 
 have prayers on Sunday night. He must beguile the 
 time a little, and so he goes past Blythswood Square, 
 down to the other side, and makes a call on his acquain- 
 tance, M'Alester, in Terrace Street, but does not find 
 him at home. The maid-serrant recognised him, and 
 
,' 256 
 
 says he was there aA)oiit half -past nine. Here we lose 
 sight of him for the period of two or three hours ; but there 
 is no attempt to show that any mortal man saw hijn 
 anywhere else than the only place he was going to. He, 
 went out with the determination of seeing her ; and 
 believing that he had an appointment at that place, 
 you cannot doubt that, after coming from the 
 Bridge of Allan, post haste, to see her, walk- 
 ing first from Bridge of AHan to Stirling, then 
 travelling from Stirling to Coatbridge, walking from 
 Coatbridge to Glasgow, and then walking from hia 
 lodgings in the direction of Blythswood Square — you 
 cannot believe that he would give up his purpose within 
 a hundred yards of the house. The thing is incredible, 
 impossible. Well, gentlemen, as I said, he knew the 
 ways of the house; he knew when it was the habit cf 
 the family to retire to rest, and that he would have to 
 wait till Janet was asleep. Canyon believe — is it reason- 
 able to believe — that after all these preparations, 
 L'Angelier should have returned without going into the 
 house ! The thing is impossible. But if he did go to 
 the house, what do yon suppose He did ? He went of 
 course to the window and made his presence known. He 
 could do it with certainty. The prisoner denies she 
 heard" anything that night. Is that within the region of 
 possibility ? She writes him a letter. I know she says 
 the appointment was for Saturday. But do you suppose 
 that in the course of that correspondence, even if that 
 were true, she would not have waited fur him next night 
 on the chance of his being out of town ? The interview was 
 long delayed, anxiously looked for— the 'interview at 
 which everything was to be explained, in an explanation 
 which she knew he was waiting for. Is it possible that 
 she went to sleep that night, and never woke till the 
 morning. Gentlemen, whatever elsa you may think, I 
 think you will come to this inevitable conclusion, that 
 L'Angelier did go to the house, did make his presence 
 known ; and if he did that, what means bhe denial in 
 the prisoner's declaration, that L'A.ngeller was there 
 that ' night at aU ? It is utterly inconceivable alid 
 impossible. You have no other trace of him. The 
 
257 
 
 policeman, it is true, did not see him, but neither did he 
 see him in many a midnight walk — for you know what 
 a policeman's beat is. Bat that he was there is certain. 
 This was the critical night, when the question was to be 
 decided of her fame and reputation for ever. How do 
 we see him next ? He is found at his own door, without 
 strength to open the latch, at two o'clock in the morning, 
 doubled up with agony, speecWess, parched with thirst ; 
 vomiting commences instantly, and the former 
 symptoms, with great aggravations, go on from two 
 till about eleven o'clock, when the man dies of arsenic. 
 So ends this unhappy tale — that I have taken so long 
 to tell you. His last words are few. No one asks 
 him where he has been. They know where he has 
 been, and that is why they do not ask; so says his 
 landlady. She knows where he has been, but asks no 
 questions ; but she was a kindly attentive woinan, and 
 she does say to the doctor — What can be the meaning of' 
 this, that while he has gone out in good health twice, he 
 has come back ill ; we must have this inquii-ed into, for 
 I cannot comprehend it. The unfortunate viqtim him- 
 self is unwilling plainly to admit to liimself what 
 doubtless he suspected. He says, " I never had bile 
 before ; I do not know what it is; I never felt this 
 way before; I am very cold ; cover me up." On the 
 first proposal to send for the doctor, he says — for he 
 certainly does seem to have been a kind-hearted creature 
 — ^he says to his landlady, " It is too far for you to go." 
 After a while, as he is worse, the landlady again pro- 
 poses to go for a doctor, one who is near at hand, and he 
 says, " If he is a good doctor, bring liim." He makes 
 some difficulty about taking the laudanum, having an 
 aversion to all drugs, and tliinking that as he had 
 got round before without laudanum, he would 
 get round again. But the symptoms get worse, and 
 he tells Mrs Jenkins to go for Dr Steven, who 
 conies. Now, gentlemen, I shall have to speak to 
 the idea, of suicide. But was it not remarkable that 
 not a single question was asked of the doctor as to 
 whether L'Augelier seemed to wish to get better or not. 
 The evidenoe of Mrs Jenkins, from first to last, shows 
 "' ' ' 'I ' 
 
that L'Angelier was most anxious to recover. And 
 among the very last things he said was, " Oh, if I could 
 only get a little sleep, I think I should recover." At last, 
 Mrs Jenkins, taking alarm, says, " Is there any one you 
 would like to see ?" He replies he would like to see Miss 
 Perry. He does not say he would' like to see Miss 
 Smith. If he thought that his life was really in danger, 
 sorely the natural feeling is, that he should wish to see 
 her whom of. all the world he was most devotedly 
 attached to. But he expressed a wish only to see Miss 
 Perry; and, doubtless, if he had seen Mis? Perry, we 
 should have known more about this case than we do now. 
 But' before Miss Perry saw him, death had sealed his 
 mouth ; it had caught him more quickly than the doctor 
 or his nurse expected, and more quickly, than he 
 had any idea of himself. And so, when the 
 doctor raised his head from the pillow, it fell 
 back, and the niystery remains .sealed, so far as 
 the tongue of the unhappy victim is concerned. 
 Now, gentlemen, I am very much mistaken indeed if 
 all this has not produced an effect on your mind leading 
 to one inevitable result. I don't wish to strain any point 
 against the unfortunate prisoner at the bar. The case is 
 one of such magnitud", the amount of evidence so 
 intricate, and depending as it does upon minute circum- 
 stances, the more so from the position in which I am 
 now obliged to present the case — I have found it 
 necessary to coUeot all the little facts and put them all 
 together, in order to construct, as I say, a chain of 
 evidence that appears to me completely irrefutable. 
 But, notwithstanding that, I have no desire whatever to 
 press you beyond the legitimate consequences of the facts 
 which I have now stated ; and I shall therefore go on to 
 consider, with aU. the candour that I can, the defence 
 that has been set up. Just let me, before I do so, reca- 
 pitulate that which' we have proved. We have brought 
 these unhappy persons down to the end of December, 
 bound to each other in a way which truly was indis- 
 soluble, because the prisoner was so committed in her 
 letters that, except with L'Angeliei-'s consent, she never 
 pould have got quit of him. You will fijid her engaging 
 
259 
 
 herself to another, and trying to break off from 
 L'Angelier by mere coldness, and not succeeding ; you 
 find the threats of L'Angelier, you find her despairing 
 letters, you then find a meeting fixed, and the 
 first indications of poison being given ; the meeting 
 takes place, a reconciliation is effected, but the 
 engagement trith Mr Minnoch goes on. In about a 
 fortnight or ten days he is taken iU after the purchase of 
 arsenic on one occasion — I have not been able to prove 
 the purchase on the other occasion — but it is proved by 
 her own statement that he was taken ill after getting 
 something from her ; he proposes to go to the Bridge of 
 Allan ; she entreats him not' to go, because Mr Minnoch 
 is there ; and by-the-by I forgot to read, although I will 
 not now stop to read, the letter which on the 16th 
 March — the very time she appointed for the last meeting 
 with L'AngeMer — she wrote to Mr Minnoch, her intended 
 husband ; he takes iU, talks of going to Bridge of Allan, 
 she tries to dissuade him from going, but he goes ; she 
 buys arsenic on the 18th, she writes to make an 
 appointment for the 19th, and she buys arsraiic the 
 same day ; he does not keep his appointment for the 19bh, 
 but he does so on Sunday in answer to a second 
 invitation from her, which is found in hia pocket; 
 he goes back to Glasgow for the express purpose 
 of keeping the appointment, he comes home 
 and dies of arsenic within twelve or fourteen hours. 
 Gentlemen, I have concluded that part which I con- 
 sidered necessary relative to the case of the prosecution. 
 But it is right that I should now read the letter which 
 the prisoner addressed to Mr Minnoch. It is dated the 
 IGth of March, the day before the family returned from 
 the Bridge of Allan. I read it to show you the inex- 
 tricable difficulty in which the unhappy prisoner had 
 placed herself. [His Lordship accordingly read the 
 letter to Mr Minnoch, which has been already published.] 
 This letter was written two days before she wrote 
 making the assignation with L'Angelier only a very few 
 days before his death, and it was found in his pocket 
 after hjs ^eath. There is one, other incident to which 
 I must call your attention, and it is this. Apparently the 
 12 
 
260 
 
 prisonesr had shown no particular agitation at the news 
 of L'AngeKer's death. Gentlemen, if, she is capable of 
 committing the crime charged, you will not wonder at 
 her self7possession ; but news came on Thursday. Some- 
 thing on that day reached her ears. "What it was we 
 do not know. One morning she was missed from her 
 father's house. Whether she had been in bed or 
 not is not certalin. Janet, her sister, says she 
 was not in bed when she awoke in the morniiig. 
 She was not seen that morning by any of the servants. 
 She was found by Mr Minnoch at half -past three 
 o'clock in the Helensburgh steamer at Greenock. 
 Where she was that evening we cannot discover. But it 
 has been slaown that she was absent from half -past seven 
 o'clock in the morning, when she was missed, till half- 
 past three, when she was found by Mr Minnoch. So 
 much is certain. 1 do not press this incident for more 
 than it is worth, for the mere discovery of the letters was 
 enough to induce her to fly from her father's house. But 
 still the fact remains that these letters were discovered, 
 , and that the prisoner flies. She is brought back by Mr 
 Minnoch.' From a very gentlemanly feeling he asks 
 no questions, and she never explains, and never has 
 explained, what she did on that occasion. This incident 
 bears, therefore, on the' case for the prosecution. As I 
 said before, I have nothing but a public duty to perform. 
 I have no desire to plead this cause as an advocate. My 
 duty is to bring the case before you, as the ends 
 of truth and justice require. But I would be wanting 
 in my duty if I had not brought - these elements and 
 culled these details to show you how they bear 
 upon the accusation in the indictment. I now go to the 
 defence. As I said before, I v/ill go into it in the spirit 
 of candour. Now, the first thing may be taken from the 
 declaration of the panel herself. Let us see what it says. 
 The declaration is not anything in her favour, and though 
 it were otherwise, I have no desire to lessen its legitimate 
 effect upon your miiid. IE she can tell a consistent story — 
 a story consistent with the evidence— there is no desire to 
 deprive her of the benefit of it. She goes on to say her 
 name is Madeline Smith. [His Lordship then read the 
 
declaration, which has bben already published.] &entle- 
 men, in regard to the last letter, you WiU see that the 
 prisoner does not tell that the letter referred to was 
 written on any previous occasion. Slie says he had 
 been unwell, and had gone 'to the Bridge of Allan, and 
 she is shown a letter, and I can refer the writing of it to 
 the sickness before his death. In reference to the us5 of 
 the arsenic, I cfo not of course know what my learned 
 friend is going to say ; but I have not been able to find 
 either in the publications of the Messrs Blackwood or the 
 Messrs Chambers the shadow of a statement to the effect 
 that arsenic, diluted in water, is ever used in the manner 
 spoken of by the prisoner, and you have the evidence of 
 the lady (Madame Guibilei), who told you that in the 
 story read in the school at Clapton, it was said that 
 arsenic was used internally hy tlie Styrian peasants for 
 the purpose of making their wii-.d stronger, and also 
 for improving the appearance of their complexion. 
 Now, gentlemen, that is her account ()f what took 
 place. She denies entirely that .she saw L'Angelier on 
 the night before his death — she denies that she heard him 
 at the window the night before his death. You will 
 consider, gentlemen, if that is oojisistent with any 
 reasonable probability. No doubt the girl Janet slept 
 with her. She said she found her there when slie awoke 
 in the morning, and that she went to bed with her at the 
 same time that night. My learned friend did not ask 
 her, and perhaps properly, whether she had heard any 
 noise during the night, and the prisoner is quite entitled 
 to the benefit of the supposition that her sister did not 
 hear any noise during the night. Again, the foot-boy 
 who slept in the front of the house declares he heard 
 nothing, and the two maids, who slept in the room behind, 
 swear they heard nothing. But, gentlemen, so far as 
 regards Janet, you have it positively proved that 
 L'Angelier w^ in the habit of coming night after night 
 to the window — you have it proved that on many 
 occasions he did come to the house — and you certainly 
 have -it proved that on some occasions he was in 
 the house with the prisoner. It does not appear that 
 Janet knew anything about these meetings; and you 
 l3 
 
have her referred to someMmes in, the letters, in ■whibh 
 the says she conld not get Janet asleep last night, as an 
 excuse for not having been at the window to receive him. 
 In regard to the servaYits, you will recollect how the 
 house stands by the plan; and that nothing could be 
 easier than for the prisoner, if she had a mind, to go tip 
 stairs and" open the front-door to receive him into the 
 drawing-room ; or, if the area gate were left open, she 
 could with great ease (for the boy slept soundly, and 
 foot-boys are rather apt to sleep soundly) open the area 
 door, and let him in that way. "Whether she could let 
 hinRn by the back without the connivance of Christina 
 Haggart is another question. Christina Haggart swears 
 that she did not connive at it on that occasion ; and it 
 may be doubtful therefore whether that mode'of access 
 was open to her ; and, therefore, while there is nothing 
 in what these witnesses say to imply that they did not 
 meet that night, there is certainly nothing to exclude the 
 possibility of it. Asjto the prisoner's account of the use 
 for which she bought the arsenic, as I said before, you 
 must be satisfied that it is a reasonable and credible 
 account before you make up your mind on this case ; 
 because, unless it can be presented to you in some intel- 
 ligible way tliat tliis arsenic was bought and used for this 
 purpose, I am afraid tlie prisoner stands in this position : 
 of having in her possession the very poison by which 
 her lover died, without being able to account satisfactorily 
 for the possession of it.- I do not mean now to go back 
 on the observations I have already made ; but you will 
 consider whether — the poison having only been purchased 
 on these throe occasions, and never before — that is a true 
 statement which she makes with regard to the use of it. 
 You have to consider whether there is the slightest pro- 
 bability — a probability wliich any reasonable man can 
 entertain — that she made these three solitary purchases 
 on these three days, and that she used the whole arsenic 
 for that purpose, and that the coincidence of her meeting 
 with L'Angelier on these particular occasions, and 
 immediartely after these purchases, is a mere coincidence.- 
 If you come to that conclusion, gentlemen, no doubt it 
 will go very far indeed to maintain the defence j but if 
 
263 
 
 you cannot, then I am very much afraid the opposite 
 result follows inevitably. Bat then it' is said, and said 
 with some plausibility, tliat the meeting whioli was 
 intended to take place was a meeting trysted for tha 
 Satiu-day, and not for the Sunday. !N"ow, gentlemen, the 
 way I put it to you is this, that either of these two. 
 suppositions is quite possible. The letter may have beein 
 posted after eleven o'clock, in that ease there can be no> 
 doubt that the tryst or meeting was for the Sunday — it may 
 have been posted at nine o'clock, in which case probably it 
 would have been the night before, and though it bcai's no 
 date it may possibly have meant that the tryst was to 
 be held on Saturday. Bat I may make this remark, thai 
 while throughout this correspondence the Thursdays and 
 Fridays and Sundays are the nights generally appointed for 
 the meetings, I have found no instance — perhaps my* 
 learned friend my find one — of mestuigs appointed for 
 the Satutday. Bat still, gentlemen, that is within the 
 bounds of probability, and it will be for you to consider, 
 even supposing she expected L'Angolior on the Satur- 
 (day, whether, knowing he was at Bridge of Allan, which 
 she says she knew in Iier declaration, it is at all likoly 
 she should not have waited on the Sunday also, in the 
 case of his not having returned to town on the Saturday 
 — that even if it had been tlie Saturday evening, the 
 question is — Is it within the bounds of probability in this 
 case, that he did not go to the window that night, and 
 make himseltheard in the usual way ? But, gentlemen, 
 it is one of the main tjieories on Vr'liich tlie defence is 
 founded, that L'Angelier may have committed suicide. 
 Of course, that is a matter with which I am bound to 
 deal, and can deal only with the anxiety to discover 
 truth, \yiiy, if we had found in tliis case anything 
 indicating, with reasonable certainty, a case of suicide, we . 
 might have disregarded all these facts on which this 
 prosecution is founded. I own, gentlemen, however, and 
 I say it with regret, that I have been unable to see from 
 first to last, in the evidence for the prosecution or the 
 defence, anything that warrants me in believing that 
 this could possibly be a base of suicide. • You must deal 
 with that, gentlemen — you must consider the question as 
 
264 
 
 between murder and suicide; and, of course, if you are 
 not satisfieid that it was a case of murder, you must give 
 the prisoner the benefit of any doubt you may entertain 
 on the subject. But, gentlemen, we have also to 
 consider, is there any other conceivable cause for what 
 has taken plaqe? therefore,, before I deal with the 
 question of suicide, let us see whether other contin- 
 gencies are altogether excluded. It seems to have been 
 said that L'Angelier was an eater of arsenic, and that he 
 may have poisoned himself by an overdose. Gentle- 
 men, I think that rests on evidence so little 
 entitled to credit that I need not deal -with 
 it; and if my learned friend takes that defence, 
 I am quite content to leave it in the hands of 
 the Court, to direct you as they may think fit. 
 The only evidence of L'Angelier ever having spoken of 
 arsenio, is the evidence of two parties who knew him in 
 Dundee in the year 1852. On one occasion he is said to 
 have given it to horses ; but the evidence on that point 
 is entirely uncoiToborated. And as to the other case — the 
 lad who found a parcel of arsenio, but who never 
 recollected the conversation with L'Angelier until a very 
 few days before this trial, I must throw his evidence 
 out of view altogether. There is not, from the time he 
 came to Glasgow, the smallest suspicion that he was in 
 the habit of taking arsenio ; he is not proved to have 
 bought it on_any single occasion ; and it is not proved that 
 he had it in the house at any time. The supposition 
 therefore that he was in the habit of taking it, we must 
 altogether reject ; neither is the slightest evidence that 
 it would be possible, even by the practice of eating 
 arsenic, regarding which I am very incredulous, to have 
 arranged the matter that the amount of 103 grains should 
 have been found in the stomach of the man. It 
 is so completely out of the bounds of reason that 
 I dismiss the hypothesis as' beyond the range 
 of possibility. It seems, however, to be said, that 
 perhaps at the Bridge of Allan he had accidentally got 
 arsenic. But, gentlemen, that won't do— that is 
 impbssible. The cases in which arsenic shows itself only 
 after five hours are very rare indeed. Dr Christjson told 
 
you thkt active exercise would accelerate the action of 
 the poison, and that from balf-an-hour to two hours is 
 the ordinary time that it takes to operate. Buf 
 L'Angelier left the Bridge of Allan at three o'clock. He 
 walked to Stirling and was found at Coatbridge quite 
 well, and he walked to Glasgow quite well, looking 
 better than he had done for three weeks. He left his 
 own house looking quite well at nine o'clock, and he is 
 seen at Mrs Parr's at half -past nine in perfect health. 
 You have thus him traced for upwards of six hours from 
 leaving Bridge of Allan, and he is quite well, and you 
 have no indication that at Bridge of Allan, Coatbridge, 
 or anywhere else, he had arsenic, or could have 
 had it. Therefore, gentlemen, it seems to me 
 that accidental administration is out of the ques- 
 tion, or the administration by any one else. It 
 is not suggested that he saw anybody thai night 
 except the prisoner, and you are therefore left to no con- 
 jAjture, unless it be either a case of suicide, or a case of 
 murder. Now this, as I said before, is a most important 
 matter for you to consider, and you are bound to consider 
 it most deliberately. If the case be suicide, within the 
 limits of the evidence, of course you will say so ; but it 
 is my duty to put these facts in the light in which they 
 ought to stand ; and I say that I do not think the facta 
 admit the possibility of this being, within any reason- 
 able compass or probability, a case of suicide. Under 
 any circumstances we should have to consider and place 
 in the balance the probabilities of the case, because 
 although a great deal of evidence has been led as to 
 L'Angelier's temperament, I don't think much impor- 
 tance is to be attached to this matter. You do not 
 discern from a man's' temperament whether he is likely 
 to commit suicide dt not, and I don't think we can learn 
 from the statistics of suicide that the men whose tempera- 
 ment would be supposed as likely to lead them to 
 commit suicide are those who do so. In regard to 
 L'Angelier's history, we have had a great deal of 
 evidence, but it did not affect my mind in the 
 slightest degree. There was evidence from one or 
 two men who knew L'Angelier at a, time when he 
 
2G6 
 
 was of a poorer class in life, and they, told about 
 his having wished to put himself out of the world. "Well, 
 bat listen ; even these witnesses proved to you that st 
 that very time L'Angelier was a kind of gasconading, 
 boasting man, such as a Jersey man might be ; that he 
 was in the habit of boasting of his acquaintance with 
 high families, of saj'ing what he knew not to be 
 true. I do not know that they proved aU he said not 
 to be true, because that gentleman from Dublin who 
 seemed to think he was a vain lying fellow (and you will 
 set his evidence against that of the persons fro"m Glasgow 
 who knew the deceased), admitted that his story about 
 the Fife lady was true, and it turned out that L'Angelier 
 had a somewhat winning way among ladies. But it is said 
 that he talked about committing suicide. He did so, but 
 he did not do it. He said at one time that if any 
 lady jilted him ho would put a knife in his breast ; 
 but he was jilted, and he did not do it. The 
 man that is going to commit suicide does not go to the 
 window when his companion is in bed, and wait till he 
 gets out of it. The man desiring to commit suicide 
 does not go down with a companion to Leith Pier and 
 say that he is going to drown himself. The man 
 that commits suicide does not take a knife in his 
 hand and say to his ooijipanions that ' he is going to 
 plunge it into his breast. I think this temperament is 
 much "the reverse of the suicidal. It is more the 
 characteristic of our neighbours on the other side of 
 the Channel ; but it does not to my mipd lead in the 
 slightest degree to the conclusion in one way or other 
 in regard to L'Angelier having committed suicide. I 
 think you must deal with this matter altogether indepen- 
 dently of these considerations. No doubt a variable 
 temperament is a matter of some conseijuence. !Rapid 
 transition from extreme elevation to extreme depression 
 is a matter to be considered in such a case as this. But I 
 think his conversation with Mr Miller in regard to the 
 abstract question of suicide is perhaps the only thing that 
 s proved on the other side that can bear on this part 
 of the case. But then, gentlemen, you will have to 
 consider the circumstances under which this supposed 
 
267 
 
 suicide was committed. L'Angelier had taken up his 
 position. He had a strong suspicion that there was 
 something in the rumours about Mr Minnooh. He did 
 not mean to kill himself if they were true, but he said, 
 " I will show these letters to her father." That is what 
 he meant to do. Well, ie came from the Bridge of 
 Allan for the purpose of seeing Miss Smith, the prisoner 
 — very happy, in good spirits, cheerful — he had a kind 
 note from her in his pocket — he went out at night, to go 
 to Blybhswood S4uare — he certainly had no thoughts of 
 suicide. "Well, now, is it conceivable that, without 
 having gone near the house, he committed suicide ? Is it 
 within the bounds of evidence or probability? Where 
 did he get the arsenic to buy that night ? Not surely 
 at Todd & Higginbotham's store — not in any of th» 
 chemical works — certainly not in any of the druggists' 
 slibps. That is not conceivable. Is it in the least 
 likely that a man in his position would go out to 
 Blybhswood Square! and swallow dry arsenic there, and 
 then totter home and die ? Gentlemen, that is a 
 supposition that is entirely inconceivable. There is the 
 possibility, no doubt, that he went to see Miss Smith, 
 and , that she told him she was going to give him Up, and 
 that this had a great impression on his mind ; but it 
 she saw him, what comes of the declaration that she has 
 made that she did not see him that night ? and if she 
 did see him that night, is there any link awauting 
 in the chain of evidence that I have laid before you. 
 I can conceive of no possibility of it being a case of 
 suicide that does not imply that they met, and if they met 
 then the evidence of her guilt is overwhelming. The only 
 chance of escipe for the prisoner is to maintain the truth 
 of her declaration that they did not meet that night ; and, 
 if they did not meet, I cannot see how the case can be 
 considered as ojie of suicide. , You may, no doubt, con^ 
 sider whether the truth is that he went to the house, and 
 finding he was not admitted, and that Miss Smith did 
 not hear him, went away in disgust. This is an observa- 
 tion that may be made ; but you will consider, in the first 
 place, whether it is possible that, having fixed a meeting 
 ^Ije night before, I^'Angelierj if he went to ^he window, 
 
268 
 
 would have desisted till he. had attracted Miss Smith's 
 attention ; and, if he attracted her attention, then they 
 met that night. Therefore, gentlemen, it must be main- 
 tained by the prisoner that he did not go to the window, 
 or make a noise there, for she says in her declaration 
 that she never heard him ; and, if that be so, I say 
 again I do not see how this can be treated as one of 
 suicide. Bat then it is said that the quantity of 
 arsenic found in the stomach clearly denoted a case 
 of suicide, because so much could not have been 
 given and successfully administered. , Gentlemen, I 
 don't think this is made out, but ,quite the reverse, 
 because if the poison were given in cocoa, as it probably 
 was, it has been proved by Dr Penny that a very 
 large quantity can be held in suspension in it, and Dr 
 Maclagan proved the same thing, though my learned 
 friend the Dean of Faculty did not ask him what amount 
 might or might not be held in suspension in cocoa. No 
 doubt it would require to be boiled in it. But, gentlemen, 
 if the defence that is to be set up is that the prisoner 
 saw certain things in Blackwood's Magazine, then she 
 was not without some knowledge of the properties of 
 arsenic. She had access to the kitchen, the fire of which 
 was close to her bed-room. She had a fire in her bed-room, 
 and she might have boiled it without the least danger. 
 This, therefore, presented no difficulty. There is no 
 proof that slie did so ; but, on the other hand, there is 
 no iiroof, on the other side, in the slightest' degree to 
 exclude the probability of it. And that there should 
 be a large dose, is quite consistent with reason and the 
 facts of this case. If we are right in saying that there 
 were two former cases of administration which were 
 unsuccessful (and it is proved that a slight dose might be 
 given in coftee)— if there had been two doses which were 
 not successful— is it not plain if the thing were to be done 
 that night — just what we would have expected — that 
 it should have been dope with certainty ? and consequently 
 there is nothing surprising in the fact that the third dose 
 was a very large quantity. It is said, gentlemen, and 
 probably will be maj^ntaihed, that this arsenic was so mixed 
 that trages gf jt must hav? teen foxjntj iij the stqmach, 
 
269 
 
 and that therefore the arsenic must have been got by 
 ■ L'Angelier and administered by himself. But as to 
 that taken by L'Angelier a month before, no traces of 
 carbonaceous matter could by any possibility have 
 been expected. If Carrie's arsenic had been coloured 
 with indigo, probably the colouring matter would have 
 been detected in the stomach. But it was not coloured 
 with indigo ; it was coloured with waste indigo ; and 
 by experiment, as well as by theory, this was found to 
 leave no trace. There were, no doubt, experiments 
 made by Dr*Penny, in which very minute particles of 
 carbonaceous matter were found in the stomach, mixed 
 with; the arsenio But, gentlemen, when Dr Penny, in 
 the first place, examined the stomach, his attention was 
 not directed to this subject at all ; and it was his subse- 
 quent experiments that were directed to this matter. 
 Dr Christison also told you that, unless in one part, he 
 could hot have expected to find traces of the colouring 
 matter — ^indigo ; and it is quite easy to conceive, inde- 
 pendently of the fact that the analysts were not looking 
 for it, that a large quantity of the carbonaceous matter, 
 which is lighter than arsenic, might have been 
 thrown ofi" the stomach in the violent vomiting ; 
 and, therefore, gentlemaa, I must own that this suspicion 
 of suicide does not appear to me to have any probability. 
 The only thing peculiar about his demeanor was this — 
 he did not say where he had got it ; the landlady did not 
 ask him, because she thought she knew ; she had no 
 doubt he had been visiting Miss Smith. I think you 
 would expect him to say that he had not done it when 
 he had not done it. But while that is quite true, you 
 can very easily see, especially in a man with the tempera- 
 ment which he is described by the withesses to have had, 
 that if he had got anything which disagreed with him there, 
 he would rather die than disclose it. You can easily 
 suppose that. Whether, when he sent for Miss Perry, he 
 intended to disclose it, is a difi'erent question. But during 
 the whole of the illness there seems not to have been the 
 slightest desire for death or the slightest aversion to life, 
 but on the contrary the last thmg that he said was, "If 
 J could only get a little sleep I think I should be well,'' 
 
270 
 
 The sleep which he got was the sleep of death. Now, 
 gentlemen, I have gone thronghaU this case; there has 
 been a great deal of medical evidence led, but I think I 
 have touched upon all the important portions of it. 
 Evidence was led as to the character of L'Angelier ; it is 
 not for me to refer farther to that ; I think Jou will under- 
 stand perfectly well what sort of a man he was. That he was 
 in very low circumstances in 1851, and in a position in 
 which he might well have been weary of life, is perfectly 
 certain. That he had good friends in different parts of 
 the country has at all events not been disproved, and 
 that he himself may have been well connected — as many 
 French refugees are — though in a Jow position in point 
 of fortune, is at least possible, though there is no proof 
 of it. And now, gentlemen, having detained you so 
 long — having gone over this case with an amount of 
 trouble and anxiety which I would fain have spared — I 
 leave it entirely in your hands. I am quit^ sure that 
 the verdict which you give will be a verdict consistent 
 with your oath and with your opinion of the case. 
 I have nothing but a public duty to discharge. 
 I have endeavoured in my argument in this case 
 throughout to show you as powerfully as I could how the 
 circumstances which have been proved in evidence bear 
 upon the prisoner. Nor should I have done so if a 
 solemn sense of duty, and my own belief in the justice 
 of the case, had not led me to do so. If I had thought 
 that iJiere were any elements of doubt or of disproof in 
 the case that would have justified me in retiring from 
 the painful task which I have now to discharge, believe 
 me, gentlemen, there is not a man in this, Court who 
 would have rejoiced more at that result than myself; 
 for of all the persons engaged in this trial, apart 
 from the unfortunate object of it, I believe the 
 task laid upon me is at once the most difScult and the 
 most painful. I have now discharged my duty. I am 
 quite certain that in the case which I have submitted -to 
 you I have not overstrained the evidence. I do not 
 believe that in any instance I have strained the facts 
 beyond what they would naturally bear. If I have, 
 you yourselves, njy learned friend on the oth?? side, 
 
271 
 
 and the Court, will correct me. And now, gentle' 
 men, as ' I have said, I leave the case in your hands. 
 I see no outlet for this unhappy prisoner, and if you 
 come to the same result as I hare done there is but 
 one course open to you, and that is to return a verdict 
 of guilty of this charge. 
 
 On the suggestion of the Lord Justice-Clerk, the Dean 
 of Faculty delayed his address till next day, and the 
 Court adjourned at half-past three o'clock. 
 
272 
 
 EIGHTH DAY.— Wednesday, Jnly 8. 
 
 The Court met again to-day at ten o'oloct. 
 
 The Dean of Faculty then proceeded to address^ 
 the jury as follows : — Gentlemen of the Jury, the 
 charge against the prisoner is murder, and the punish- 
 ment of murder is death ; and that simple state- 
 ment is sufficient to suggest to us the awful solemnity 
 of the oooasioii which brings you and me face to face. 
 But, gentlemen, there are peculiarities in the present 
 case of so singular a kind — there is such an air of romance 
 and mystery investing it from beginning to end — there is 
 something so touching and exciting in the age, and the 
 sex, and the social position of the accused — ay, and I 
 must add, the public attention is so directed to the trial 
 that they watch our proceedings and hang on our 
 very accents with such an anxiety and eagerness of expecta- 
 tion that I feel almost bowed down and overwhelmed 
 by the magnitude of the task that is imposed on me. 
 You are invited and encouraged by the, prosecutor to 
 jsnap the thread of that young life, and to consign 'to an 
 ignominious death on the scaffold one who, within a few 
 short months, was known only as a gentle and confiding 
 and affectionate girl, the ornament and pride of her happy 
 family. Gentlemen, the tone in which my learned friend 
 the Lord Advocate addressed you yesterday could not fail 
 to strike you as most remarkable. It was characterised 
 by great moderation — by such moderation as I think 
 must have convinced you that he could hardly expect a 
 verdict at your hands— and in the course ^bf^ihat address, 
 
273 
 
 for whioh I give him the highest credit, he could not resist 
 the expression of his own deep feeling of commiseration 
 for the position in which the prisoner is placed, wliioh 
 was but an involuntary homage paid by the official prose. 
 cutor to the kind and generous nature of the man. But, 
 gentlemen, I am going to ask you for something very 
 different from commiseration ; I am going to ask you for 
 that which I wiU not condescend to beg, but which I will 
 loudly and importunately demand — that to which eveiy 
 prisoner is entitled, whether she be the lowest and vilest 
 of her sex or the liiaiden whose purity is as the unsunned 
 snow. I ask you for justice ; arid if you will kindly lend 
 me your attention for the requisite period, and if Heaven 
 grant ine patience and strength for the task, I shall tear 
 to tatters that web of sophistry in which the prosecutor 
 has striven to involve this poor girl and her sad strange 
 story. Somewhat less than two years ago accident 
 brought lier acquainted with the deceased L'Aiigelier ; and 
 yet I can hardly call it accident, for it was due unfortu- 
 nately in a great measure, to the indiscretion of a young 
 man whom you saw before you the day before yesterday. 
 He introduced her to L'Angolier on the open street in 
 circumsbances which plainly show that he could not 
 procure ah introduction otherwise or elsewhere. And what 
 was he who thus intruded himself upon the society of 
 this young lady, and then clandestinely introduced himself 
 into her father's house ? He was anunknownadventurer ; 
 utterly unknown at that time, so far as we can see. For' 
 how he procured his introduction into the employment 
 of Huggins & Co. does not appear ; and even the persons 
 who knew him there, knew nothing of his history or 
 antecedents. We have been enable^ in some degree to 
 throw light upon his origin and his history. We find that 
 he is a native of Jersey ; and we have discovered that at 
 a very early period of his hfe, in the year 18i3, he was 
 in Scotland ; he' was known for three years at that tin'ie 
 to one of thS witnesses as being in Edinburgh, and the 
 impressio.n which he made as a very yoiing man, which 
 he then was, was certainly, to say the least of it, not of 
 a very , favourable kind. He goes to the Contirient ; he 
 is there during'tte French Eevolution, and he returns to 
 
274 
 
 this coi^ntr^, andis found in Edinburgh again in the yent 
 1851, And in what condition is he then ? In great ppvertyj 
 in deep dejection, living upon the bounty of a tavern- 
 keeper, associating and sleeping in the same bed vrith the 
 waiter of that establishment. He goes from Edinburgh 
 to Dundee, and we trace his history there ; at length we 
 find him in Glasgow in J.853 ; and in 1855, as I said 
 before, his acquaintance with the prisoner commenced, 
 In considering the character and conduct of the individual, 
 whose history it is impossible to dissociate from this 
 inquiry, we are bound to form as just an estimate as we 
 can of what his qualities were, of what his character was, 
 of what were the principles and motives that were likely 
 to influei^oe his conduct. We find him, according to the 
 confession of all those who observed him then narrowly. 
 Tain, conceited, pretentious, with a great opinion of his 
 own personal attractions, and a very silly expectation of 
 admiri^tion from the other sex. 3^hat hu was to a certain 
 extent successful in conciliating such admiration may be 
 the fact ; but, at all events, his own prevailing ideas seem 
 to have been that he was calculated to be very successful 
 in paying attentions to ladies, and that h^ was looking to 
 push his fortune by that means. And accordingly once 
 and again we 'find hin; engaged in attempts to get married 
 to women of some station at least in society; we have 
 heard of one disappointment which he met with in 
 England, and another we heard a great deal of connected 
 with a lady in the county of Fife ; and the manner in 
 which he bore his disappointment on those two occasions 
 is perhaps the best indication and light we have as to the 
 true character of the man. He was not a person of strong 
 health, and it is extremely probable that this, among 
 other things, had a very important effect in depres- 
 sing his spirits, rendering him changeable and uncertain — 
 now uplifted, as one of the witnesses said^and now most 
 deeply depressed — of a mercurial temperament, as 
 another described it, very variable, never to be depended 
 on. Such was the. individual whom the prisoner 
 unfortunately became acquainted with in the manner 
 that I have stated. The progress of their acquaintance 
 is soon told. My learned friend the Lord Advocate said 
 
275 
 
 to you, that although the correspondence must have been 
 from the outset an improper correspondence, because it 
 was clandestine, yet the letters of the young lady at that 
 first period of their connection breathed nothing but 
 gentleness and propriety. I thank my learned friend for 
 the admission, but'even with that admission I must ask 
 you to bear with me while I call your attention for a few 
 moments to one or two incidents in,, the course of 
 that early period of their history which I think 
 are very important for your guidance in judging 
 of the conduct of the prisoner. The correspondence 
 in its commencement shows that if L'Angelier had it in 
 his mind originally to corrupt and seduce this poor girl, he 
 entered upon the attempt with considerable ingenuity 
 and skill ; for the very first letter of the series which 
 we have contains a passage in which she says, " I am 
 trying to break myself off all my very bad habits ; it is 
 you I have to thank for this, which I do sincerely 
 from my heart." Ho had been noticing, there- 
 fore, her faults, whatever they were. He had been 
 suggesting to her improvement in her conduct or in 
 something else. He had thus been insinuating himself 
 into her confidence. And she no doubt yielded a great 
 deal too easily to the pleasures of this new acquaintance, 
 but pleasures comparatively of a most innocent kind at the 
 time to which I am now referring. And yet it seems to liave 
 occurred to her own mind at a very earl^ period that it was 
 impossible to maintain this correspondence consistently 
 with propriety or her own welfare. For so early as the 
 month of April 1855 — indeed in the very month in which 
 apparently the acquaintance began — she writes to him in 
 these terms : — " I now perform the promise I made in 
 writing to you soon. "We are to be in Glasgow 
 to-morrow, but as my time will not be at my own 
 disposal, I cannot fix any time to see you ; chance may 
 throw you in my way. I think you will agree with me 
 ini what I intend proposing, that for the present the 
 correspondence had better stop. I know your good 
 feeling will not take this unkind. It was meant quite 
 the reverse. By continuing the correspondence harm 
 qiay arise j in discon-^inuing it nothing can bo ^^i," 
 
276 
 
 And accordingly for a time, so far as appears, the 
 correspondence did cease. Again, gentlemen, I beg to 
 call your attention to the fact that in the end of this 
 same year the connection was broken off altogether. 
 That appears from the letter whidh the prisoner wrote to 
 Miss PeiTy in the end of September or beginniiig of 
 October 1855 [in which she expressed her thanks foir Miss 
 Perry's kindness,- and intimates that, as papa would not 
 •give his consent, she was doomed to be disappointed.] 
 Once more, in the spring of 1856, it would appear — the 
 correspondence having in the interval been renewed, 
 how, we do not' know, but is it not fair to suppose, 
 rather on the importunate entreaty of this gentleman 
 than on the suggestion of the lady who wrote such a letter 
 as that ? — the coiTespOndenoe was discovered by the 
 family of Miss Smith. On that occasion she wrote thus 
 to her confidant Miss Perry ; — " Dearest Mary, — M. has 
 discovered the correspondence. I am truly glad that it 
 is known ; but, strange to say, a fortnight has passed and 
 not a word has been said. I cannot understand it. Now 
 that it is known, I do not mean to give way. I intend 
 to state in plain terms that I intend to be dear Emile's 
 wife. Nothing shall deter me. I shall be of age soon, 
 and then I have a right ^o decide for myself. Can you 
 blame me for not giving in to my parents in a matter of 
 so serious importance as the choice of a husband ? I had 
 been intended to marry a man of money j but is not 
 affection before all things, and in marrying Emile I will 
 take the man whom I love. I know my friends wUl 
 forsaike me, but for that I do not care so long as I 
 possess the affection of Emile ; and to possess and retain 
 his affection, I shall try to please him in all things, by 
 acting according to his directions, and he shall cure me of 
 my faults. ... I am sorry not to be able to see you, 
 as we are going to Edinburgh in a week or ten days." Now 
 what follows from this yon have heard from some of the 
 witnesses. The correspondence was put an end to by 
 the interference of Mr Smith, and for- a time that inter- 
 ference had effect. »But, alas ! the next scene is the most 
 painful of all. This which we have been speaking of is in 
 the en4 of 185S. In the spring of 18S9 tife corrupting 
 
277 
 
 influence of the seducer was successful, and the prisoner 
 fell. That _iS' recorded in a letter bearing the postmark 
 of the 7th May, which you have heard read. And how 
 corrupting that iajlaence must have been ! — how vile 
 the arts which he resorted to for accomplishing his 
 nefalrious purpose, can never be proved so well as by 
 looking at the altered tone and language of the' unhappy 
 prisoner's letters. She had lost not her virtue merely, 
 but, as the Lord Advocate said, her sense of decency. 
 This wa? his doing. Think you that, without tempta- 
 tion, without . evil- teachings, a poor girl falls into such 
 depths of degradation ? No. Influence from without- 
 most corrupting influence — can alone account for such a 
 faU. And yet, through the midst of this frightful 
 correspondence — and I wish to God that it could have 
 been concealed from you, gentlemen, and from the 
 world, and I am sure the Lord Advocate would have 
 spared us it if he had not felt it necessary for 
 the ends of justice — I say that even through the 
 midst of this frightful correspondence there bre'athes 
 a spirit of devoted affection towards the man that had 
 destroyed her that strikes me as most remarkable. The 
 iiistoiy of the affair is soon told. I do not think it neces- 
 sary to carry you through all the details of their corre- 
 spondence from the spring of 1856 down to the end of 
 that year. It is in the neighbourhood of Helensburgh 
 almost entirely that that correspondence tools' place. In 
 November the family of the Smiths came back to Glasgow. 
 And that becomes an important era in ^le liistor/ of the 
 case ; for that was the first time at which they came to 
 live in the house in Blythswood Square. There were 
 many meetings between them in the other house in 1855 - 
 they met still more frequently at Row ; but what we are 
 chiefly concerned in, is to know what meetings took place 
 between them in that last winter in the house in, Blyths- 
 wood Square — how these took place, and what it was neces- 
 sary for them to do in order to come together ; for these 
 things haveamost important bearing on the question which 
 you are met here to! try. , Now the first letter written 
 , from Blythswood Square bears date liTovember 18, 1856, 
 ^0. 61. There is ^notji^r letter ajso written iij. ^Tovein- 
 
278 
 
 ber 1856, and plainly out of its place in this Eeriee. It is 
 letter No. 57, and does not bear the day of the month, 
 but must be subsequent to that bearing date the 18th of 
 November, as it is written also from Blythswood Square, 
 and the other letter is shown to be the first written from 
 that house. In this second letter she gives her lover some 
 information of the means by which they may carry on 
 their correspondence in the course of the winter. She 
 says : — " Sweet love, you should get those brown enve- 
 lopes ; they would not be so much seen as white ones put 
 down into my window. You should just stoop down 
 to tie your shoe and then slip it in. The back-door is 
 closed. M. keeps the key for fear our servant-boy would 
 go out of an evening. We have got blinds fbr our 
 windows." This, therefore, shows she had been arranging 
 with him at that time in what manner their correspon- 
 dence by letter was to be carried on, and I think you 
 will soon see that it was by letter chiefly, if not exelu. 
 sively, that the corresponden\3e was for a considerable 
 'time earned on while she was in that house. The next 
 reference to the matter is in a letter of the 21st Nov., 
 in which she says : — " Now about writing, I wish you to 
 write me and give me the note on Tuesday evening next. 
 You will about eight o'clock come and put the letter down 
 into the window (just drop it in, I won't be there at ths 
 time), the window next to Minnoch's close door. There 
 are two windows together with white blinds. Don't be 
 seen near the house on Sunday, as M. won't be at church, 
 and she wiil watch. In your letter, .dear- love, tell me 
 what night of the week will be best for you to leave the 
 letter for me. If M. and P. were from home I 
 could take you in very well at the front-door, just 
 the same way as I did in India Street, and I won't 
 let a chance pass." Now you see the conditions 
 on which she understood it possible, and alone 
 possible,' to admit him to the *Blythswood Square 
 house. That condition was the absence of her father 
 and mother from home— an absence which did not 
 take' place throughout the whole of the period with which 
 we have to do. "If M. and P. were from home, I «)uld 
 take you in at th? front-door, and I won't let a chancy 
 
279 
 
 pass." But that ohanoe, gentlemen, never came. Hei; 
 father and mother were never absent. Their absence 
 was necessary in order that he might be let in in this way. 
 It never was so. Again, it is very important for yon to 
 understand — for the Lord Advocate spoke in such a way 
 as may have left a false impression on your minds — it is 
 very important, I say, that you should understand the 
 means by which communication was made between these 
 two at the window. The Lord Advocate seemed to say 
 that there were some concerted signals by rapping 
 at the window or on the railings with a stick 
 in order to attract attention. This, you wiE find, 
 was an entire mistake. L'Angelier did on one or two 
 occasions take that course, but the prisoner immediately 
 .forbade it, and ordered him not to do it again. 
 In a letter which bears the postmark of December 5, 
 1856, she says: — ""Will you, darling, write me for 
 Thursday first. If six o'clock, do it ; I shall look. If not 
 at six o'clock, why, I shalllook at eight. I hope no one sees 
 you ; and, darling, make no noise at the window. You 
 mistake me. The snobs I spoke of do not know anything 
 of me ; they see a light, and they fancy it may be the 
 servants' room, and they may have some fun ; only you 
 know I sleep down stairs. I never told any one . 
 so don't knock again, my beloved." Again, in the same 
 letter, a little further down, she says in a post- 
 script — " Pray do not knock at the window," earnestly 
 repeating the same warning. About this time it 
 is quite obvious that they had it in view to accom- 
 plish an elopement. It was quite plain that the 
 consent of Miss Smith's parents to her union with 
 this young Frenclmian was not to be thought of any 
 longer. That hope was altogether gone, and accordingly 
 there are constant references in the letters about this 
 time to the arrangements that were to be made for 
 carrying her from her father's house and accomplishing 
 a marriage either in Glasgow or Edinburgh. I won't 
 detain or fatigue you by reading the repeated mention 
 of preparations for this ; I merely notice it in passing 
 as applicable to the period of which I am now speaking. 
 But I beg you to observe, gentlemen, that in going through 
 
280 
 
 ttiia series of letters passing in the course of last wintet, 
 I endeavour to notice as I pass everything that relates 
 to their mode of correspondence and to proposals for 
 meeting^, or reference made to meetings that had been 
 had. I shall not willingly pass by one of them, for I wish 
 thoroughly and honestly to lay before you every 
 bit of written evidence that can affect the prisoner' in 
 that respect. In a letber' which bears postmark " 17th 
 December," she says : — " I would give anything to have 
 an hour's chat with you. Beloved Jilmile, I don't see 
 how we can. M. is not going from home, and when P. 
 is away Janet does not sleep lyith M. She won't leaVe 
 me, as I have a fire in my room and M. has none. Do 
 you think, beloved, you could not See me some nights for 
 a few moments at the door under the front-door ; but 
 perhaps it would iiot be safe. Some one might 
 pass as you were coming in. We had better not." 
 Now. you will recollect that Christina Haggart told 
 us that upon one occasion, and one only, there was 
 a meeting in that place, arranged in the way spoken 
 of in this letter — a meeting, that is to say, at the front- 
 door, under the front-door, to which, of. course, he 
 required to be admitted through the area ; and that was 
 accomplished through the assistance of Christina Haggart. 
 Then again, there is reference in the next letter, of the 
 19th, to a desire for a meeting: — "My beloved, my 
 darling, — Do you for a second think I could feel happy 
 this evening, knowing you were in low spirits, and that 
 I am the cause? . . . Oh, would to God we could 
 meet, I would not mind mamma ; if papa and mamma 
 are from home — the first time they are, you shall be here. 
 Yes, my love, I must see you, I must be pressed to your 
 
 heart O yes, my beloved, we must make a 
 
 bold effort." 'Here again is the same condition, and -the 
 impossibility of carrying the meeting through unless in 
 absence of the parents ; but the first opportunity which 
 occurs ^he will 'certainly avail herself ' of. Then in 
 another letter, dated 29th, she writes : — " If you love me 
 you will come to me, for papa and mamma are to be in 
 Edinburgh, which I think will be about the 7th or 10th 
 .of January." In the same letter, also she says; — "If 
 
281 
 
 papa and mamma go, will you not soon come to yoiii 
 Mimi ? Do you tkink I woiSd ask you if I was not alone 
 in the house ?" On the 9th of January she writes again a 
 letter, in which you will find a repetition of the same 
 warning how to conduct himself at the window ; — 
 " It is just eleven o'clock, and no letter from yon, my 
 own ever dear beloved husband. Why this, my sweet 
 one. I think I heard your stick this evening (pray 
 do not make any sounds whatever at my window.)" 
 Further, she says in the same letter : — " I think you are 
 again at my window, but I shall not go down stairs, as 
 papa is here, and we are up waiting for Jack. I wish to 
 see you ; but no, you must not look up to the window in 
 case any one should see you. If I never by any chance 
 look out, you must just leave me and go away." In the 
 next letter, dated the 11th, she says ; — " I would so like 
 to spend three or four hours with you just to talk over 
 some things ; but I don't know when you can come, 
 perhaps in the course of ten days. ... If you would 
 risk it, my sweet beloved pet, we would have time to kiss 
 each other and a dear fond embrace ; and though, sweet 
 love, it is only for a minute, do you ■ not think it is 
 better than riot meeting at all? . . . Same as 
 last." Plainly that was the short meeting which 
 Christina Haggart told of as occurring in the area 
 under the front-door, and so far as I can see, there is 
 not a vestige or tittle of written evidence of any meeting 
 whatever, except that short meeting in the area, down to 
 the time of which I am now speaking — that is to say, 
 from the iSth of November till the date of this letter, 
 which is the 11th January. . Then, on the 13th January, 
 she writes a letter, which is also very important, with 
 reference to the events at this period, because at that 
 time he had been very unwell. The 13th of January- is 
 the date of the letter — " Monday night." It is posted 
 on the 14th, but as she almost always wrote her letters at 
 night, you will easily understand that it was written on 
 the night of the 13th. She says : — " I am glad you are 
 sound'. That is a great matter, I had a fear yqji were not, 
 and I feared that you would die ; but now I am easy on 
 that point. I am very well," Iji the same lettef 
 
2M 
 
 she says:— "I doijit hear of ,M. and P. 
 itom home, so, my dear pet, I see no chance what- 
 ever. I fear wo will have to ' wait." That may 
 have reference to either of their meetings, or to the 
 possibility of their carrying out their design of an elopement. 
 It matters not very much. Then on the 18th January we 
 have this — " I did love you so much last night when you 
 were at the window." Now, whether there was a conver- 
 sation at that meeting or not does not very clearly appear ; 
 but,, at all events, it can have been nothing more than a 
 meeting at the window. She says :— " I think I shall see 
 you on Thursday night"— I suppose the same kind of 
 meeting that she refers to immediately after. Whether 
 that meeting on Tliursday night ever took place or not 
 does not a,ppea,r ; but it 'is not very importanii, because, 
 pray observe, gentlemen, that that Thursday night is 
 a night, of January ; this being written on, Monday the 
 19th, Thursday would have been the 22d. la the next 
 letter, bearing the postmark 21st January, she says :-^"If 
 you oan I would like to have a note on Friday at eight or 
 ten." In the next, dated 23d January, she says : — " I 
 was so sorry I could not see you to-night ; I expected 
 an hour's chat with you ; we must just hope for 
 better the next time. I don't see the least chance for 
 us, my dear love. M. is not well enough to go from liome, 
 and my dear little sweet pet I don't see we could manage 
 in Edinburgh, because I could not leave a friend's house 
 without their knowing it ; so sweet pet it must at present 
 be put off till a better time. X see no chance before 
 March." In the same cover there Is another letter, 
 dated Sunday night, where there is reference to a 
 meeting; but my learned friend the .Lord Advocate 
 very properly admitted that that was a meeting at the 
 window — nothing more ; and therefore I need say no 
 more of it. He was convinced of that by referring back 
 po letter No. 93, and comparing them together. He 
 adiuitted the meeting there was merely at the window. 
 Now, gentlemen, that concludes the month of January. 
 There are no more letters of that month. There is not 
 another, so far as I can see, referring to any meeting what- 
 ever^ Christjna Haggart t^old you wheii she Was examined 
 
283 
 
 thsit in the course of that Arinteir, and when the fainily 
 were living in Blythawood Square, they met but twice ; 
 and it is clear that they could not meet without the inter- 
 vention of Christina Haggart. I don't mean that it was 
 physically impossible, but when the young lady saw so 
 much danger, so much obstruction in the way of her 
 accomplishing her object, unless she could secure the aid 
 of Christina Haggart, there is not the slightest tittle of 
 evidence that without that assistance she ever made the 
 attempt. I mean of course, you must understand, 
 meetings within the house. I don't dispute the ejcistence 
 of the correspondence which was carried on by the 
 window, and I don't doubt that even on occasions they 
 may have exchanged words at the window, and had short 
 conversations there. But I am speaking of meetings 
 within the house. The only evidence at all as to meetings 
 within the house is, in the first place, in the area under 
 the front door, and the other meeting that took place on the 
 occasion when Christina Haggart introduced L'Angelier 
 at the back-door. Now, I am sure you wUl agree 
 with me that this is an important part of the case ; 
 and I bring you down thus to the commencement of 
 the, month of February with this I think distinctly 
 proven, or at least I am entitled to say, without a 
 shadow of evidence to the contrary, that they were no|i 
 in the habit of coming into personal contact. On the 
 contrary, they had only met in this way on two 
 occasions in the course of the winter. But now we have 
 come to a very important stage of the case. On. the 28th 
 of February Mr Minnoch proposes, and, if I understand 
 the theory of my learned friend's case aright, from 
 that day the whole character of this girl's mind 
 and feelings was cbanged, and she set herself to 
 prepare for the' perpetration of what my learned 
 friend has called one of the most foul, cool, deliberate 
 murders that ever was committed. Gentlemen, I 
 will not say, that such a thing is absolutely impos- 
 sible—he will be d, bold man who will seek to set 
 limits to the depths of human depravity ; but tliis at least 
 experience teaches us, that perfection, even ih depravity, 
 is not rapidly att^i^ed, and that it is not by such short 
 
284 
 
 and easy stages as the prosecutor has been able to trace 
 in the career of Madeline Smith that a gentle loving 
 girl passes into , the savage grandeur of a Medea, or 
 
 ■ the appalling wickedness of a Borgia. No, gentlemen ; 
 such a thing is not possible. There is and must be a 
 certain progress in guilt, and it is quite out of all 
 human experience that from' the tone'*6f the letters 
 which I have last read to you there should be such » 
 sadden transition from affection to the savage desire 
 for removing by any means the obstruction to her wishes 
 and purposes that the prosecutor imputes to the prisoner. 
 Think, gentlemen, how foul and unnatural a murder it is — ■ 
 the murder of one who within a very short space was the 
 object of hf r love — an unworthy object — an unholy love — 
 but yet while it lasted — and its endurance was not very 
 brief — it was a deep, absorbing, tmsel&sh, devoted passion. 
 And the object of that passion she now conceives the 
 purpose of murdering. Such is the theory that yon are 
 desired to believe. Before you will believe it, will you 
 not ask for demonstration ? Will you be tontent with 
 conjecture — will you be content with , suspicion, however 
 pregnant — or will you be so unreasonable as to put it to 
 me in this form, that the man having died of poison, the 
 theory of the prosecutor is the most probable that is 
 oifered ? Oh, gentlemen, is that the manner in which a 
 jury should treat such a case ? — is that the kind of proof 
 of which they could convict of a capital offence? On 
 ,the 19th of February, on the 22d of February, and 
 on the 22d of March — for the prosecutor has now 
 
 ■ absolutely fixed on these dates— he charges the prisoner 
 with administering poison. Observe, , he does not 
 ask you to suppose merely that by some means or 
 other the prisoner conveyed poison to L'Angelier, but he 
 asks yon to affirm that, on those three occasions, she , 
 with her own hands administered the poison. Look at 
 the indictment and see if I have not correctly repre- 
 sented to you what the prosecutor demands at your 
 hands. He says in the first charge that she " wickedly 
 and feloniously administered to Emile L'Angelier, now 
 deceased." Again, in the second charge, he alleges that 
 she did " wickedly and feloniously administer to him a 
 
285 
 
 quantity or quantities of arsenic ;" and in the' third 
 charge, that she did ">irickedlyand feloniously administer 
 to, or cause to be taken by, the said deceased Emile 
 L'Angelier, a quantity of arsenic, of which he died, 
 and was thus murdered by her." These are three 
 separate acta of administration, not, I pray you 
 to observe, general physiological facts, which you 
 may deduce from various considerations, but plain 
 physical facts — facts which, if anybody had seen, 
 would have been proved to demonstration, but which, 
 in the absence of eye-witnesses, I do not dispute 
 may be proved by circumstantial evidence. But then 
 you must always bear in mind that circumstantial 
 evidence must come up to this — that it must convince 
 you of the perpetration of these acts. !N"ow, then, in 
 dealing with such circumstantial proof of such facts as I 
 have been speaking of, what should you expect to find? 
 Of course the means musff be in the prisoner's hands 
 of committing the crime, The possession of poison 
 will be the first thing that is absolutely necessary ; and 
 on the other hand the fact that the deceased was 
 ill and died frorn. the consequences of poison. But 
 it would be the most defective of all proofs of poisoning 
 to stop at such facts as these, for one person may be in 
 the possession of poison, and another person die from the 
 effects of poison, and yet that proves nothing. You 
 must have a third element. You must not merely have 
 a motive — and I shall speak of motive by-and-by 
 you must not merely have a motive but oppor- 
 tunity — the most important of all elements. You 
 must have the opportunity of the parties coming 
 into personal contact, or of fiie poison being 
 conveyed to the murdered person througt the medium 
 of another. Now, we shall see how far there is tl e 
 slightest room for such a suspicion here. As regards the 
 first charge, it is alleged to have taken place on the 
 evening of the 19th February, and the illness, on the 
 same theory, followed either in the course of that night, 
 or rather the next morning. Now, in the first place, as 
 to date, is it by any means clear ? Mrs Jenkins — than 
 whom I never saw a more aoeurate or more trustworthy 
 
286 
 
 witness — Mrs Jenkins swears that to tlie beet of lier 
 recollection and belief, the first illness preceded the 
 second by eight or ten days. Eight or ten days 
 from the 22d, which was the date of the second 
 illness, will bring iis hack to the 13th February, 
 and he was very ill about the 13th February, as was 
 proved by the letter I read to you, and proved also by 
 the testimony of Mr Miller. Wow, if the first illness 
 was on the 13th February, do you think that another 
 illness could have intervened between that and the 22d 
 without Mrs Jenkins being aware of it ? Certainly that 
 won't <3o. Therefore, if Mrs Jenkins is correct, that the 
 first Alness was eight or ten days before. That is one 
 and a most important blow against the prosecutor's 
 case in this first charge. Let us look now, if you 
 please, at what is said on the other side as to the date. 
 It is said by Miss Perry that not ^ly was that the date 
 of his illness, but that he had a meeting with the prisoner 
 on the 19th. Miss Perry's evidence upon that point I 
 take leave to say is not worth much. She had no recol- 
 lection of that day when she was examined first by the 
 Proourator-Fisoai ; no, nor the second time, nor the third 
 time ; and it was only when, by a most improper inter- 
 ference on the part of one of the clerks of the Fiscal, a 
 statement was read to her out of a book, which has been 
 rejecte&^as worthless in fixing dates, that she then for the 
 first time took up the notion that it was the 19tli which 
 L'Angelier had reference to in the conversations which 
 he had with her. And, after all, what do these conversa- 
 tions amount to'? To this, that on the 17th, when he 
 dined with her, he said he expected to meet the prisoner 
 on the 19th. But did he say afterwards that he had met 
 her on the 19th? The Lord Advocate supposed that ho 
 had, but he was mistaken. Miss Perry said nothing of 
 the sort. She said that when she saw him again on the 
 ' 2d March, he did not tell her of any meeting oh the 19th. 
 Well, gentlemen, let us look now, in that state of the 
 evidence, as to the probabilities of the case. This first 
 illness, you will keep in view, whensoever it took place, 
 was a very serious one — a very serious one indeed. Mrs 
 Jenkins was very much alarnfed by it, and the 
 
287 
 
 deceased himself suffeKd intensely. There can be no 
 doubt about that. Now, if the theory of the prose- 
 cutor be right, it was on the morning of the 19th 
 that he was in this state of intense suffering, and upon 
 the 20th, the next day, he bought the largest piece 
 of beef that is to be found in his pass-hook from his 
 butcher ; and he had fresh herrings for dinner in such a 
 quantity as to alarm his landlady, and a still more alarming 
 quantity and variety of vegetables. Here is a dinner for 
 a sick person ! All that took place upon the 21st, and 
 yet the man was near death's door on the morning of 
 the 20th, by that irritation of stomach, no matter how 
 produced, which necessarily leaves behind it the most 
 debilitating and sickening effects. I say, gentlemen, 
 there is real evidence that the date is not the 
 date which the prosecutor says it is. But, gentle- 
 men, supposing that the date were otherwise, 
 was the illness caused by arsenic ? Such I understand to 
 be the position of my learned friend. Kow, that is the 
 question which I am going to put to you very seriously, and 
 I ask you to consider the consequences of answering that 
 question in either way. You have it proved very 
 distinctly, I think — to an absolute certainty almost — that 
 on the 19th February the prisoner was not in possession 
 of arsenic. I say proved to a certainty for this reason — 
 because when she went to buy arsenio afterwards, 
 on the 21st February and the 6th and the 18th March, 
 she went about it in so open a way that it was quite 
 impossible that it should escape observation if it came 
 afterwards to be inquired into. I am not mentioning 
 that, at present as an element of evidence in regard 
 to her guilt or innocence of the second or third charges. 
 But I want yoii to keep the fact in view at present for 
 this reason, that if she was so loose and open in her 
 purchases of arsenic on these subsequent occasiotis, there 
 was surely nothing to lead you to expect that she should 
 be more secret or more cautious on the first occasion. 
 How could that be ? Why, one could imagine that a 
 person entertaining a murderous purpose of this kind, 
 and contriving and compassing the death of a fellow- 
 preature, might go on increasing in caution ^m s^e pro- 
 
288 
 
 ceeded, but how she should throw away all idea of 
 caution or secrecy upon the second, and thifd, and fourth 
 occasions if she went to purchase so secretly upon the 
 first, that the whole force of the prosecutor has not 
 been able to detect that earlier purchase, I leave it to 
 you to explain to your own minds. It is incredible. 
 Nay, but, gentlemen, it is more than incredible ; I think 
 it is disproved by the evidence of the prosecutor himself- 
 He sent hiSj emissaries throughout the whole druggists' 
 shops in Glasgow, and examined their registers to find 
 whether any arsenic had been sold to a person of the 
 name of L'Angelier. I need not tell you that the name 
 of Smith was also included in the list of persons to be 
 searched for ; and therefore, if there had been such a 
 purchase at any period prior to the 19th February, that 
 fact would have been, proved to you just as easihr, and 
 with as full demonstration, as the purchases at a subse- 
 quent period. But, gentlemen, am I not struggling a 
 great deal too hai^d to show you that the possibility of 
 purchasing it before the 19th is absolutely disproved; 
 that is no part of my business. It is enough for me to 
 say that there is not a tittle or vestige of evidence on 
 the part of the prosecutor that such a purchase was 
 made prior to the 21st ; and, therefore, on that 
 ground, I submit to you with the most perfect confidence 
 as regards that first charge that it is absolutely 
 impossible that arsenic could have been administered by 
 the.prisoner to the deceased upon the evening of the 19th 
 of February. Nay, gentlemen, Ihere is one circumstance 
 more before I have done with that which' is worth 
 attending to. Suppose it was the 19th, then it was the 
 occasion in reference to which M. Thuau told you that 
 when the deceased gave him an account of his, illness and 
 the way in which it came on, he told him that he had 
 been taken ill in the presence of the lady — a thing totally 
 inconsistent with the notion, in the first place, that the 
 arsenic was administered by her, and its effects after- 
 wards produced and^ seen in the lodgings, but still more 
 inconsistent with Mrs Jenkins' account of the manner 
 and time at which iUness came oh, which, if I recollect 
 right, w»? at 'foijr o'clock in the morning, after he had 
 
289 
 
 gone to bed perfectly well. Wow, gentlemen, I say, 
 therefore, yoii are bound toholdnotmerelytliatthereisliere 
 a failure to make out the administration on the 19th, but 
 you are bound to give me the benefit of an absolute nega- 
 tive, upon that point, and to allow me to assume that 
 arsenic was not administered on the 19th by the prisonar. 
 I think I am making no improper demand in carrying it 
 that length. Now, see the consequences of the position 
 which, I, have thus established. "Was he ill from the 
 effects of .arsenic on the morning of the 20bh ? I ask you 
 to consider that question as much as the prosecutor has 
 askeji yon ; and if you can come to the conclusion, from 
 the symptoms exhibited, that he was iU from the effects 
 of arsenic on the morning of the 20th, what is the infer- 
 ence ? — ^^that'he had arsenic administered to him by other 
 hands than the prisoner's. The conclusion is inevitablfe, 
 irresistible, if these symptoms were the effect of arsenical 
 poisoning. Again, you are to hold that the symptomsof that 
 morning's illness were not such as to indicate the presence 
 of arsepio in the stomach, or to lead to the conclusion of 
 arsenical poisoning. . What is the result of that again ? 
 The result of it is to destroy the whole theory of the 
 prosecutor's case — a theory of successive administrations, 
 and to show how utterly impossible it is for him to bring 
 evidence up to the point of an actual administratibn. 
 Then, as soon as you weigh that evidence, test its appli- 
 cation to the occasion to which it is intended to apply, 
 you find it not merely inconclusive, but find it proof of 
 the contrary. I give my learned friend the optibn of being 
 impaled on one or other of the horns of that dilemma, 
 I care not which. Either he was ill from arsenical poison- 
 ing on the morning of the 20th, or he was not. If he was, 
 hehadjreceivedarsenicfromothei' hands than the prisoner's. 
 If he was not,, the fpundatioji of the whole case is shaken. 
 So much for the first charge. Gentlemen, before I proceed 
 further, I am anxious to, explain one point whi(ili I think 
 I left .imperfectly explained in passing — I mean regard- 
 ing the, m^etiRg jeferred la in. 'the letter of Sunday-night 
 in the envelope of the 23d January. My statement 
 was that the Lord Advocate had admitted that that 
 jneeting which was,there referred to was a meeting at the 
 K 
 
290 
 
 window. I think he did not admit it in this form, but he 
 made an admission, or rather he asserted, and insisted on 
 a fact which is conclusive to the same effect. He said that 
 that Sunday night was a Sunday immediately preceding 
 the Monday of letter 93. Now, then, if it be the Sunday 
 jiight immediately preceding the Monday of letter No. 
 93, ojiserve the inevitable inference, because on the 
 Sunday night she says — "You have just left me." In 
 the postscript to the letter of Monday She Says-— ■ 
 "I da. love yon 60 much last mght when you were at 
 the window." So that tis Lordship's admission, though 
 it was not made in the form that I am supposing, was 
 exactly to the same effect. It proves that this was a 
 meeting at the window, like the others. I have disposed 
 of the. first charge, and in a way wiioh I trust you 
 won't forget in dealing with the remainder of the case, 
 because I think it enables me to take a position from 
 wliich I shaU demoKsh every remaining atom of this case. ' 
 But before I proceed to the consideration of the second 
 charge more particularly, I want you to follow me, if 
 you please, very precisely as to certain dates, and you 
 will oblige me very much if you take a note of them. 
 The first parcel of arsenic whioh is purchased by Wm 
 prisoner was upon the 21st of February. It was bought 
 in the shop of Murdoch the apothecary, and the arsenic 
 there purchased was mixed with soot. Murdoch ijjas 
 the person who ordinarily supplied medicines to Mr 
 Smith'&. family, and she left the arsenic unpaid for, and 
 it went into her father's , account ; and I shall have 
 something to say about these circumstances hereafter. 
 I merely mention them at present. Now, on Sunday the 
 22d it is said, and we shall see by-and-by with how much 
 reason, that L'Angelier again had' arsenic adtninistered 
 to him, and so far it may be that we have, in regard 
 to the second charge, a purchase of arsenic previous to 
 the alleged administration. I shall not lose sight of 
 that weighty- faet, but, from the 22d February 
 onwards, there appears to me to be no successful 
 attempt on the part of the prosecutor to prove 
 any meeting between these persons. He was oon- 
 £ned to iibe bouse after that illness, as you have heard, 
 
291 
 
 for eight or ten days. , There are letters ■written at 
 that time which completely correspond with that state of 
 matters, speak of his being confined, and of the 
 possibility of seeing him at his window. But it ia 
 not pretended that there is any meeting during all 
 that time, which lasted for eight or ten days after the 
 22d. Now, suppose it lasted for eight days, that brings 
 you downto (the 2d March. On the 5th March there is 
 said to be a. letter written by L'Angelier to the 
 prisoner, and there is a letter from the prisoner to 
 L'Angelier which is said to have been written on 
 the same day. But neither of these letters 
 indicate the, occurrence of a meeting upon that 
 occasion, nor bear any reference to any recent meeting, 
 nor any anticipated or expected meeting. In short, there 
 is not, from the 22d of February to the 6th of March, any 
 attempt to prove a meeting between the parties. I think 
 I am justifled in stating the import of the evidence to be 
 so. I; shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I think I am 
 quite certain that from the One day to the other there 
 is not an insinuation that there was a meeting 
 between the parties from the 22d February to the 
 6th March. On the 6th March the prisoner goes with 
 her family to the Bridge of Allan, and there she remains 
 till the 17th; and on the 6th March, immediately 
 preceding her departure to the Bridge of Allan, she 
 buys her second parcel of arsenic, and that she buys in 
 the company of Miss Buchanan, talks about it to two 
 young men who were in the shop, signs her name on 
 the register as she had done on theprevious occasion ; every 
 circumstance shows the most perfect openness in making 
 the purchases. "Well, she goes to the Bridge of ABan 
 on the 6th, and confessedly does not return till the 17th. 
 Let us now trace, on the other hand, the adventm-es of ^ 
 L'Angelier. He remains in Glasgow tiU the 10th. He 
 then goes to Edinburgh, and returns on the 17th at night. 
 He conies home by the late train to Glasgow. On the 
 18th he remained in tlie house all day. I am glad to find 
 that my learned friend the Lord Advocate in his speech . 
 corroborates my recollection of this fact— that L'Angelier 
 was in the house all the 18th. On the 19th, in the morn- 
 ' e3 
 
292 
 
 ( 
 
 Sng, he goes first to Edinburgh and then to the Bridge of 
 Allan, from whlohhedid notreturntillthenlrht preceding 
 his death, on the 22d. I 'have missed dirjoting your 
 attention at the proper place to the fact that on the 18th, 
 on her return from 'the Bridge of Man, the prisoner ' 
 purchases her third -portion of arsenic in the same open' ' 
 way as before. Observe, gentlemen, that unless you' 
 shall hold it to be true, and proved by the evidence 
 before jou, that these two persons met oh the 22d of 
 February, which was a Sunday; or unless, in like manner, 
 you hold it to be proved that they met again on the fatal 
 night of the 22d March, there never was a' meetifag at 
 all after the prisoner had made any of her purchases of 
 arsenic. I maintain that there not only was no meeting,' 
 that we have no evidence of any meeting, but that 
 practically there was no possibility of their meeting. I 
 say that unless you can believe on the evidence that 
 there was a meeting on the 22d of February, or again 
 on the 22d of March, that there is no possible occasion on 
 which she either could ha-ve administered poison or could 
 have purposed or intended to administer it. You will 
 now, gentlemen, see the reason why I wanted these 
 dates well fixed in your minds, for from the first 
 alleged purchase of poison to the' end of the tragedy 
 there is no possibility of contact or of administration, 
 unless you think you have evidence that they met on one 
 or other of these Sundays, the 22d February or the 22d 
 March.' Let us see if they did meet on the 22d February. 
 'What is the evidence on that point of Mrs Jenkins,' 
 L'Angelier's landlady? She Says' he wa;s in' his usual 
 condition on the 21st, ' when he made that celebrated 
 dinner to which I have already adverted, and when she 
 thought he was making himself ill, and on that 21st he 
 announced to her that he would not leave the house all ' 
 the Sunday — ^the following day. He had therefore 
 no appointment with the prisoner for the Sunday, else he 
 would never have made that statement. On the 22d, 
 Mrs Jenkins says she has no recollection of his going out, 
 in violation of his declared intention made the day 
 before. Gentlemen, do you really believe that this 
 remarkably accurate woman wovild not have remem- 
 
m 
 
 bered A oiroumsianoe in connection with, this Mse 
 of suoh great importftnce as th»t ha had firat of all 
 said that ha would not go ou6 upon that Sunday, 
 and that' he had then changed his mind and gone out ? 
 It is too daring a draft on yotiv imagination. She has HO 
 recolleotion of his going out, and I am entitled to con- 
 clude that he did not. And when he did go out of a 
 night and came in late, what was his hahit? Mrs Jenkins, 
 sayshenever got into the houso on those occasions- -that is, 
 after she went to bed — except in one or other of these two 
 ways : either he asked for and got a check-key, or the door 
 was opened to him by Mr Thuau. Mrs Jenkins says there 
 was no other mode. She says ho did not ask the check- 
 key that night. If he had done so she must have 
 recollected.- Thuau says he certainly did not let 
 him in. Wow, gentlemen, I must say that to fton- 
 jeoture in the face of this evidence that L'Angelier was 
 out of the house that night is one of the most violent 
 suppositions ever made in the presence of a jury, espe- 
 cially when that conjecture is for the purpose of — by that 
 means, and that means only — rendering the second charge 
 in this indictment possible, for without it it is impossible. 
 Well, -UAngelier was not taken ill till late in the 
 morning, and he did not come home ill. There is no 
 evidence that he ever came home at all, or that he ever 
 was out ; aU we know is, that he was taken ill late in the 
 morning, about four or five o'clock. Only one attempt 
 was made by my learned friend to escape from the 
 inevitable results of this evidence. And it is by a strange 
 and forced use of a particular letter, No. Ill, written on 
 a "Wednesday, in which letter the prisoner says she is sorry 
 to hear he is ill ; but the portion on which he particularly 
 founded was that in which she said — "You did look bad on 
 Sunday night and Monday morning." My learned friend 
 says that that letter was written on the 25th of February, 
 and points out to you that the Sunday before that was 
 the 22d. And, no doubt, if that were conclusively 
 proved, it would be a piece of evidence in conflict with 
 the other, and a very strong conflict and contradiction it 
 would indeed be, and one which you, gentlemen, would 
 have great difficulty to reconcile. This, however, 
 k3 
 
294 
 
 would not be a reason for believing the evidence 
 df the Crown, or for convicting the. prisoner. But, 
 gentlemen, the contradiction is imaginary ; for the 
 only date the letter bears is "Wednesday, and it may be, 
 so far as the letter is traced, any Wednesday in the whole 
 course of their correspondence. There is not a bit of 
 internal evidence in this letter, nor in the place 
 where it was found, nor anywhere else, to fix 
 its date, unless you take that reference to Sunday 
 night, which is, of course, begging the whole 
 question. Therefore, I say', again, gentlemen, that it 
 might have been written on any "Wednesday during the 
 whqle course of their correspondence and connection. . 
 But it is found in an envelope, from which its date is 
 surmised. . And, gentlemen, because a certain letter, 
 without date, is found in a certain envelope, you are to 
 be asked to convict, and to convict of murder, on that 
 evidence alone ! I say that if this letter had been found 
 in an envelope bearing the most legible possible postmark, 
 it would have been absurd and monstrous to convict on 
 suoii evidence. But, when the postmark is absolutely 
 illegible, how much is that difficulty and absurdity 
 increased ! Except that the Crown witness from tJie 
 Post Office says that the inark of the month has an B, 
 and that the Post Office mark for February happens to 
 have no E, we have no evidence even as to the month. 
 My learned friend must, condemn the evidence of his own 
 witr^ess before he can fix the postmark. The witness said 
 the lette^ must have been posted' in the yeaj- 1857 ; but 
 perhaps even on that point the Crown will not take the 
 evidence of a ^idtness whom they themselves have' 
 discredited. Besides, the whole evidence on this point is 
 subject to this answer — that the envelope proves abso- 
 lutely nothing. Again, to take tjie fact that a particular 
 letter is found in a particular envelope as evidence to fix 
 the date of an'administration of poison, is, gentlemen, a 
 demand on your patience and on your credulity which 
 to me is absolutely unintelligible. The Lord Advocate 
 said in the course, of his argument that, without any 
 improper proceedings on the part of the Crown officials, 
 nothing could be so easily inragined as that a letter should 
 
29S 
 
 get iuto a wrong envelope in the poaseaeion of the 
 deceased himself. I adopt that suggestion. And if that 
 be a likely accident, what is the value of this letter as a 
 piece of evidence ?-r-espeoiillly in opposition to the plain 
 evidence of two witnesses for the Crown, that the 
 Sunday referred to in the letter could not be the 22d of 
 February, because on that Sunday L'Angelier was never 
 over the door. "Well, I do not think the Crown has 
 succeeded much better in supporting the second charge. 
 I should like to know whether my learned friend still 
 persists in saying that, on the morning of the 23d 
 February, the deceased was suffering from the effects of 
 arsenical poisoning ; for, if he does, the answer is the 
 same — that he was in the way of^ receiving arsenic from 
 another hand than the prisoner's. And now, gentlemen, 
 am I not entitled to say that, as regards the first 
 two charges, step by , step — tediously, I am afraid, but 
 with no more minuteness than necessary for the ends 
 of justice and the ihterests of the prisoner — I have pulled 
 to pieces the web of sophistry which had been woven 
 around this case. Well, gentlemen, time goes on, and 
 certainly in the interval between the 22d February and 
 the 22d March we have no event in the nature of a 
 meeting between these parties. Nothing of that kind is 
 alleged ; and on the 22d of March it is perfectly true 
 that L'Angelier goes to Glasgow, and goes under peculiar 
 circumstances. The events connected with his joui'ney 
 from Bridge of Allan, with the causes and consequences 
 of it, I must beg you to bear with me while I detail 
 at considerable length. He went to the Bridge of Allan 
 on the morning of the 19th, or, in other words, he went 
 first to Edinburgh and then from that to the Bridge of 
 Allan. You recollect that upon the ISth^rom the 
 night of the 17th, after his arrival from Edinburgh, and 
 in the course of the IStli — he had expressed himself 
 very anxious about a letter wkioh he expected. He spoke 
 to Mrs Jenkins about it several times ; but he started 
 for Edinburgh without receiving that letter ; and I 
 think it is pretty plain that the sole cause of his 
 journey to Edinburgh that day was to see whether the 
 letter had not gone there. Kow in. Edinburgh again he 
 
296 
 
 receives no letter, but goes on to the Bridge of Allan, and 
 at the Bridge of Allan he does receive a letter from the 
 prisoner. That letter was written on the evening of 
 "Wednesday the 18th— remember that — and it was posted 
 on the morning of Thursday. It was addressed by the 
 prisoner to the deceased at his lodgings at Mrs Jenkins ; 
 she being ignorant of the fact that he had left town. It 
 reached Mrs Jenkins in the course of the forenoon, and 
 it wasposted in another .envelope by M. Thuau addressed 
 to L'Angelier at Stirling, where he received it upon 
 Friday. I hope you follow this exactly, as you will find 
 it immediately of consec^uenoe. It reached the Post 
 Office at Stirling I think about ten on the morning of 
 Friday. Now, gentlemen, there are two or three circum- 
 stances connected with this letter of the greatest conse- 
 quence. In the first place it is written a day before it is posted. 
 In that respect it stands very much in the same position 
 as by far the greater part of the letters written, which 
 were almost all written at night and posted next morning. 
 In the second place it undoubtedly contained an appoint- 
 ment to meet the deceased on the Thursday evening. 
 That was the evening after it was written — the evening 
 of the day on wliioh it was posted. But he being out of 
 town, and not receiving it until the Friday, it was of 
 course too late for the object, and he did not come to 
 town in answer to that letter — a very important fact too, 
 for this reason that it shows that . if the ' tryst was 
 made by appointment for one evening, he did not 
 think it worth while to attempt to come the next 
 evening, because he could not see the prisonei' but 
 by appointment. Eemember how anxious he was 
 before he left Glasgow ; remember that hemade a journey 
 to Edinburgh for the very purpose of getting the letter 
 that he expected. He was burning to receive, the lAter 
 — in a state of the greatest anxiety — and yet when 
 he gets it ■ on the Friday morhing in Stirling, seeing 
 that the hour of appointment is already past, he knows 
 that it is in vain to go. She cannot see him except when 
 the tryst was made. Now, most unfortunately — X shall 
 say no more than that of it at present— that letter was 
 1 ost ; and, most strangely, riot merely the original enve- 
 
297 
 
 lope in which it was enclosed by the prisoner herself, but 
 the additional envelope into which it was pat' by Thuan 
 are both found, or said to be found, in the deceased's 
 travelling-bag, which he had with him at Stirling and 
 Bridge of Allan. But the letter is gone — where, no man 
 can tell. Certainly it cannot be imputed as a fault to 
 the prisoner that that letter is not here. You will see it 
 is beyond all question that on the Friday he writes a letter 
 to Miss Perry, in which he makes use of this e.^cpression 
 — •" I should have come to see some one last night, but the 
 letter came too late, so we were both disappointed." He 
 got the letter ; he knew that it contained an appoint- 
 ment for that night, and the preservation of this 
 letter to Miss Perry proves its contents so for. 
 But the letter itself is gone, and I cannot help thinking, 
 although I am not going to detain you by any details on 
 the subject, that the Crown is responsible for the loss of^ 
 that letter. If they" 'had been in a position to prove, as 
 they ought to have done, that these two envelopes were 
 certainly found in the travelling-bag without the letters, 
 they might have discharged themselves of the obligation 
 that ' lay upon them ; ' but, having taken possession 
 of the contents of that travelling-bag, which are 
 now brought to bear on the guilt or innocence of 
 the prisoner, I say again, as the fact stands, that 
 that letter is lost, and they are answerable for the loss. 
 Now, there is another letter which is sent to the Bridge 
 of Allan through the same channel. It is addressed to 
 Mrs Jenkins, and bears the postmark of 21st March — 
 that is to say, Saturday morning. It reached Mrs Jenkins 
 in the course of the forenoon ; it was posted to Stirling 
 by M. Thuau in the afternoon of the same day, and was 
 received by the deceased at the Bridge of Allan on 
 Sunday morning. Here is the letter: — ""Why, my 
 beloved, did you not come to m6 ? Oh, my beloved, afe 
 you ill ? Come to me. Sweet one, I waited and waited 
 for y<yu, but you came not. I shall wait again to-morrow 
 night— same hour and arrangement. Oh, come, sweet 
 love, my own dear love of a sweetheart. Come, beloved, 
 and clasp me to your heart ; come, and we shall be 
 happy. A kiss, fond love. Adieu, with tender embraces. 
 
Ever believe me to be your own ever dear, fond Mimi." 
 When was it that she " waited and waited ?"' It was upon 
 Thursday evening— that was the tryst. The letter to 
 Miss Perry proves conclusively that it was on the Thurs- 
 day she waited, expecting him to come in answer to her 
 previous invitation. "When, then, do you think it was 
 likely that she should write her next summons? 1 
 should thinly; that, in all human probability^, it , was 
 on Friday. Sbe al-niost always wrote her letters in the 
 evening, and I think I am not going too far when I say, 
 that when she did not write them in the evening she 
 almost always put the hour to them at which they were 
 written ; and when she wrote her letters in the evening 
 they were invariably posted next morning, and not that 
 evening, for very obvious reasons. Now, then, is it not 
 clear to you that this letter, this all-important letter, 
 wi-itteii upon the Friday evening, was posted on ; the 
 Saturday morning, while sho still believed that he was 
 in Glasgow with Mrs Jenkins, making the appoint- 
 ment for Saturday evening — " I shall wait to-morrow 
 ,night, same houi; and arrangement." It is the very 
 same amount bf warning that she gave him in the 
 previous letter written on Wednesday, and posted on 
 the Thursday morning when she made the appointment 
 for Thursday evening. Here, in like manner, comes 
 this letter written, as I say, upon the Friday evening, 
 and posted upon the Saturday morning — fixing a 
 meeting for the Saturday evening. The two things 
 square exactly ; .and it would be against all probability 
 that it should be otherwise. She was most anxious to 
 gee him ; she believed him to be in Glasgow ; and she 
 entreated him to come to her. Oh, but, says my learned 
 friend, they were not in the way of meeting on Saturdays 
 — Sunday was a favourite night, but not Saturday. 
 Really, gentlemen, when my learned friend has put in 
 evidence before yoU' somewhere about 100 out of 200 or 
 300 Iptters, that he should the)}, ask you to, believe 
 (because there is no appearance of • a Saturday, evening 
 meeting in any of them wliioh he has. read): that 
 there is no such appearance in any that he has 
 not read— rwould be a somewhat unreasonable demand. 
 
299 
 
 But unhappily for his theory or conjecture, it is 
 negatived by the letters that he has read, as you 
 will find. Id one letter, No. 55, October 1856, she 
 says : — " Write me for Saturday if you are to be on 
 Saturday night." That is, to meet her on Saturday night. 
 Again, in letter No. Ill, she says : — " I shall not be at 
 home on Saturday, but I shall try, sweet love, to meet 
 you, evea if it be but for a word" — alluding to her return 
 from some party. Wow, these are two examples selected 
 out of the very letters that my learned friend himself 
 has used negativing the only kind of supposition that he, 
 has set off against what I am now advancing. Gentle- 
 men, I think further, with reference to the supposed 
 meeting on the Sunday evening, that I am entitled to 
 say to you that there is no appearance of their ever 
 having met without previous arrangement. The very 
 existencb of thai; niimber of references in various parts 
 of the correspondence and at different dates to ■ meet- 
 ings then made or that were paaed, the constant 
 reference to the aid and assistance of Christina Haggart 
 whenever there was anything more than a mere 
 meeting at the window required, all . go to show that 
 in meetings between these parlies there always was 
 and always must have been, in order to their being 
 brought about at all, previous arrangement. If indeed, 
 as regards Blythswood Square house, the theory of the 
 prosecutor had been correct, that he had it in his power 
 at any time to go to the Window in Mains Street and 
 call her attention by some noisy signal, the case might 
 have been different. But I have already shown How 
 constantly she repeated to him her warning that he was 
 on no account to making the slightest knocking or noise 
 of any kind — that when she wanted to see him she would 
 watch for him and tell him when to come. But a signal 
 at the window was to be avoided of all things, because 
 it was sure to lead to discovery. Therefore, without 
 previous arrangement it does not appear to me to be 
 possible for these parties to have met on the occasion 
 the prosecutor says they did. And now let us see 
 what the condition of Blythswood Square house and 
 its inmates was upon this all-important Sunday t^e 224 
 
300 
 
 March. If I am right in my reading of the letters, she 
 expected him on Saturday evening, and she waited for 
 him then — ^waited most impatiently ; waited and waited 
 as she had upon the Thursday, but he came not. On the 
 Sunday evening she did not expect him — why should she? 
 "When he did not come on the Thursday evening she didnot 
 expect him and he did not come on the Friday evening — 
 when he did not come on the Saturday evening, why should 
 she expect him on the following evening ? Having broken 
 his appointment on the Thursday, he did not understand 
 he could procure an interview on the Friday. Having 
 broken it on the Saturday, why should he expect that 
 the meeting was transferred to the following evening ? 
 Well, then, that is the state in which her expectations 
 were on that occasion, and her conduct precisely squared. 
 She is at home in the family, with her father, mother, 
 brothers, and sisters. They are all at prayers together 
 at nine o'clock. The servants come up to attend prayers 
 along with the family. Duncan Mackenzie, the suitor 
 of Christina Haggart, remains below while the family 
 are at worship. The servants afterwards go down stairs 
 to bed as usual — one after the other, first the boy, then 
 Christina Haggart, and lastly the cook, who gets to bed 
 about eleven o'clock. The family then retire to rest, 
 and the prisoner ^vith her youngest sister descends from 
 the dining-room to her bed-room between half -past ten 
 and eleven. They take half-an-hour to undress ; they 
 both get into bed about the same time; the prisoner 
 apparently is undressed as usual ; goes to bed with her 
 sister ; and, so far as human knowledge or evidence 
 can go, that house is undisturbed and nnapproached 
 till the prisoner is lying in the morning, . side b/ 
 side with her sister, as she had fallen asleep at 
 night. Do you think it possible that, if there 
 had been a meeting between these two parties, there 
 should have been no evidence of it ? The watchman was 
 on his beat, and he knew L'Angelier well, and he saw 
 nothing. As yon must be aware, this is a very quiet 
 part of the town ; it is not a bustlmg thoroughfare, b'ut a 
 quiet west-end square of dwellings, about -which the 
 appearance of a stranger at a late hour on a Sunday 
 
301 
 
 evening would attract attention. Tlie polioeman,.whose 
 special charge was, on such an evening, and in. 
 such circumstances, to see every one passing, there 
 (and there is no chai'ge against him of not having" 
 been upon his beat, and nothing in the least to 
 detract from his evidence), sees notliing. Neither 
 within the house, nor without the house, is there 
 the slightest vestige of ground for suspecting that that 
 meeting of which they had been disappointed on Saturday 
 took place on the Sunday. But now let me turn to 
 L'Xngelier. It is said that he came from the Bridge of 
 Allan in answer to the invitation sent him by the 
 prisoner in the course'of Saturday. I don't think that 
 is altogether a reasonable presumption. But even if you 
 assume it,' it won't advance the prosecutor's case one 
 step. But, I say it is not a reasonable presumption. 
 I say it for.this reason, because to say that he came into 
 Glasgow on a Sunday at such great inconvenience to keep 
 an appointment which, was already past, is to suppose 
 him to contradict on Sunday what he did, or rstther 
 omitted to do, on Friday under precisely similar . circum- 
 stances. If he had wanted to have a meeting on an 
 evening subsequent to that for which it was appointed, 
 he could have been in on Friday, and the circumstances 
 were the same. And yet on Sunday, when there was 
 far less facility, for putting his purpose into execution, ; 
 when he required to walk a considerable part of the way, 
 instead of going by rail, as he could hav^ done on Friday, 
 he , is represented as having done this on purpose to 
 keep a meeting which had been appcjinted for the 
 previous night. I say that is not a reasonable supposition. 
 We do not know what other letters he received at the Bridge 
 of Allan on Sunday morning. There is no evidence of that. 
 The prosecutor might have given it, but he lias failed to 
 do so. Then there is surely a great deal of mystery 
 attending the prpseqn,i;ion of this journey from the 
 Bridge of Allan to GJasgow on that Sunday. But 
 before I" go into that, let me remind you that with 
 reference to the correspondence between him and M. 
 Thuau as to the forwarding of his letters, that we have 
 this in his letter of the 16th March 1857. He says :— " I 
 
302 
 
 have received no letters from Mr Mitohell j I should like 
 to know very much what he wants with me." Now you 
 don't know anything of Mr t Mitchell, and the Crown has 
 not told you ; but apparently L'Angelier was expecting 
 letters from this Mr Mitchell when he was in 5Edin- 
 buigh. He was anxious to receive them, and who 
 can tell what letters he received at Bridge of Allan on 
 Sunday morning ? Who can ' tell Whether there was 
 not a letter from this Mitchell? and, if so, who can tell 
 what it contained? However, L'Angelier came to Glas- 
 gow, and, as I said before, there was a certain degree of 
 mystery, and a very great obscurity thrown over this part 
 of the case — ■, I mean the course of his journey to 
 Glasgow, I refer to this part of the evidence because I 
 think everything that bears on the proceedings of 
 L'Angelier on Sunday is important to the case. It is 
 most essential that everything should be laid before you ; 
 and it is for that reason, rather than because I attach 
 any great importance to the thing itself, that we brought 
 before you the evidence of the three apothecaries to 
 which I am going to refer. But observe, in the first 
 place, what the evidence of the Crown is. They first call 
 the guard of the mail train by which he travelled 
 from Stirling to Coatbridge, and that guard says that a 
 gentleman travelled with him from Stirling to Coat- 
 bridge on a Sunday, and set out to walk to Glasgow in 
 company of the witness Boss; Now, Boss did not 
 describe the person of L'Angelier, or his conversation, or 
 anything about him in such a way that anybody could 
 possibly identify him from his description. And Eosg 
 was not shown the photograph — a very remarkable 
 omission on the part of the Crown, and of course done 
 for some good reason. They did show the photograph to 
 the mail-guard, and the mail-guard recognised and 
 identified him entirely from the photograph; and yet 
 when we proposed on the part of the prisoner to identify 
 him in the same way, the Crown seemed to think that we 
 were relying upon very imperfect means of identification. 
 Why, it was their own making and suggestion. It was the 
 very medium of identification on which alone they relied, 
 onlythat they relied on the exhibition of that photograph to 
 
a single witness, and if he was mistaken so was Boss alsby 
 for Boss told us nothing particular about him except that 
 he walked with a gentleman to Glasgow. Bat there are 
 some things connected with his conversation while on the 
 way to Glasgow that certainly strike one very much. 
 After they had the refreshment at the inn at Coatbridge, 
 none of the other parties connected with which have been 
 called as witnesses to identify or despribe L'Angelier— after 
 they left that inn— they fell into conversation, and the 
 conversation was generally of indifferent matters. 
 Among other things they spoke, of the place from which 
 the supposed L'Angelier had come ; and what '^a^ 
 the account that he gave of himself? That he 
 had (jome from Alloa. It seemed to me at first that 
 there might be some misunderstanding or misstatement 
 on the part of the witness in calling AJloa the Bridge of 
 Allan, or something of that kind ; but no. Boss was 
 qnite sure about it. He said there was not a word 
 spoken about the Bridge of Allan batween them. I 
 asked him, Did he tell him how far it was from Alloa to 
 Stirling, and he said it was eight miles, which is just the 
 distance, while, as we proved to yon, the distance 
 between the Bridge of Allan and Stirling is only between 
 two and three. It is on this evidence that the Crown 
 asks you to believe this was L'Angelier who came in with 
 Boss. It might have been possible for the Crown to 
 identify him further. In .the course of his conversation 
 withBoss he said that he had cometoStirlingthe day before 
 or on Friday, that he had endeavoured to cash a check at 
 the bank and had been refused, because they did not 
 know him. Ko attempt has been made to show that 
 L' Angler did this ; no attempt to show that he had a 
 check with him ; no attempt to show that he had 
 occasion to cash a check, having no money with him. 
 AH these things were open to the Crown to have proved. 
 Not one of them have they tried., JTow, on the pthpr 
 hand, observe the condition in which the witnesses for 
 the defence stand in regard to this Sunday. Boss, 
 you laiow, said that the msm dever parted with 
 him &om the time they started tUl they reached 
 Abereromby Street ia the Gallowgate; and there- 
 
30i 
 
 fore, if it was L'Angelier who was with him, in the 
 first place he gave him a perfectly false account of 
 the place where he had oome from, and the distance he 
 had walked, and then his evid enoe— Upas's evidenoe-r-would 
 be in di?feot conflict with that of the witnpase^ whom I am 
 BOW about to refer you to. If L'Angelier was, not withEoss, 
 then there is no difficulty inreconcilingthe evjiience, and 
 no difficulty in believing the witnesses Adams, Kirk, j^nd 
 Dickson. Adams, the first witnesa, speaks to the 22d as 
 the day of a gentleman passing along the rqad^frpm 
 Coatbridge to Glasgow bearing a very strong lifcene^,, to 
 L'Angelier. Adams is not so clear about the likei|e?s.a3 
 the others, ' but he is perfectly clear about, the' d^y. 
 And when you come te the witness Dickson at Baillip- 
 ston, he is clear about the likeness, and what he say^.'to 
 the date is this, that it was a Sunday at the end of March. 
 Miss Kirk is equally clear about the likeness. She is very 
 strong on that, and besides she identified the purse from 
 which he took out his money, and which was , ioi^i 
 en the person of L'Angelier after death. And she also 
 states the occasion to be the evening of a Sunday 
 at the end of March. Now, gentlemen, I need not tell you 
 it could not have' been any later Sunday in March, because 
 the poor man died the next morning, and it could npt.be 
 the Sunda.y before that, for he was then in Edinburgh ; 
 and, thOTefore, if it was a Sunday in March at all, and 
 above all if it was a Sunday, in the end of March, it, could 
 be no 'Sunday but the '22d. Now, if these three witnesges 
 are correct in What they stated to you, observe what the 
 result is. He was ill. He was taking laudanum in the 
 apothecaries' shops as he passed, and, finally, in Miss 
 Kirk's shop he purchased, but did not consume, some wbjte 
 powder, of which Miss Kirk could not tell what it was. 
 Well,' he came to Glasgow. He is seen by Mrs Jenkins 
 at his lodgings on his arrival at about eight o'clock. He 
 remains there till nine, and then goes out. He .is 
 seen in different ' streets. .He calls about half-past 
 nine o'clock on his friend M'AUester, who lives 
 some five minutes' walk from Blythswood Square. He 
 calls there, but finds that M'AUester is from home. 
 Again I ask, Why have we not here M'AUester to tell us 
 
366 
 
 what he knew &bout him, or whether he expected 
 him ? Could M'AUester have told us anything about the 
 Mitchell of the letter? Could not M'AlJester have 
 explained what was the errand on which he had come 
 from the Bridge of Allan ? Why do the Crown lesive all 
 these different things unexplained on this, the last and 
 most important day in his history ? Now, gentlSmen, 
 from half -past nine till half -past two o'clock — at least five 
 hours— he is absolutely lost sight of ; and I was startled at 
 the manner in which my learned friend the Lord Advocate 
 met this difficulty. He says it is no doubt a matter 
 of conjecture and inference that in the interval he was in 
 the presence of the prisoner. G-ood Heavens ! Inference 
 and conjecture ! A matter of inference and oonjed- 
 ture whether on the night he was poisoned he 
 was in the presence of the person who is charged with 
 his murder ! I never heard such an expresdon made 
 use of in a capital charge before, as indicating or 
 describing a link in the chain of the prosfectitor'a case. 
 It is new to me. I have heard it nfany a time in the 
 mouth of a. prisoner's counsel, and I daresay you will 
 hear it many a time in mine yet before I have done ; but 
 for the prosecutor himself to describe one part of his 
 evidence as a piece of conjecture and hypothesis is to me 
 an entire and most startling novelty — and yet my learned' 
 friend could not help it. It was honest and fair that he 
 should so express himself if he intAided to ask for a 
 verdict at all, for he can ask for this verdict on nothing 
 bat a set of unfounded and incredible suspicions and 
 hypotheses. Let us now look at this third charge in the 
 light of probabilities, since we must descend to conjecture, 
 and let us see whether there is anything to aid the con- 
 jecture which the Crown has chosen to consider as the 
 most probable one. If you believe the evidence of the 
 Crown, he suspected the prisoner of having tried to poison 
 him before. But then, says my learned friend, his suspi- 
 cions were lulled. She had become more kind to him 
 before he had left town, and his suspicions were lulled. 
 I think my learned friend said he was brooding 
 over it when he was in. Edinburgh, and spoke of 
 it in a very serious tone to Mr and Mrs Towers at 
 
306 
 
 Portobello. That was the 16th of March, after which 
 he had nothing to change his mind in the shape of kind- 
 ness or confidence from the prisoner, and, therefore, if 
 he did once entertain the suspicion, however unfounded, 
 there was nothing to remove it from his mind anterior 
 to the evening of Sunday the 22d of March. A man 
 whose suspicions are excited, against a particular person 
 is not very likely to take poison' at that person's hand. I 
 am merely utteri^ng a very commonplace probability when 
 I say this — but the circumstance of its being a common- 
 place observation makes it all the stronger here— it is 
 a thing so plain and obvious on the face of it that 
 nobody can fail to see it, and yet what are we asked 
 to believe that he did that night ? We are asked to 
 believe that he took from her hand a poisoned cup in 
 which there lurked such a quantity of arsenic as was 
 sufficient to leave in his stomach after his death 88 
 grains, such a dose indicating the administration of 
 at least double — ay, 1 think, as Dr Christison 
 said, indicating the administration of at least half- 
 an-ounoe — 240 grains--T-and that he took that evening 
 from the hand of the prisoner, with all his previous 
 suspicion that she was practising on his . life. It 
 is a dose which, as far as experience, goes, never was 
 successfully administered by a murderer. There is not 
 a case on record in which it has ever been shown that a 
 person administering poison to another ever succeeded in 
 persuading him to swallow such a quantity. Yet with all 
 these extraordinary circumstances attending the character 
 and quantity of the dose, this gentleman swallowed it, hav- 
 ing had his suspicions previously excited that the prisoner 
 was practising on his life. But, gentlemen, hero comes 
 again another point in which the evidence for the Crown 
 is very defective, to say the least of it. They knew very 
 well when they were exatuiningand analysing the contents 
 of this poor man's stomach, and the condition of his intes- 
 tines generally, what was the arsenic that the prisoner 
 had bought. They knew perfectly well, from her own 
 candid statement, disclosed the moment she was asked, 
 that the arsenic that she bought was got partly at Mur- 
 doch's and partly at Currie's. Murdoch's arsenic was 
 
307 , 
 
 mixed with soot, Cnme's arsenic was mixed with waste 
 indigo. If that arsenic had been swallowed by the 
 deceased, the colouring matter could have been detected 
 in the stomach. I confess I did not expect to have it 
 so clearly proved, when the witnesses for the Crown 
 were originally in the .box ; but you recollect what Dr 
 Fenny said when he was recalled by my learned friend 
 on the other side, and I think a more clear or precise 
 piece of evidence I never listened to. He said he tried 
 the experiment with animals. He gave one dog a dose 
 qf Murdoch's arsenic, and found the soot in its. stomach 
 after its death, notwithstanding constant vomiting. He 
 gave another dog Currie's arsenic, and, said Professor 
 Peni^, after the dog had vomited, and died, "I found 
 particles that might correspond with the colouring matter 
 in Currie's arsenic." But I asked him whether they did 
 precisely correspond, and he saidyes. laskedhim whether 
 they ware identical, and he said yes. Now, gentlemen, there 
 was one means of connecting the prisoner with this poison 
 which was found in thestomach of L' Angelier — and a very 
 obvious means. It may be very well for Professor Penny 
 and Professor Christison to say now that their attention 
 was not directed to this matter. Whose fault is that? 
 The Crown, with the full knowledge of what was the 
 arsenic which the prisoner had in her possession, could 
 have directed their attention to it ; they must have seen 
 the importance of the inquiry, or, if they did not see 
 that, they must suffer for their omission. Plainly, there 
 can be no fault on the part of the prisoner, for, observe, 
 she had no means of being present, or of being repre- 
 sented, at these post mortem examinations or chemical 
 analyses. The whole thing was in the hands, of the 
 authorities. They kept them to themselves— they dealt 
 with them secretly — and they present to you this lame and 
 impotent conclusion. Such is the state of the evidence 
 on this4hird and last charge upon the 22d of March; 
 and I do. venture to submit to you that if the case 
 for the Crown is a failure, as it unquestionably is 
 upon the first and second charges, it is a far more 
 signal and radical failure as regards the third. The 
 one fact which is absolutely indispensable to bring guilt 
 
home to the'prisoaet remains not only not proved — I mean 
 the act of administration^but the whole evidence 
 connected with the proceedings of that day seems to me 
 to go to negative subh an assumption: I might stop 
 there, for nothing could be more fallacious than th^ 
 suggestion which was made to you by the Lord 
 Advocate, that it was necessary for the prisoner 
 to, explain how the deceased came by his death. I' 
 have no such duty imposed upon me. His Lordship 
 will tell you that a defender ia this Court has no further 
 duty than to repel the charge and to stand up6n the 
 defensive, and to maintain that the case of the iH°osecator 
 is not proved. No man probably can tell — certainly at 
 the present moment I believe no man on earth can tell 
 — how L'Angelier met his death. Nor am I under the 
 slightest obligation even to suggest to you a possible 
 mode in whioh that death inay have been biought about 
 without the intervention of (*e prisoner. Yet it is but 
 fair that, wlieu we are dealing with so many matters of 
 mere conjecture and suspicion on the part of the Crown, 
 ' we should for a moment consider whether that supposition 
 upon which the charge is founded is in itself preferable, 
 in respect to its higher probability, to other suppositions 
 that may be very fairly made. The character of this 
 man — his origin, his previous history, the nature 
 of his conversation, the numerous occasions upon 
 which ho spoke of suicide — naturally suggest 
 that as one niode by which he may have departed 
 this life. I say, gentlemen ^-understand me — that 
 I am not undertaking to prove that he died by his own 
 hand. If I were doing anything so rash, I should be 
 imitating, the rashness of the prosecutor — but I should 
 not be stepping a hairsbreadth further out of the beaten 
 tra3k of, evidence and prgof and demonstration. For I 
 think there is much more to be said for suicide than for 
 the prisoner's g\iilt. But I entreat you again to remember 
 that 'that, is no , necessary part of my defence. But of 
 course I should be using you very iE — I should be doing less 
 than my duty to the prisoner — if I had not brought before 
 you the whole of that evidence which suggests the 
 probability of that man dying by his own hand 
 
309 
 
 •tv 
 
 at one time or another. i"roin the very first time 
 at which we see him, even as a lad, in the year 1843, 
 he talks in a manner to impress people with the 
 notion that he has no moral principle to guide him. 
 He speaks over and over again in Edinburgh, Dundee, 
 and elsewhere — ay, and the prisoner's letters show that 
 he had made the same threat to her, that he would put 
 himself out of existence. The passages were rea4 to you, 
 and I need not now repeat them. And is it half as 
 violent a supposition as the supposition of this foul 
 murder, that upon this evehing^-the 22d of March — in a 
 fit of that kind of madness which he himself described 
 came over him when he met with a disappointment — 
 finding, it may be, that he could not procure access to 
 an interview which he desired — assuming that he came 
 to Glasgow for the purpose — assuming, even, that he 
 mistook the evening of Jhe m'eetingj and expected to see 
 her on the Sunday — can anything be more probable than 
 that in such a case, in the excited state ia which he then 
 was, he should have committed the rash act which 
 put an end to his existence ? . I can see no great 
 itnprobability in that. But whether he met his death 
 by suicide, or whether he met his death by accident, or 
 in what way soever he met his ,death, the question 
 for. you is — Is this murder proved ? You are not 
 bound to account for his death— you are not in 
 the least degree bound 'to account for his death. The 
 question you have got to try is — Whether the poison was 
 administered by the hands of the prisoner? I have 
 shown you from the indictment that that is the fact 
 whioh you are asked to affirm. I pray you to remember 
 that you are asked to affirm that on youir oaths — tO' affirm 
 on your oaths as a fact that the arsenic which was found 
 in that man's stomach was presented to him by the hands 
 of the prisoner. Gentlemen, I have spoken of the 
 improbabilities which belong to this story — to this 
 charge. But surely you cannot have omitted to observe 
 how very unnatural and extraordinary a crime it is to 
 impute to a person in the prisoner's situation. I stated 
 to you before, ajid I state to you again, as a piece of 
 undoubted experience, that no one sinks to such a depth 
 
310 
 
 of depravity all at once. And nowl ask you to reinember 
 at what fkriod we left this correspondence. At a period 
 when she 'desired to break oft with L'Arigelier no doubt 
 — at a period when she desired to otjtain possession 
 of her letters. The return of them was refused. 
 I am most unwilling to intersperse my address with 
 severe remarks upon the character of a man who 
 is- now no more. But picture to yourselves the moral 
 temperament — paint the feelings of a human being who, 
 having r^eived such letters from a girl as you have heard 
 read in this Court, would even preserve them. He must 
 have been dead to all feelings of humanity or he would 
 never have refrained from burning those letters. But 
 he not only preserves them, he retains them as an 
 engine of power and oppression in his hands. He keeps ' 
 them that he may carry out his cold-blooded original 
 design not merely of possessing himself of her person, but 
 of raising himself in the social scale by a marriage with 
 her. It was his object from the £rst, and that object he 
 pursues constantly, unflinchingly, to the end. But he 
 will expose her to her friends and to the world — 
 he will drive her to destruction, or to Suicide 
 itself, rather than let her out of his power. It may be 
 said that I am only describing the great provocation 
 which she received, and therefore enhancing the proba- 
 bility of her takiiig this f earf al mode of exfirioatine 
 herself from her embarrassment. I don't fear' that, 
 gentlemen. I want you to look now at, the picture 
 which I have under her own hand of her state of 
 mind at this time^not for the purpose of palliating her 
 conduct— not for the purpose of vindicating her against 
 the charge either of unchasteness or of impropriety as 
 regards Mr Minnoch, bat for the purpose of showing you 
 what frame of mind that poor girl stood in at the time 
 — ^the very time at which she is said to have conceived and 
 contrived this foul murder. There are two or three letters, 
 but 'I select one .for the purpbse of illnstrating what I now 
 say. It is written on the 10th February, and it is 
 written after she has asked for the return of her letters 
 and been refused:— "Emile, I have this evening received 
 your note. Oh it is kind of you tb write me. Emile, nq 
 
311 
 
 oile can know the intense agony of mind I have suffered 
 last night and to-day. Emile, my father's wrath would 
 kill me — you little know his temper. ■■ Emile, for the 
 love you once had for me, do not denounce me to my P. 
 Emile, if he should read my letters to you, he will put 
 me from him — he will hate me as a guilty wretch. I 
 loved you, and wrote to you in my first ardent, love — it 
 was with my deepest love I loved you. It was for your 
 love I adored you. I put on paper what I should not. 
 I was free because I loved you with my heart. If he or 
 any other one saw those fond letters to you, what would 
 not be said of me ? On my bended knees I write you and 
 ask you, as you hop6 for mercy at the Judgment Bay, do 
 not inform on me — do not make me a public shame.' 
 She says further on : — " I longed to be your wife. I had 
 fixed February. I longed for it. The time I could not 
 leave my father's house I grew discontented, then I 
 ceased to love you. Oh, Emile, this is indeed the true 
 statement. Now you can know my state of mind, 
 Emile, I have suffered much for you, I have lost much 
 of my ftther's,^ confidence since that September ; and 
 my mother has never been the same to me^no, she has 
 never given me the same kind look. For the sake of my 
 mother — her who gave me life — spare me from shame. 
 Oh, Emile, will you in God's name hear my prayer ? I 
 ask God to forgive me. 1 have prayed that He might 
 put it in your heart yet to spare me from shame." 
 Further on she says : — " I grow mad. I have been ill, 
 very ill, all day. I have had what has given me a false 
 spirit. I had resort to what I should not have taken, 
 but my brain is on fire. I feel as if death would indeed 
 be sweet. Denounce me not. Emile, Emile, think of 
 our once happy days. Pardon me if you can — pray for 
 me las the most wretched, guilty, miserable creature on 
 earth. I could stand anything ,but my father*? hot fJis- 
 pleasure. Emile, you wiU not cause me death ? If he 
 is to get your letters, I cannot see him any more. Ji.nd 
 my poor mother, I will never more kiss her— it would 
 be a shame to them all. Emile, will you not spare me 
 this ? Hate me, despise me, but do not expose mo," Is 
 that the state of mind of a murderess, or can any one 
 
312 
 
 affect that frame of mind ? Will you for one moment 
 listen to the suggestion that that letter covers a piece 
 of deceit?. No! The finest actress that ever lived 
 could nothave -written, that letter unless she had felt it. 
 And is that the condition in which a woman goes about 
 to compass the death of him whom she has loved ? Is that 
 her frame of mind ? Is shame for past sin— burning shame 
 — the dread of exposure — what leads a woman not to 
 advance another step on the road to destruction, but to 
 plunge at once into the deepest depths of human wicked- 
 ness ? The thing is preposterously incredible, and yet it is 
 because of her despair, as my learned friend called it, 
 exhibited in that and similar letters, that he says sl.e had 
 a motive to commit this murder. A motive ! What 
 motive ? A motive to destroy L'Angelier ! What does 
 that mean ? It may mean, in a certain ' improper sense 
 of the term, that it would have been an advan- 
 tage to her that he should cease to live. That cannot 
 be a motive, else how few of, us are there that live who 
 have not a motive to murder some one or other of our 
 fellow-creatures. If some advantage, resulting from the 
 death of -another, be a motive to the conynission of a 
 murder, a man's eldest son must always have a motive 
 to murder him that he, may succeed to his estate, and I 
 suppose the youngest officer in ahy regiment of Her 
 Majesty's line has a motive to murder all the offioersin his 
 regiment — ^the younger he is the further he has to ascend 
 the scale — the more murders he has a motive to commit. 
 Away with such nonsense. A motive to commit a 
 crime must be something a great deal more than the 
 mere fact that the result of that crime might be advan- 
 tageous to the person committing it. You must see the 
 motive in action — ^ypu must see it influencing the con. 
 duct before you can deal with it as a motive — for, then, 
 and then only, is it a motive in the proper sense of 
 the term— that is to say, it is moving to the perpe- 
 tration Of the deed. But, gentlemen, even in the 
 most improper and illegitimate sense of the term, let me 
 ask you vi^hat possible motive there could be — I mean 
 what possible advantage could she expect from L'Angelier 
 ceasing to live so long as the letters remained ? Without 
 
313 
 
 the return of his letters she gained nothing. Her object 
 — her greatest desire— that for which she was yearning 
 with her w;hole soul, was to avoid the exposure of her 
 shame. But the death of L'Angelier, with these letters 
 in his possession, instead of ensuring that object would 
 have been perfectly certaia to lead to the immediate 
 exposure of everything that had passed between them. 
 Shall I be told that she did not foresee that? I think 
 my learned friend has been giving the prisoner too much 
 credit for talent in the course of his observations upon her 
 conduct. But I should conceive her to be infinitely 
 stupid if she could not foresee that the death of L'Ange- 
 lier, with these documents in his possession, was the true 
 and best means of frustrating ^he then great object of her 
 life. So much for the motive. Andif there is no assignable 
 or intelligible motive in any %ense of the word, see 
 what another startling defect that is in the case for the 
 prosecution. Shall I be told that the motive might be 
 revenge ? Listen to the letter. Tell me if it is possible 
 that in the same breast with these sentiments there could 
 lurk one feeling of revenge ? No ; the condition of mind 
 in which that poor girl was throughout the months of 
 February and' March is entirely inconsistent with any of 
 the hypotheses that have been made on the other side — 
 utterly incredible in connection with the perpetration of 
 such a crime as is here laid to her charge. It is of im- 
 portance, too, that we should keep in mind the way in 
 which her spirit was thus broken and bowed down with 
 the expectation of an ejfposure of her unchastity ; for when 
 the death of L'Angelier was made known to lifer, can you 
 for a single moment doubt that her apprehensions were 
 keenly awakened — that she foresaw what must be the 
 consequences of that event ; and dreading to meet 
 hor' father or her mother — feeling that in the con- 
 dition of the family it ' was impossible she could 
 remain among them — she left her father's house on the 
 Thursday morning? I really don't know whether my 
 learned friend meant seriously to say that this was an 
 absconding from justice from a consciousness of guilts— 
 an absconding from justice by going to her father's hbufe 
 at Row, Oh, he said, all we Ifnow is, that she le^t 
 
314 
 
 Grlasgow early in the morning, and that she was found si 
 three in the afternoon on board a steam-packet going 
 from Crreenook to Helensburgh ; the interval is nnac 
 counted for. If my learned friend were only half as 
 ingenious on behalf of the prisoner as he is in supporting 
 the prbseoution, he could have very little difficulty in 
 knowing that one who starts by water to Helens- 
 burgh in the morning may be easily overtaken by 
 others travelling by railway to Greenock in the 
 afternoon. She was on board a steam-packet, but 
 its .destination no further than Helensburgh and 
 its neighboiirhood. And' that he calls absconding 
 from justice. ' Gentlemen, it is no flying from 
 justice, but it is flying from that whieh she could 
 as little bear — the wrath of her father and the 
 averted' countenance of her mother. ' But she came 
 back again ' without the sKghtest heaitation, and 
 upon the- Monday morning there occurred a scene as 
 remarkable in the history of criminal jurisprudence as 
 anything I ever heard of, by which thaJt bl-oken spirit 
 was altogether changed. The moment she was met by a 
 charge of being implicated in causing the death of 
 L'Angelier, she at once assumed the courage of a heroine. 
 She was bowed down and she fled, while the true oliarge 
 of her own unchastity and shame was all that was brought 
 against her. But she stood erect and proudly conscious of 
 her innocence, when she was met with this astounding 
 and monstrous charge of murder. Yqu heard tlie account 
 that M. de Mean gave of the interview that he had with 
 her in her father's house on the Monday. That was a 
 most striking stateihent, given with a, degree of truth- 
 fulness obviously that could not be surpassed. And 
 what was the import of that conversation? He advised 
 her as a friend — and that was the very best advice 
 that any friend could have given her — ^if L'Angelier was 
 with her on that Sunday night, for God's Sake not to deny 
 it. And why ? Because, said M. de Mean, it is certain 
 to be proved. A servant, a policeman, a casual passenger, 
 is certain to know the fact, and if you falsely deny his 
 having -met you that evening, what a fact that will ba 
 p,gainBtcyou ! Grentlemen, the advice was not on^^ 
 
315 
 
 good, but most irresistible in the cireamstances if iixit 
 meeting had take^ place. But what was her answer ? 
 To five or six suggestions she gave the same constant 
 answer, and at length she said— "I swear to you, 
 M. de Mean, I have not seen L'Angelier for three 
 weeks." Is this not proved to be true? If it is 
 triie that she did not see him on the, 22d March, 
 then she did not see him at all for three weeks. M. 
 Mean was in doubt whether she said three weeks or 
 six weeks, either of which would have been probably 
 quite true. Immediately afterwards, she was brought 
 before the magistrate and interrogated on the circum- 
 stances implicating her, iu the suspicion which had come 
 upon her. What does she say? She tells the truth 
 again with a degree of candour and openness which very 
 much surprised the magistrate, and which you must be 
 struck with. Listen to the words of her declaration, for 
 though these must lose much of their effect from the 
 want of being listened to as spoken by her, I must ask you 
 to look at two or three particulars there stated which it is 
 of the utmost importance that you sliould mark. [The 
 Dean of Faculty then read the declaration at length. On 
 that passage where she speaks of t'Angelier having gone 
 to the Bridge of AUan for his health, the Dean remarked, 
 in answer to the Lord Advocate, that she certainly knew 
 that fact then, because she had been told by M. Mean ; 
 but her knowledge of it then did not show, nor did it in 
 the least tend to show, against the evidence of her own 
 letters, addressed to him at Mrs JenHins', that she had 
 that knowledge formerly. He remarked also that no 
 portion of the declaration whatever had been contra- 
 dicted by the evidence, and then proceeded] — Such 
 openness and catido^j; of statement, under such circum- 
 stances; — first to M. Mean, a friend, and next to the 
 Magistrate interrogjiting her on the charge/ and 
 who had, as was his duty, informed her tliat 
 whatever she said might be used . to her prejudice, 
 but could njt possibly be used to her advantage^^ 
 I leave to speak for themselves. But I have 
 now to request your attention to one particular 
 point in Connection with this declaration— the different 
 
m ■ 
 
 t)urcliase8 o( arsenio. With legard to the purchase of 
 the 2l9t I shall not trouble you with any further, obser- 
 vations,' because it does not require it ; but the qcoasion 
 of the seeoncl purchase cannot I think be so passed 
 over. It wag made on the 6th of March, when she 
 was going to the Bridge of Allan. For what purpose 
 — for what murderous purpose could that purchase have 
 been made ? She had been doing, you will have observed, 
 everything in her power to prevent the deceased from 
 going to t^e Bridge of Allan at 'the same time as herself, 
 and she had succeeded in preventing him ; and yet when 
 going away to the Bridge of Allan s^e bought this 
 arsenio — when going away from the suppdsed object of, 
 her murderous attack — when she could not possibly have 
 any use for it as affecting him, she carries it away with 
 her. But then my learned 'friend the Lord Advocate 
 says thp,t when she found some arsenic left over, and had 
 got some which was of no use to her, she put it away, 
 and in this way my learned 'friend tried to account for 
 none having been found in her possession. But, 
 gentlemen, what does she do on this Sth March in 
 connection with what was done on the 18th ? The Lord 
 A.dvocate argues that, finding she could not administer it, 
 she threw it away. What could she mean by that ? 
 Perhaps it may be said that she kept it at Bridge of Allan 
 in case L'Angelier should come there. Well then, she 
 ' must have kept it until the 17th. Now, gentlemen, why 
 did she throw away the arsenic on the 17th, and buy more 
 on the 18th? Why did she throw it away just when 
 she was coming within reach of her victim, and then 
 buy more, with circumstances of openness and pub- 
 licity utterly inconsistent with the hypothesis of any- 
 illegitimate object. Why expose herself to the 
 necessity of a repeated purchase when she could 
 get or had got enough at once i to poisoli twenty or 
 a hundred men ? Her conduct is utterly unintelligible 
 on any. such supposition as has been made by the prose- 
 cutoT, Let us now look at what was her object at this 
 time in another view. She wanted L'Angelier to go 
 away ; she was most anxious that he should go to the 
 south of England— to the Isle ®f Wight— for ten days. 
 
' 81? 
 
 Oh, says my learned friend, her objeoli was to marry 
 Mr Minnooh In the meantime. "Why, gentlemen, 
 there waa no arrangement, by that time, of the day . 
 of her mamage with Mr Minnooh. Slie was going 
 away herself for ten days or more on a casual 
 visit to the Bridge of Allan; and if L'Angelier had 
 followed her advice and gone to the. south of England, 
 he would have returned at the expiry of' the period 
 named only to find matters where they V Bre — nothing 
 more definite than in the month of Jannary-f-Mr'Minnooh 
 still her suitor, but certainly not her husband. Then, 
 stgain, L'Angelier's absence could surely be of no advan- 
 tage to her, if she wanted to give him poison. All the, 
 facts, gentlemen, relating to this pai't of the case go to 
 show this, that she had no object but perhaps to get rid 
 of him for a time, to keep him from going to the Bridge 
 of Allan, and. to get him to go elsewhere, out of regard 
 for his health, as expressed in her letters. But the 
 possession of this arsenic is said to be unaccounted for, 
 as, far as the prisoner herself is concerned. It 
 might be so — it may be so — and yet that would' not 
 make a case for the prosecution. She says she used it as 
 a cosmetic. This might be startling at first sight to 
 many of us here, but after the eviderice we have heard, 
 it will not in the least amaze you. Her statement, which 
 has been so. far borne out by evidence, was that 
 at school she had read of the Styrian peasants using 
 arsenic for the strengthening of their wind and the 
 improvement of their complexions. No doubt they used 
 it internally and. not externally as she did; but in the 
 imperfect state of her knowledge that fact is of no 
 significance. L'Angelier, too, was well awai'e of the 
 same fact. He stated to more than one witness — and if 
 he stated falsely it is only one of a multitude of lies proved 
 . against him — that he used it himself. It is not surprising 
 that if L'Angelier knew of this custom that he should 
 have commuiiicated it to the prisoner. It is not 
 surprising that under these circumstances the prisoner 
 should have used the arsenic externally, for an 
 interaal use is apparently a greater danger, which 
 might have suggested to her to try it ejiitemaily ; and 
 
318 
 
 there is no reason to suppose that, if used externally, 
 as the prisoner says she did nse it, it would be prednotive 
 of any injurious effects ; so that there is no reason to 
 suspect on that ground the truth of the statement that 
 the prisoner hAi made. . itfo- dpubt we have had medical 
 gentlemen coming here and shaking their heads and 
 looking wise, and saying th^t suoh a use of arsenic would : 
 be a dangerous practice: Well, so should we all say, 
 that it is both a dangerous and fooUsh practice. But 
 that is not the question. The q^iestion is, whether the 
 prisoner eouLd actually so u:se it without injurious effecta: 
 and that she cojild do so is demonstrated by iaie experi- 
 ment of Dr Laurie and by the opinion of Br Macla^n. 
 The publication in Ohambers^s Jamtial, BlatieumocSa 
 miagazme, and Johnston's "Chemistry of' Common 
 Life," of information on suoh uses of arsenic had 
 reaohed not the prisoner alone, but a multitude of ol^er 
 ladies, and had incited them, to the same kind of experi- 
 ments. The two druggists — ^Eobertson and Gl«thrie — 
 spoke to the fact of ladies having come to th^r shops 
 seeking arsenip for such purposes on the suggestion of 
 these publications. It eannoi, therefore, be surprising to 
 you, gentlemen, to learn that, whrai the prisoner bought 
 this arsenic, she intended to use it, and did afterwards 
 actually use it, for this very purpose. My learned 
 friend thte Lord Advocate said that great as was 
 the courage that the unhappy prisoner displayed when 
 charged with the crime, that demeanour was not incon- 
 sistent with the theory of her guilt. He said that a 
 woman who had Mie nerve tp commit the murder would 
 have the nerve calmly to meet the accusation. I doubt 
 that hypothesis. Gentlemen, I know of no case in which 
 si*h undaunted courage has been displayed, from first 
 to last, by so young a girl, confronted with such a charge, 
 ■ where that girl was guilty. But, gentlemen, our experience 
 does furnish us with exs^mples of as brave a bearing in as 
 young a girl when .innocent. Do you know the story of 
 Eliza Penning? She was a servant-girl in the city 
 of London, and she was tried on the charge of 
 poisoning her master add family by putting arsenio 
 into dumplings, "When the charge was first made against 
 
319 
 
 her she met it with a oalm and.-indignant deni;i>l ; ah« 
 maintained the same den^eano!* and aelf^poasession 
 throlighbut & lobg trial ; iild she rSdeived seriiende df 
 dgath without moving a muscle. According- to the 
 statement of a bystander, when brought upon the 
 scaffold, she looked serene as an angel, and she died 
 as she had borne herself throughout the previous 
 stages of her sad tragedy. It was an execution which 
 attracted much attention at the time. Opinion 
 was divided as to the propriety of the verdict, 
 and the angry disputants wrangled even over her 
 grave. But time brought the truth to light ; the perpe- 
 trator of the murder confessed' it on his death-bed^-too 
 late to avoid the enacting of a most bloody tragedy. That 
 case, gentlemen, is now matter of history. It happened 
 at a time beyond the recollection of most of those whom 
 I now address; butitremainson record — a flaming beacon 
 to warn us against the sunken rocks of presumptuous 
 arroganoe and opinionative seU'relianoe, imbedded and 
 hid in the cold and proud heart ; it teaches us, by 
 terrible example, to avoid qonfounding suspiqion witji 
 proof, and to reject conjectures and hypotheses when 
 tendered as demonstration. I fear that this is no solitary 
 qase^the recollection or the reading of any of ns may recall 
 occasions 
 
 " When, after execution, Judgment hath 
 Repented o'er his doom." 
 I pray God that neither you nor I may be implicated in the 
 guilt of , adding another name to that black and bloody 
 catalogue. I have put before you, gentlemen, as 
 clearly as I could, what I conceive to be the most 
 important branches of this case ; and I now ask you to 
 bring your judgment — to bring the whole powers with 
 which God has endowed you — to the performance of 
 your most solemn duty. I have heard it said that 
 juries have nothing to do with the consequences of their 
 verdicts, and that all questions of evidence must be 
 weighed in the same scale, wheHier the crime be capital 
 or merely penal in a lower degree. I cannot agrepltol 
 that proposition, I indignantly zbpndiate i ik' iltt'may 
 suit the cramped mind of legal' {)^^aj]tts/..'Ovtthe Heajglen' 
 
 :« .■:W' 
 
 <.,. ",:.:\ 
 
320 
 
 rules of a heartless philosophy, but those who maintain 
 such a doctrine are ignorant of what qiaterials a jury 
 is, and ought to be, composed, dtentlemen, -you are 
 brought here for the performance of this gi'eat 
 duty, net because ,you have any particular skill in 
 the sifting or weighing of evidence — not because 
 your intellects- have ■ been- . highly cultivated for that 
 or simpar purposes— not. because you are of a class 
 or caste set apart for the work ; but you axA here 
 because, as the law expresses it, you are indifferent 
 men — because you are like, not because you are 
 unlike, other men ; not merely because you have clear 
 heads, but because you have warm and tender hearts — 
 because; you have bosoms filled with the same feelings 
 and emotions, and because you entertain the same 
 sympathies and sentiments as those whose lives, char- 
 acters, and fortunes are placed in your hands. To 
 rely, therefore, upon your reason only; is nothing less 
 than impiously to refuse -to call to your- aid, in the 
 performance of a momentous duty, the noblest gifts that 
 God has implanted in your breasts. Bring -with you to 
 this service not only your clear heads, but your warm 
 and tender hearts — your fine moral instincts, and your 
 guiding and regulating consciences— for thus and thus 
 only will you satisfy the oath which you have taken. To 
 determine guilt or innocence by the light of intellect alone 
 is the exclusive prerogative of infallibility, and when 
 man's presumptuous arrogance tempts him to usurp the 
 attribute of OmnisoiSnoe, he only exposes the weakness 
 and frailty of his own nature. Then, irideedj 
 " Man, proud man, 
 Dressed in a little brief authority, 
 Most iguornant of what he's most assured. 
 Plays such fantastic trio]k3.!je^or,e high Heaven, 
 As make the augels weep." > 
 
 Kaise not, then, your rash and impotent hands to rend- 
 aside the vaiilin which Providence has been. pleased to 
 shroud the qircumstanoes of this mysteriouB storyi. - Such 
 an attempt is not in youj- province, nor the province .of - 
 any human being. The time may cotoe— it certainly will 
 come— perhaps not before 'the Great J?ay ip which tjj^ 
 
381 
 
 secrets of all hearts shal be revealed; and yet it may be 
 that in this world and during our own lifetime the circum- 
 stances of this ■ extraordinary story may be brought' to 
 light. It may even be that the true j<erpetratOr of this 
 murder, if there was a murder, may "be brought 
 before the bar of this very Court. I ask you to 
 reflect for a moment what the feelings of any of us 
 would then be. It may be our lot to sit on judg- 
 ment on the guilty man. "Would not our souls recoil 
 with horror from the demand for more blood ? Would 
 not you be driven to refuse to discharge your duty in 
 condemning, the guilty because you had already doomed 
 the innocent to die ? I say, therefore, ponder well 
 before you permit anything short of the clearest evidence 
 to induce or mislead you into giving such an awful 
 verdict as is demanded of you. Dare any man hearing 
 me — dare any man here or elsewhere say that he has 
 formed a clear opinion against the prisoner — -will 
 any man venture for one moment to make that 
 assertion? And yet, if on anything short of clear 
 opinion you convict the prisoner, reflect how awful the 
 consequences maybe, Never did I feel so unwilling to part 
 with a jury — never did I feel as if I had said so little as I 
 feel now after this long address. I cannot explain it to 
 myself, except by a strong and overwhelming conviction 
 of what your verdict ought to be. I do feel deeply a 
 personal interest in your verdict, for if there should 
 be any failure of justice, I ^could attribute it to 
 nothing but my own inability to conduct the 
 defence ; and I feel persuaded that, if it were so, 
 the recollection of this day and this prisoner would haunt 
 me as a dismal and blighting spectre to the end 
 of life. May the Spirit of all Truth guide you to^ 
 an honest, a just, and »■ true verdict ! But' no 
 verdict will be either honest, of just, or true, 
 unless it at once satisfies the conscientious scruples 
 of the severest judgment, and yet leaves undis- 
 turbed and unvexed the tenderest conscience among 
 you. (The Dean, having spoken upwards of four hours, 
 sat down amidst an attempt at applause from the 
 mAieaee, which was of course immediately supplessed.) 
 
 L 
 
322 
 
 After an interiral of about a quarter of an hour, 
 the Court resumed. 
 
 The LOKD i'tsTlCE-CtEiiK then proceeded to 
 remark upon and su.m up the evidence. He said the 
 verdict should rest wholly on the evidence which had 
 been brought before them. In a case of poisoning, 
 which was always an Offence secretly perpetrated, it 
 was quite true that it seldom occurred that anybody 
 saw the mixture and preparation for poisoning, or its 
 being put iuto the fluid or substance in which it was 
 administered. He believed there were only two cases 
 in which this was done in this country — one of them 
 the case of Palmer, and the other the case of a Mrs 
 Nairn, who was tried for poisoning her husband in 
 the middle of last century. Poisoning was a crime 
 which must generally be proved by circumstantial 
 evidence; and it was very faiily and properly admitted 
 that the administration of poison might be most satis- 
 factorily proved by circumstantial evidence alone. 
 Bat, on the other hand, great care must be taken that 
 the circumstantial evidence was such as to exclude 
 the possibility either of innocence on the one hand or 
 of an unexplained and mysterious occurrence" on the 
 other. It was one great misfortune attending the 
 administration of poison, that if the party was not 
 immediately detected, in some suoh -way as left 
 no doubt of actual guilt, suspicions often arose 
 most unjustly, and obtained great weight, just because 
 it was a crime committed in secret. The person who 
 last gave the victim a cup of coffee, or a ^laes of water, 
 or a glass of wine, the person who made the last 
 appointment with him, w;i,s thus exposed to strong 
 and apparently Wf ll-fouiided suspicions, to which ha 
 might be falsely subjected. They must, therefore, keep 
 in view that while on the one hand the crime hail 
 been perpetrated secretly, no eye had seen the partisg 
 at the time or what passed—on the other hand, they 
 must not allow positive evidence to be supplied by 
 
323 
 
 suspicion, and still less admit of assumption as coming 
 in room of that. Tliey must be satisfied by proper 
 evidence that the parties were tether when the 
 poison was i^aid to be administered, satisfied that 
 there was the purpose to administer poison upon the 
 occasion referred to, that the accused had the poison, 
 and that it was given and administered upon that 
 particular occiasion,' and in the circumstances set forth 
 in the indictment. He wished them to keep in view 
 that although they might not be satisfied with 
 any of the theories that had been propounded on 
 behalf of the prisoner — though they might not be 
 inclined to adopt the notion either that L'Angelier 
 was the man talking laudanum twice over in the 
 course of the journey to Glasgow, or that he tools 
 arsenic himself, or believe Miss Smith's statement of 
 the use for which she got arsenic — still, nevertheless, 
 though all these matters might fail in her defence, 
 the case for the prosecution might be radically 
 defective in evidence. He owned there were some 
 things which had been introduced into the evidence 
 on the part of the prisoner — very naturally, perhaps, 
 as it was very right to investigate everything 
 regarding this man L'Angelier and his journey to 
 Glasgow on 22d March — which he thought could, not 
 aid the prisoner in any degree. The jury must 
 judge of that ; but still they must have evidence 
 before their minds in which there was no flaw 
 nothing but irresistible and just evidence, before they 
 could arrive at the conclusion that- on Sunday the 
 22d of March she did actually administer the 
 poison. His Lordship then proceeded to read, 
 over the evidence of the principal witnesses, already 
 fully reported in our columns. In regard to 
 the first part of the evidence of Mrs Jenkins, he 
 remarked that it was nbt immaterial that it' could be 
 gathered from what she Said that L'Angelier's health 
 seemed to have failed more or less before the occasions 
 l2 
 
Z2i 
 
 on which it was alleged poison was administered. A« 
 to the indictment, it charged the prisoner with the 
 administration of poison, with intent to murder, on 
 certain days of the month. Now, in the indictment 
 itself, in such a case, mere accuracy as to the precise 
 date would be of no importance, and whether it were 
 19th or 20th February, or 12th or 13th, would not 
 have mattered had evidence pointed to a different date. 
 But in this case it would be observed that the Crown, 
 not only in the indictment, but in the argument after- 
 wards, fixed upon the date 19lh or 20th February ; 
 and therefore if the evidence did not satisfy them that 
 that was the exact day — if, on the contrary, it were 
 proved that it could not have been upon that day, but 
 upon an earlier day — then, seeing that the prosecutor, 
 from the letters, from the conduct of the parties, from 
 everything else, had taken the date to be the 19th or 
 29th, the case brqught before the jiiry was not 
 supported by the evidence. Now Mrs Jenkins might 
 be mistaken about this being eight or ten days before 
 the second time, aqd the opinion might be that she 
 was ; but that was not enough, whatever suspicions 
 there might tie. She was not shaken upon that point ♦ 
 at all. On the contrary, the other evidence in the 
 case seemed to him to show that she was right upon ' 
 this ground. She could hardly have forgotten, con- 
 sidering the illness of the 22d, whether it had orily 
 been one day before or two days before, and whether 
 he was but recovering from the effects of the first 
 before he had the second. When he said " recover- 
 ing," he did not allude to his altered appearance, 
 hut to the fact of his recovery from actual sick- 
 ness. This was his first illness before the 22d. 
 There was this remarkable fai;t that there was 
 nothing whatever — not a vestige gl proof-^that the 
 prisoner had arsenic in her possession on that occasion. 
 It would not do to infer from her haviiig. arsenic 
 afterwards that she probably bad arsenic on the first 
 
325 
 
 occasion'. The purchase of arsenic bad been sufficiently 
 proved against the prisoner. She admitted it when 
 she was examined ; and it would be for the jury- 
 afterwards to consider how far the fact that she had 
 purchased it openly was for or against her as to the 
 suspicion of having had it on the first occasion ; 
 because if it had been proved that she had purchased 
 arsenic at a remote part of the town, and under a 
 false name, that would have only made the case 
 stronger against the prisoner. Of the possession of 
 arsenic by the prisoner at the first period, they had 
 no proof in the evidence, however the purchase 
 and use of arsenic might be afterwards proved. 
 It ought not to be forgotten that the contents of 
 the stomach on these two illnesses had not been 
 ezamined, and therefore it was merely an inference 
 that they were from arsenic, drawn from the fact that 
 on the 22d of March he died from this poison. This 
 was, he thought, very loose and unsatisfactory indeed. 
 With reference to the- second charge of administering 
 arsenic, the jury had to consider that at this time the 
 prisoner had arsenic in her possession which she had 
 obtained at Murdoch's the night before L'Angelier's 
 illness commenced. This was very true, and if the 
 possession of that arsenic was not properly accounted 
 for, they must suppose it was got for some other 
 purpose than that which she described. He attached 
 little importance to the statements of the druggists as 
 to what was said by the prisoner about rats, because, 
 without stating some such object, she would not 
 have got it at all, and it was not to be supposed, 
 if she had wanted it for a cosmetic, that she 
 would tell the druggist. The fact remained, how- 
 ever, that she had arsenic in her possession on the 
 21st; and the question then arose. Did she see the 
 deceased on the Sunday before the ar'senic was 
 administered. Mrs Jenkins did not see him go out 
 of the house that night ; and he asked the jury to 
 1,3 
 
326 
 
 consider whether there was, on the whole, apart from 
 the, correspondence, evidence that they had met 
 together that night. If there was no proof that 
 the administration took place on the 22d of 
 February, when it was alleged by the Crown 
 that the resolution to poison had been of previous , 
 date, then there was great force in the observation 
 that the foundation of the case of the prosecutor 
 had been shalien. The impression made on his 
 (the Lord Justice-Clerk's) mind, after going over 
 Mrs Jenkins' narrative of L'Angelier's last illness, 
 was that he did not commit suicide ; and his 
 Lordship pointed to various circumstances — such 
 as his thinking he had an attack of bile — to 
 show that this was not a likely supposition. The 
 aversion uf the deceased to taking laudanum proved, 
 he thought, that the person whom the druggists at 
 Coatbridge and Baillieston saw was not L'Angelier, 
 and the jury would feel that there had been some 
 mistake in this matter. Well, L'Angelier went out 
 at nine o'clock, and gave intimation' that he Wcis to 
 be wakened early next morning, as he had to leave 
 again. Therb was nothing to show that he expected 
 an illness. His Lordship then read that portion of 
 Mrs Jenkins' evidence describing L'Angelier's last 
 illness. He had made no statement whatever as to 
 where be had been, or about the prisoner. As to the 
 letter found in the vest-pocket of the deceased, 
 beginning with the words — " Why, my beloved, did 
 you not come to me," It was not proved that he had 
 got another letter. He had got this letter on Sunday 
 morning. He was most ardent to see the girl ; he 
 expected to get a satisfactory answer ; and it could not 
 be wondered that he should hurry in on Sunday in the 
 expectation that he would find some way of seeing 
 her. And, supposing the jury were quite sapsfied that 
 the letter did bring him into Glasgow, were they in a 
 condition to say, with satisfaction to their consciences, 
 
327 
 
 that as an inevitable and just result from this, they 
 would find it proved the prisoner and deceased had 
 met that night ? Thiit was the point in the case. 
 That they might hare the strongest moral suspicion — 
 that they might believe that he was well able, after all 
 this correspondence, to obtain the means of an inter- 
 view — that she who bad complained so much of his not 
 coining, and said she would wait to-morrow night, 
 " Friday, the same hour and place" — was not likely 
 to be waiting also on Sunday evening, which was not 
 an uncommon evening for their ii\tervienrs. All this 
 might be very true ; the probability was that they 
 all thought so ; but they were dealing with a 
 case in which the evidence required to be satis- 
 factory, complete, and distinct. The jury might 
 infer certain facts from tlie correspondence, and 
 they might safely infer that the meetings took 
 place, but it was for them to say whether 
 that link in the chain was supplied by jnst and 
 satisfactory inference. If they morally felt in their 
 minds, and had the strangest suspicion, that L'Angelier 
 saw the prisoner that night, the whole probabilities of 
 the case were in favour of the supposition ; but if 
 that was all that could be proved from the facts a 
 link still remained awanting in the chain — the 
 catastrophe and the alleged cause of it are not found 
 together. They must really, therefore, be satisfied in 
 their own minds that they stood on a firm foundation. 
 If they felt they stood on a just and sound, and, he 
 would add, unavoidable foundation, tbey were 
 perfectly entitled to draw the inference ; but it was 
 an inference of a very serious character, and on it 
 the life or death of the prisoner really depended. 
 Concluding his examination of Mrs Jenkins' evidence, 
 he said she spoke to L'Angelier not taking medicine, 
 his aversion to laudanum, and, more important than 
 all, deceased had said to her, " The letter you sent 
 me brought me home." Plainly she had suspected 
 
328 
 
 that something was wrong from the fact of his having 
 been ill three times after he had been out so late. 
 Coming to Mr Ross's evidence, and the evidence for 
 the defence, that deceased had gone into several 
 druggists' shops on his way to Glasgow, his Lordship 
 observed that Mr Ross could not have forgotten if 
 L'Angelier had gone into any such shop, and it was 
 not likely that he should pour laudanum down his 
 throat so soon after he had taken a hearty dinner. With 
 regard to the evidence as to the recovery of 'the letters, 
 he observed that the moment they were seized by the 
 warrant of the Sheriff an inventory ought to have been 
 taken of them, and that inventory should have been 
 made by the SheiiiF-Clerk, as the officer of the Crown. 
 He did not mean that the Procurator-Fiscal should 
 not get access to them — quite the reverse ; but this 
 should have been done in order accurately to ascer- 
 tain what was found. But there could be no doubt 
 that all the letters that were found were produced. 
 His Lordship also referred to the leisurely marking of 
 the letters by the officers as rather a loose proceeding, 
 and one which might have defeated the ends of justice. . 
 Commenting on the alleged use of arsenic as a 
 cosmetic by the prisoner, in consequ^ce of having 
 read of the Styrian peasants, who, by taking it, 
 became rosy and plump in complexion, -his Lordship 
 remarked that the prisoner must have known that 
 the mountaineers took it inwardly, and in small 
 quantities regularly, and that these results could not 
 be produced by applying it once or twice externally. 
 With regard to the prisoner's statement to the 
 chancellor of the French Consulate that deceased had 
 never been in the house, he remarked that she derived 
 no benefit from this denial, because the evidence of 
 Christina Haggart stated he had entered the house, 
 atid was there for a whole hour npon one 
 occasion. On the other hand, there was no doubt 
 that she could not have expected to keep her letters 
 
329 
 
 secret by L'Angelier's death, which event would 
 only have made them more public. He dwelt upon 
 the fact of the prisoner having given cocoa to 
 the deceased. That was a very important circum- 
 stance, but it became still more important a little 
 further on, when she said that the servants and the 
 family must have known of her having been in the 
 habit of using cocoa in her bed-room. The evidence 
 of the prisoner's sister certainly went to show that 
 cocoa was openly used by the prisoner at the 
 breakfast-table ; but neither the servants nor this 
 witness were aware of the fact of cocoa being taken 
 in the prisoner's bed-room, as stated in the decla- 
 ration. She further said that she was advised when 
 at school, by a young lady, the daughter of an 
 actress, to use arsenic as n cosmetic, and also that 
 she had read recommendations to this effect in 
 certain publications. In reference to the latter 
 assertion, his Lordship remarked that not one of tha 
 publications produced contained anyttiing of the kind. 
 With regard to the young lady designated as the 
 daughter of an actress, che was a respectable lady of 
 very prepossessing appearance, married to an English 
 solicitor, and slie distinctly declared that she had 
 never had any conversation witii the prisoner on the 
 subject of cosmetics. Speaiting of the evidence of one 
 of the witnesses to the effect that she had given 
 arsenic to the gardener to destroy vermin, he reminded 
 the jury that the prisoner one morning had fled from 
 her father's house, and was caught on the way to 
 Helensburgh. Now, he had no notion that she then 
 intended to escape. She said herself that she was 
 flying from motives of shame; but what he wished 
 the jury to observe in connection with this was, that she 
 had already made a statement about sending arsenic 
 to the gardener at Row, near Helensburgh, and it 
 might be that, remembering this, she had gone to 
 Helensburjjli to take the gardener into her con 
 
330 
 
 on that subject. Escape, he thought, was not her 
 object. She had made a fixed statement, and perhaps 
 was anxious to be able to account for the poison, and 
 even called upon to do so. His Lordship, as it drew 
 towards six o'clock, intimated chat it would not bo 
 possible for him to finish his charge that day. 
 
 The Court adjourned, to meet next day at nine 
 o'clock. 
 
331 
 
 NINTH DAY.— Tuesday, July 9. 
 
 The Court met this morning at nine o'clock, when 
 The Lord Justice-Clerk proceeded with his 
 char{;e to the jury. Remarking on the recovery of 
 the letters found in the repositories of L'Angelier, he 
 said tliat although the method of procedure which was 
 adopted had been loose, irregular, and slorenly, it 
 did not appear that the panel had suffered any 
 prejudice from the want of any of them. As to each 
 letter being in its proper envelope, in the first part of 
 the correspondence it did not ranch signify whether 
 such were the case, because there was no doubt that 
 those passionate letters, written by the prisoner, 
 declaring such strong love for L'Angelier, and some 
 of them expressed in very licentious terms, had been 
 written by her at some time or other. Complaints 
 had been made as to the difficulty of getting access to 
 the correspondence on the part of the prisoner. On 
 the whole it appeared to him that the facilities 
 afforded to her for conducting her defence were such 
 as no other panel had ever had. Commenting on the 
 evidence of the female servants, he observed that a 
 material part of this evidence was, that it showed 
 that on one occasion an interview took place between 
 prisoner and deceased in the house, and that there 
 were ample facilities for the prisoner admitting 
 L'Angelier to the house, if she wished it, without any 
 
one in the house knoiving of it ; so that if there was 
 evidence otherwise sufficient to satisfy the jury that 
 he went to the house on the night of Sunday, 22d 
 March, there was nothing in the fact that he was not 
 heard. On this paint there was also the fact that the 
 prisoner got out of tlie house on the Thursday 
 morning without this being Icnown by any one. As 
 to the story about using the arsenic as a coametic, he 
 confessed that he loolced on it as a false pretence 
 ' altogether, and an excuse for the possession of the 
 arsenic ; this story, therefore, was not of the slightest 
 importance at all. There was uo doubt that on the 
 night of the 2'2d, after his return from Bridge of Allan, 
 L'Angelier went out in the direction of the panel's 
 house. With reference to the illegibility of several 
 of the pastoaarks on t!ie letters, lie observed that the' 
 attention of the Post Offioe authorities had been called 
 to the necessity of their being made more distinct by 
 Lord Campbell in a similar case, andby himself; and 
 considering the importance of this point to the ends 
 of civil and criminal justice, he trusted this would be 
 the last occasion^on which these marks would be found 
 so carelessly impressed. Reverting again to the pro- 
 bability of ah interview between the prisoner and 
 deceased on Sunday, hia Lordship remarked that as 
 she had waited for him one night according to 
 appointment, and another night after that, and then 
 wrote another letter, im,pioring him in terms profess- 
 ing strong passion for him, to come and clasp her to 
 his heart, it would not be wonderful if she expected 
 that he would come on the Sunday night, though the 
 appointment was for Saturday night. Coming next 
 to Miss Perry's evidence, he remarked on the fact 
 that L'Angelier jbiad said to her that on two occasions 
 
 efore he took ill he had got coffee and cocoa or 
 chocolate from the panel. They had no proof that 
 the panel had arsenic in her possession on the I9th 
 
 ebruary, and there was no evidence of any meeting on 
 
333 
 
 f 
 
 the 19th, except what was drawn from the letter, the 
 date of which the Lord Advocate fixed for the Wed- 
 nesday. But here was a statement by the dead man, 
 it was good and competent evidence, and the jury 
 must judge of the weight of it — he mentioned at 
 Portobello that he was ill after getting coffee and 
 cocoa, and that he thought he had been poisoned, and 
 again to Miss Perry he said, " I can't think why I 
 was so unwell after getting that coffee and chocolate 
 from her." This most unquestionably referred to two , 
 different illnesses, each following the getting of 
 coffee and cocoa or chocolate from the prisoner. The 
 jury must judge whether this conversation with lUiss 
 Perry was of importance ; she did not interrogate 
 him on the subject, and she seemed very properly 
 to wish to banish the thought from his mind . 
 Still this was said in earnest, and Mins Ferry stated 
 on oath that s)ie thought he entertained some suspicion 
 of the panel, though not a serious suspicion. It was 
 true that Miss Perry Icnew the intimacy between the 
 two parties was clandestine ; that was strange conduct 
 in a person of her respectability and of her age ; but 
 sometimes they would find that ladies at her time of 
 life had a good deal of absurd sentimentality about 
 them, and this lady seemed to have bad considerable 
 pleasure in being the confidant of the attachment 
 between these two young persons. Her conduct might 
 be explained in this way ; hut he did not think it cuuld 
 be doubted that she was a truthful witness. The jury 
 must, however, consider whether all [his amounted to 
 more than to give rise in their minds to very great 
 suspicion, which might not warrant them in coming 
 to a conclusion that he did get poison. They must 
 remember that though he was ill on these occasions, and 
 seemed to ascribe his illness to cocoa, there, was no proof 
 that the attack was really caused by arsenic on either 
 of these two occasions. The symptoms corresponded 
 with those of irritant poison, no doubt, but then they 
 
334 
 
 might also be the symptoms of bilious attack; 
 and the jury must consider whether they were 
 warranted in concluding, on his statements, how- 
 ever strongly made, to Miss Ferry, that these 
 attacks arose from some poisonous substance, it 
 did not signify what. Prisoner bought arsenic on 
 the 2Ist of February, before the second illness, and 
 therefore the fact of her possessing it on that occa- 
 sion of course gave much greater strength and point 
 to his remark, that he did receive sunieihing which 
 had made him ill, on the 27t;h February. As to the 
 evidence for the defence, that be had on one occasion 
 threatened to throw himself from a window in the 
 Eainbow Tavern, his Lordship observed that as the 
 witness was in bed at the time, the deceased had 
 ample opportunity to have thrown himself over, if he 
 had been so inclined, before the witness could have 
 interfered ; and the jury would consider whether, 
 when going about the room in an excited state, 
 he had just thrown, open the window to get some air, 
 without any intention of committing suicide. As to 
 the oti er stories, that he would drown himself if he 
 were jilted, they did not amount to much, when it 
 was known that on one occasion he had been jilted and 
 had not drowned himself. He also treated the story 
 as to giving arsenic to horses on a journey in France 
 as very unimportant ; it was nonsense to say that it 
 made them long-winded if only given to them once, 
 because it was only the constant use of it which could, 
 produce that eifect. Altogether, he did not seethe 
 importance or materiality of this evidence. Tt 
 was brought . to support the notion thijt he 
 poisoned himself with arsenic ; but if he was 
 in the habt.of taking it in small quantities, he 
 knew its qualities, and therefore this did not aid the 
 notion tliat he took an immense quantity on 22d . 
 March for the purpose of destroying himself. No 
 doubt the prisoner was not bound to prove that he 
 
335 
 
 poisoned himself — it was enough for her to satisfy 
 them that there was not evidence to bring home to 
 her the guilt of poisoning him ; but it was a hazardous 
 thing to set up in defence that L'Angeller went out 
 that night carrying so large a quantity of arsenic in his 
 pocket, and that he swalloired it how, where, or when 
 no human being could conceive. And therefore he 
 thought the case stood far better for the prisoner on 
 her real plea, that the guilt was not brought home to 
 her, which was truly the matter at issue. The jury, 
 therefore, would probahlyhold that the notion of his 
 having poisoned himself was in reality groundless, and 
 did not strengthen the case. Proceeding to theevidence 
 of the druggists at Ciiatbridge and Baillieston, his Lord- 
 ship remarked that they had to place against that Mr 
 Boss's evidence that he walked with him all the way to 
 Glasgow, that he never complained of being ill, and 
 that he had not gone into any shop on the way. 
 There must, he thought, be a mistake on the part of 
 these people as to this being L'Angeller at all. 
 It must ako be remembered that he went 
 home and took tea, and never complained 
 that anything was wrong with him. As to the 
 evidence that he biiught a white powder in Kirk's 
 shop, Gallowgate, his Lordship said it was not even 
 suggested that this was arsenic ; if it was arsenic, it 
 must have been entered in the register ; and he did not 
 think the jury could believe that he bought arsenic 
 there just after he left Ross and before he saw the panel, 
 or knew what answer he would get from her. The 
 witness Kirk identified L'Angelier's purse as that 
 from which he had taken the money to pay for the 
 powder ; but it was very probable, his Lord- 
 ship thought, that some of the jury might have 
 a purse in their pociiets exactly like it. As to the 
 third letter put in for the defence, written by the 
 prisoner to L'Angelier, denying that the conversation 
 of young ladies at school had reference to certain 
 
336 
 
 gubjects, his Lordship remarked that this seemed to 
 have been written in reply to some complaint by 
 L'Angelier as to the impropriety of her conversa- 
 tion, and with the view of correcting her faults. As 
 to the evidence with regard to the arsenic kept in 
 great chemical works, he observed that there was no 
 evidence that L'Angelier was ever seen about these 
 works at all. Alluding to Dr Laurie's experiments 
 with arsenic, he observed that in these experiments 
 the hands and face were immediately afterwards 
 washed with cold water, which might prevent any 
 irritation, but if it was so used in this case, what effect 
 could it have as a cosmetic ? His Lordship next 
 directed attention to the correspondence. On this 
 point he observed: — The Lord Advocate states his 
 theory of the case thus : the pane} became acquainted 
 withL'Angelier, the acquaintance went on very rapidly, 
 and ended in an engagement ; they corresponded 
 . frequently and clandestinely ; on the 6th May 1SS6 
 he goci possession of her persop ;,the engagement was 
 discontinued once or twice ; the Icitters continued on 
 her part in . the same terms of passionate love for a 
 very considerable time..f-I say passionate love, because 
 unhappily .they are written without any sense of 
 decency, and in most licentious terms. After a certain 
 time Mr Minnoch's attentions to the girl became 
 very marked; she saw there was no chance of 
 marrying L'Angelier even if she continued to 
 like him sufiiciently ; but the other was certainly 
 a most desirable marriage for her to make. The Lord 
 Advocate says that her object then was to extricate 
 herself froin the position which sh^ was in ; that she 
 first makes an appeal to L'Angelier to give up her 
 letters ; she writes then very ,coldly, and says the 
 attachment has ceased on her part, and she thinks on 
 his part also.; certainly there was no reason to 
 suppose , that, though he frequently blamed h$r 
 conduct ; but that is what she states. The Lord 
 
337 
 
 Advocate sayg that by these cold letters slie was 
 trying to make him give her up and to give np her 
 letters. She failed in that. The Lord Advocate 
 says that then she proceeded to write in as warm 
 terms as ever, and to talk of their embraces 
 as she had done before. She does not succeed by 
 that tone, and then she receives him, as he says 
 must be inferred and is proved, into her house 
 for the purpose of gaining her object. She has to 
 leave Glasgow, and he too has to go to Edinburgh. 
 She returns, and she understands that he returned, 
 and she writes letters for the purpose of having 
 interviews with him. The Lord Advocate says that 
 on the former occasion, when she failed in getting the 
 letters, out of resentment she had administered the 
 poison to him on the 19th and 22d ; and aware that 
 no allurements, or enticements, or fascinations from 
 her would get the letters from him, she had 
 prepared for the interview which she had expected 
 on the 22d March, by another purchase of 
 arsenic, and with the intention to poison him. 
 The Lord Advocate's theory and statement is that 
 the interview having taken place, she did accordingly 
 administer that dose of arsenic from which, howso- 
 ever administered, he died. All this, on the other 
 hand, is treated as a totally incredible supposition by 
 the counsel for the prisoner. Tt is said that she could 
 not have had such a purpose — that it is something too 
 monstrous to believe or inquire into even. Gentle- 
 men, it is very difficult to say what might not occur 
 to the exasperated feelings of a female who had been 
 placed inthe situation in which this woman was placed. 
 And there it is that the correspondence comes 
 to be of much importance in ascertaining what sort 
 of feeliqgs this girl cherished, what state of mind 
 and disposition she was of, and whether there is any 
 trace of moral sense or propriety to I>e found in her 
 letters, or whether they do or do not exhibit such 
 
338 
 
 a degree of . ill-regnlated, disorderly, distempered, 
 licennous feelings as to shoW that tliis is a 
 person quite capable of che!rishing any object to 
 avoid disgrace and exposure, and of taliitig any 
 revenge which such treatoient might es^cite in 
 the mind of a woman driven nearly to madness, 
 as she says she was. I shall not read many 
 of these letters, but there are some characteristics of 
 the character of the panel — displaying her mind and 
 feelings— which I think it is of importance to place 
 ' before you, as showing the progress of this attachment 
 and the manner in which it was carried on. It is 
 very curious that the first letter is written by her ; 
 and L'Angelier replied as you might 6xpect a young 
 man of his temperament to do. His Lordship then 
 read one of the letters, remarking that it seemed 
 that the girl's ill-regulated passions broke out 
 months before any sexual intercourse had taken 
 place ; the expressions used in that and foUoiving 
 letters were most sidgular, as passing between two 
 unmarried people. We heard, said his Lordiihip, a 
 good deal said by the Dean of Faculty as to the 
 character of this panel ; we have no evidence on 
 the subject except what these letters exhibit, and no 
 witness to character was brought ; but certainly these 
 letters show as extraordinary a frame of mind and as 
 unhallowed a passion as perhaps ever appeared in a 
 court of justice. Cati yon be surprised, after 
 such letters as those of the 20th April and 3d 
 May, that on the 6th of May, three' days after- 
 wards, ,' he got I possession of her person? On the 
 7th of May she writes to him, and in that letter is 
 there the slightest appearance of grief or of remorse ? 
 None whatever. It is the letter of a girl rejoicing in 
 what had passed, and alluding to it, in one passage in 
 particular, in terms which I will not read, for perhaps 
 they were never previously committed to paper as 
 having passed botweena man and a woman. What passed 
 
339 
 
 must have passed outof doorS) not in the house, and she 
 talks of the act as hers as much as his. His Lordship 
 
 here read the letter and observed : This is a letter from 
 
 a girl, written at five in the morning, just after she had 
 submitted to his embraces ; can you conceive or 
 picture any worse state of mind than this letter 
 exhibits ? In other letters she uses the word ". love" 
 underscored, showing clearly what i'he meant by it; and 
 in one letter she uses the most disgusting and revolting 
 language, exhibiting a state of mind most lamentable 
 to think, of. Aftjer reading several other letters, his 
 Lordship came to those of I earuary 1857, as to which 
 he observed that it was plain she was then playing a 
 part. She had been writing to " My dearest William" 
 — referring to Mr Minnoeh — talking of the happiness 
 of her expected marriage with him. As to the last 
 letter,, which brought L' Angeliei from the Bridge of 
 Allan, she said that it was written to inform him of her 
 engagement to Mr Minnoeh ; but how strange that she 
 should not say a word, about ^thatin it. He remarked 
 on the fact that in the letter in which the prisoner 
 said she would give the deceased a loaf of bread the 
 next. time he came, she said she would give him it 
 before he went " out"— showing that H was intended 
 he should be let into the house. His Lordship 
 observed that there could b^ no doubt that it was the 
 prisoner's letter which brought L'Angelier from the 
 Bridge of Allan, and he then proceeded : — In ordinary 
 matters of life, after that, you could not have any 
 hesitation in coming to tlie conclusion that they did 
 meet accordingly. Bat that becojnes a very serious 
 question in a case where that meeting is supposed to 
 end in the administration of poison, and ^ach follows. 
 It may be a very natural inference, that looking at 
 the thing morally, no qne can doubt that he went to 
 see her, and would seejier that ni^ght, for she h^d i^o 
 difficulty in making arrangements to see him; andif she 
 waited the second night after the first letter it would 
 
340 
 
 not be surprieing that she should look out for an 
 interriev on the second ni^ht after the second letter. 
 
 The Dean of Facttlty — She did not wait the 
 second night after the first letter. She waited only 
 one night. 
 
 The Lord Justice-Clerk — I am sure the jury 
 understood what I meant. 
 
 The Dean — ^It is the turning point of the case, 
 because the slightest difference of expression may 
 convey a different meaning. 
 
 The Lord Justice-Glerk— She says : — " I shall 
 wait again to-morrow night, same hour and 
 arrangement." And I say there is no doubt — but 
 it is a matter for the jury to consider — that after 
 writing this letter she should wait aiother night — 
 that is the ob«t>rvatio9 I made. And therefore it was 
 rery natural that he should go to see her that Sunday 
 night. But, as I said to you, this is an inference 
 only. If you think it such a just and satisfactory 
 inference that you can rest your verdict upon it, it 
 is quite competent for you to draw such an inference 
 from such letters as these, and from the conduct of 
 the man coming to Glasgow for the purpose of seeing 
 her — for it is plain that that was his object in coming 
 to Glasgow. It is sufficiently proved that he went out 
 immediately aFter he got some tea and toast, and had 
 changed his coat. But then, gentlemen, in drawing an 
 inference, you must always look to the important 
 character of the inference which you are asked to draw. 
 If this had been an appointment about business, and 
 you found that a man came to Glasgow for the purpose 
 of seeing another upon business, and that he went out 
 for that purpose^ having no other object in coming to 
 Glasgow, you would probably scout the notion of the 
 person whom he had gone to meet saying I never saw 
 or heard of him that day ; but the inference which 
 you are asked to draw is this — namely, that they met 
 upon that night, where the fact of their meeting 
 
341 
 
 I the foundation of a charge of murder. You 
 must feel therefore that the drilwing of an 
 inference in the ordinary matters of civil business, 
 or in the actual intercourse of mutual friends, is 
 one thing, and the inference from the fact that 
 he came to Glasgovr, that they did meet, and 
 that, therefore, the poison was administered to 
 him by her at that time, is another, and a 
 most enormous jump in the category of infe- 
 rences. Now, the question for you to put to 
 yourselves is this — C;in you now, with satisfaction 
 to your own minds, come to the conclusion that they 
 did meet on that occasion, the result being, and the 
 object of coming to that conclusion being, to fix down 
 upon her the administration of the arsenic by which 
 he died ? Now, then, gentlemen, let us take the three 
 charges in the indictment. The first charge is, that 
 she administered poison on the 19th or 20th February 
 1857. Probably you will be of opinion, on the 
 evidence of Miss Perry and others, that he did see her 
 on that occasion,' as well as on the 22d ; but as 
 to the 19ch, she was not proved to have had 
 arsenic or any other poison in her possession ; and 
 what I attach very great importance to is that there 
 is no medical testimony by analysis of the matter 
 vomited that that illness did proceed from the admi- 
 nistration of arsenic. If the doctor had examined the 
 matter vomited, and said that there was certainly 
 arsenic here, I am afraid the case would have been 
 very strong against her, as having given him coffee or 
 something immediately before bis illness on that occa- 
 sion. But it is not proved that the illness arose 
 from the administration of poison ; arsenic she had 
 not, and there is no proof of her having possessed 
 anything else deleterious. Therefore I have no hesi- 
 tation in telling you that that charge has failed. 
 He had thrice before been seized with illnesses of this 
 description at M. Mean's, at Mr Roberts', and in 
 
342 
 
 his own lodgings, as spoken to by one of the Bairds— 
 which are not alleged to have been caused by 
 arsenic. And therefore I hare no hesitation in telling 
 you as to that, that I think that cbarj;e has failed. ' 
 I think it ray duty to tell you, as a Judge, that on ^" 
 that charge you should find her not guilty. But we are 
 in a very different situation as to the illness of the 22d 
 and morning of the 23d. In one respect it is not proved ' 
 to be from the administration of any deleterious siib-" 
 stance; and perhaps you may think it safer not to 
 hold, in such a case as that, that it was the result of 
 the administration of arsenic or of any poisonous 
 substance. But what would connect the prisoner 
 with that is I think much stronger — that is to 
 say, connect her with a meeting with him that niglii.'''. , 
 If yon should think you can acquit her of the first, ' 
 and that there is too much doubt to find the second 
 proved, why then you will observe how much that 
 weakens all the theories that may be raised on the 
 correspondence of a purpose and a desire of revenge or 
 of something arising from the change of tone, and a ' 
 desire to allure him again to her embraces and her 
 fascinations which cannot be accounted for excepting', . 
 on this supposition ; in that view undoubtedly the' 
 foundation of the case is very much shaken, and will 
 not lead you to suppose that the purpose of murder was 
 cherished on the 22d. Then as to the charge of murder, 
 gentlemen, the point for you to consider — surrounded 
 as the panel is with grave suspicion, with everything 
 that seems to militate against the notion of innocence, 
 upon any theory that has been propounded to you—"." 
 is this, are you prepared to say that you find an 
 interview proved against her with the deceased on 
 the night of the 22d March ? She had arsenic before 
 the illness of the 22d February, and I think you ' 
 will consider that all the excuses which she made 
 about having arsenic are just as groundless as those 
 which she stated to the apothecaries. She bought 
 
arsenic again on the 6tli, and certainly it is a very 
 odd thing that she should buy more arsenic after she 
 eame back to Glasgow on the 18th of March. For 
 unless you are to take the account, to be sure, that 
 she used it as a cosmetic, she has it before the 22d, 
 and that is a, dreadful fact if you are quite satisfied 
 that she did not get it and use it for the purpose of 
 washing her hands and face. It may create the greatest 
 reluctance in your mind to take any other view of 
 the matter than that she was guilty of administering 
 it somehow, though the place where may not he made 
 out, or the precise time of the interview. But on the 
 other hand, you must keep in view that arsenic could 
 only he administered by her .if an interview took 
 place with L'Angeiier ; but that interview, though it 
 may be the result of an inference that may satisfy you 
 morally that it did take place, stlU rests upon an 
 inference alone ; and that inference is to be the 
 ground, and must be the ground, on which a verdict 
 of guilty is to rest. Gentlemen, you will see, there- 
 fore, the necessity of great caution and jealousy in 
 dealing with any inference which you may draw from 
 this. You may be perfectly satisfied that L'Angeiier 
 did not commit suicide, and of course it is necessary 
 for you to be satisfied of that before you could find 
 that anybody administered arsenic to him. Probably 
 none of you will think for a moment that he 
 ■went out that nigl^t, and that without seeing 
 her, and without knowing what she wanted to see 
 him abopt if tJiey had met, that he swallowed 
 above 200 grains of arsenic on the street, ' and 
 that he was carrying it about with him. 
 Probably you will discard that altogether, though it 
 is very important, no doubt, if you come to the 
 conclusion that he did not swallow arsenic; yet, on 
 the other hand, gentlemen, keep in view that that 
 will not of itself establish that the j^risoner 
 administered it. The matter ' may have remained 
 
3i4 
 
 most mysterious — wholly unexplained ; yoii may not 
 be able to account for it on any other supposition; 
 but still that supposition or inference may not be a 
 ground on which you can safely and satisfactorily rest 
 your verdict against the panel. Nonr then, gentle- 
 men, I leave you to consider the case with 
 reference to the views that are raised upon this corre- 
 spondence. I don't think you will consider it so 
 unlikely as was supposed that this girlj after 
 writing such letters, may have been capable of 
 cherishing such a, purpose. But still, although 
 ybii may take such a view of her character, 
 it is but a supposition that she cherished this 
 murderous purpose^he last conclusion of coarse 
 that you ought to come to merely on supposition and 
 inference and observation' upon this varying and 
 wavering correspondence of a girl in the circumstances 
 in which she was placed. It receives more importance 
 no duuht when you find the purchase of arsenic jnst 
 before she expected, or just at the time she expected, 
 L'Angelier. But still these are but suppositions— 
 these are but suspicions. Now, the great and 
 invaluable use of a jury, after they direct their 
 minds seriously to the case with the attention you 
 have done, is to separate firmly — firmly and clearly in 
 their own minds— suspicion /rom evidence. I don't say 
 that inferences may not competently be drawn ; but 
 I have already warned you as to inferences which 
 may be drawn in the ordinary matters of civil life and 
 those which may be drawn in such a case as this; 
 and therefore if you cannot say, we satisfactorily find 
 here evidence of this meeting, and that the poison must 
 have been administered by her at any meeting what- 
 ever may be your suspicion, however heavy the weight 
 and load olT suspicion is against her, and however you 
 may have to stiruggle to get rid of it, you perform 
 your best and bounden duty as a jury to separate 
 suspicion from truth, and to proceed iipon nothing 
 
u 
 
 that you do not find established in evidence against 
 her. I am qaite satisfied that whatever verdict you 
 may give, after the attention which you have bestowed 
 upon this case, will be the best approximation 
 to truth at which we could arrive. But let me say, 
 also, on the other hand, as I said at the outset, that of 
 the evidence you are the best judges, not only in point 
 of law, but in point of fact ; and you may be perfectly 
 confident that if you return a verdict satisfactory to 
 yourselves against the prisoner, you need not fear 
 any consequences from any future, or imagined, or 
 fancied discovery which may take place. You have 
 done ]^our duty under your oaths under God and to 
 your country, and may feel satisfied that remorse 
 you never can have. 
 
 Throughout the Lord Jastice-CIerk's address the 
 prisoner appeared to preserve her usual demeanour, 
 but manifesting the utmost interest in every word 
 that his Lordship uttered. On one occasion, where 
 his Lordship in reading his notes showed that he had 
 mistaken the expression of one of the witnesses as to 
 L'Angelier having said, when in Dundee, that he 
 sometimes heard sounds in his ears " like the 
 tramping of rats," for the expression " the spund of 
 rat-traps," the prisoner If^ughed with great apparent 
 heartiness. 
 
 The jury retired about ten minutes aftes one 
 o'clock, immediately upon which the audience in 
 Court fell into keen excitement and discussion. About 
 five minutes after the retirement, a bell rang, which 
 was at first thought to he the signal from the jury 
 that they were ready with their verdict, and a deep 
 thrill of anxiety was visible throughout the Court — 
 although the prisoner only slightly turned her head fgr; 
 a. moment. During* the whole of the remaining 
 period for which the jury were absent, she showed no 
 particular symptoms of agitation — although, about 
 twenty-five minutes past one, a second bell, which 
 
346 
 
 proved to be that 61 .the Judges, caused a repetitidni :. 
 of the same scene. 
 
 At tl)irty-tw,o. minutes past one, the jury bell rang, 
 and the jury entered the box three minutes afterwards.^ ; > 
 The prisoner still c;ave no symptoins of emotion. i 
 
 The Lord Justice-Clerk intimated that it must . . 
 be understood that there must be no expression of 
 any sort of feeling by the audience, whatever might 
 be the verdict. < 
 
 The names of the jury having been called, Mr 
 Moffat, f of the High School, was announce as 
 Chancellor, and read the verdict as follows, amidst a 
 death-like silence : — 
 
 In regard to the FIRST Charge, the jury, by a 
 majority, iind a verdict of NOT GUILTY. 
 
 In regard to the Second Charge, the jury find, by 
 a majority, a verdict of NOT PROVEN. 
 
 In regard to the THIRD Charge [the charge of 
 
 Murder], the jury, by a majority, find a verdict of! 
 
 NOT PROVEN. 
 
 Instantly on the announcement of these last words, 
 a vehement burst of pheering came from the audience, 
 especially from the galleries, which was again and^ 
 again renewed with increasing loudness in spite of 1 
 the eflforts of the Judges and the officers of Court. 
 
 Whilst the Chancellor was reading the verdict, the- 
 prisoner gazed at the jury steadily, but with no signs 
 of agitation, and when the verdict of Not Proven on 
 the third charge was pronounceif, her head slightly 
 fell, and her face broke into a bright but somewhat 
 agitated smile. Her hands were on the instant warmly 
 grasped by her agent, Mr Rahken, on one side,. and 
 by the Jail matron on the, other — expressions, of 
 
317 
 
 sympathy which seemed to affect the accused more 
 deeply than any incident of the nine days' trial. 
 
 The Lord Justice-Clerk, in thanking the jury 
 for their services (and intimating that they would be 
 relieved from similar duties for five years), stated that 
 they would have perceived from what he had said to 
 them that bis own opinions quite coincided with the 
 conclusion at which tbey had arrived. 
 
 The prisoner was then dismissed from the bar, and 
 left the Court by the trap-door throughr which she 
 had ascended each morning. 
 
 Outside, the announcement of the verdict called 
 forth strong cheering from what seemed a majority of 
 the great multitude collected. 
 
 EMNBnReH : PRINTED AT THE SCOTSMAN OITIOB. 
 
^H^'S^ 
 
 T^to ■-31^