12 SCOTS TRIALS
CONCERNING CHRISTINA GILMOUR
THIRTEEN years before Madeleine Smith, "with the
air of a
belle entering a ballroom or a box at the opera," stepped grace-
fully into the dock of the High Court of Justiciary, and, having
arranged with her little lavender-gloved hand the elegant
brown silk gown to the best advantage, and made ready the
silver-topped smelling-bottle which she never used, composed
herself to witness the nine days' wonder of her trial, another
girl prisoner had occupied her place. Charged with a similar
crime committed by the same deadly means, that prisoner was
also recalled to life by the dubious verdict peculiar to her
country's laws. But there the likeness ends, :for the earlier
case, though notable in its day and generation, was totally,
eclipsed by the lurid fame of the greater cause celebre, and
long
since has ceased to be remembered. Yet the trial of Mrs.
Gilmour in 1844, for the murder of her husband in the previous
year, deserves the attention of those who pursue the study
either of psychological anomalies or of the principles of circum-
stantial evidence, and for such a brief narrative of the forgotten
facts may prove of interest.
Christian or Christina Cochran was the eldest
daughter of
Mr. Alexander Cochran, the proprietor of certain farms at
South and West Grange, in the Ayrshire parish of Dunlop
where the cheeses come from. He and his father before him
had dealt largely in the local produce, by which they made a
considerable fortune. Christina is said to have been born at
South Grange on 25th November 1818, and was thus twenty
five at the time of her trial, but in her declaration she gives
her age as twenty-three. Mr. Cochran appears to have been an
austere man of rigid Presbyterian mould, a type familiar in the
[191]
home country of Robert Burns. Though her father was a land
owner and a man of substance, Christina's upbringing was
practical and homely. After receiving a good education at a
Glasgow boarding-school she had, on leaving it, to take her
share in the ordinary work of the farm, and later, in accordance
with the thrifty custom of her class, she was sent to learn
dressmaking, which she did at Paisley under a professional
exponent of the art. Thence she returned home fully equipped
with the accomplishments requisite for a young woman of her
time and station, and as she was a good-looking and amiable
girl with an assured portion, she found plenty of suitors for her
hand. The offers she received were from men socially her
superiors, any one of which her parents would gladly have seen
her accept, but she refused them all, having avowedly set her
affections upon a young man, ten years her senior, named John
Anderson, the son of a neighbouring farmer. They had known
each other from childhood, and although there was no engage-
ment between them, it seems to have been understood that
Anderson would marry her so soon as his circumstances per-
mitted. But another Richmond entered the field, in the person
of Mr. John Gilmour, a well-to-do farmer in Renfrewshire,
whose father was a neighbour of the Cochrans. He was an
educated and agreeable man, much esteemed in the district for
his upright, sterling character, and was several years younger
than Anderson. His overtures were well received by the girl's
parents, who being plain, unambitious folk, considered him an
excellent match. John Gilmour was an ardent wooer; his
attachment, we are told, was "passionate and irrepressible,"
and Christina accepted his attentions with apparent equanimity,
giving him no reason to think that her heart was already
bestowed. He proposed, was refused, and, in Ercles' vein,
threatened suicide. The lady appeared impressed, and yielded.
Meanwhile, Anderson had continued his visits to South Grange
as usual, and on one of these Christina suddenly announced
to him her engagement to another. By what motive she was
[192]
actuated in behaving as she. did we can only conjecture.
Perhaps she thought that Anderson was, as the phrase goes,
rather backward in coming forward, and hoped that the fact of
an accepted rival would bring matters to a head. If this be
so, she was woefully mistaken; Anderson expressed suitable
surprise at the news, but "conjured her to abide by her
promise," and resigned all pretension to her hand.
From that moment Christina was a changed girl.
Her
disposition had been notably bright and cheerful;; she became
moody and abstracted. She who hitherto had been afraid of
the dark now roamed the fields alone of nights, and had to
be sought for and brought home by her wondering sisters.
Curiously enough, her appetite, which by all accepted canons
ought to have been lost with her heart, increased enormously,
and is described as insatiable; her family strove to regulate
it in vain. Plainly all was not well with Christina, and the
happy day, twice named, was as often postponed. It is a
remarkable fact that the girl is said to have been most like her
old self during the visits of her fiance. She continued, however,
to correspond with Anderson, and her parents, although aware
of the whole circumstances, were anxious to hasten on the
marriage. Their action in this matter is variously represented
by the two contemporary pamphlets on the case, published
respectively at Edinburgh and Glasgow. The former describes
Christina as being entirely a free agent, her partents merely
indicating that they thought the marriage desirable, but putting
no restraint upon her wishes; the latter states that the step
was forced on her by her father, not only against her will but
in spite of her urgent and repeated appeals to be allowed to
remain single. However the fact stands, Mr. Gilmour, who
does not seem to have suspected the real cause of his betrothed's
unsatisfactory condition, was naturally impatient of further
delay. . Christina bowed to her fate. She went with him to
Glasgow, where they bought the necessary wedding "braws,"
and for the third time the marriage day was fixed. On 29th
[193]
November 1842. the ceremony was performed by the Reverend
Mr. Dickie, minister of the parish, who noticed nothing amiss in
the bride's demeanour, and the newly-wedded pair, accompanied
by one of her sisters, left for the bridegroom's farm, Town of
Inchinnan, Renfrewshire. The house is near Inchinnan Bridge,
where, in 1685, the unfortunate Argyll was captured at the
ford by the servants of Sir John Shaw of Greenock.
The unusual attitude adopted by Mrs. Gilmour
towards her
husband from the outset of their married life must be indicated,
as it has an important bearing on the subsequent events. The
bride sat up by the fireside the whole of the first night in her
new home. The bridegroom, we are told, generously ascribed
her conduct to the novelty of her situation, but as day after
day passed without any modification of her attitude towards
him that explanation became no longer tenable. Christina dis-
played no enmity to the man she had so inexplicably married;
she said that she respected him, but would never live with him
as his wife. In this difficult situation her husband seems to
have behaved with the utmost tact and delicacy, trusting that
time would bring about a better understanding between them.
But John Gilmour's time, little though he knew it, was terribly
short; within six weeks of his ill-omened wedding-day he was
a dead man.
The evidence taken at the subsequent trial
is rendered
somewhat confusing, by reason that many of the witnesses
speak to a.variety of disconnected facts applicable to different
branches of the case; it will therefore conduce to clearness if
we consider the events in the order in which they successively
occurred. The ménage at Town of Inchinnan was simple and
.primitive, recalling the homely ways of some west country
household as preserved for us by the admirable art of Galt.
The laird busied himself in the affairs of his farm, while as
there was but one woman servant within-doors, the house
'required all his wife's, attention. Several men were employed
about the farm. During the whole period in question one or
[194]
TOWN OF INCHINNAN
other of Mrs. Gilmour's sisters resided at Inchinnan, though,
curiously, the guest took her meals in the kitchen by herself,
the host and hostess having theirs together in the parlour. It
is remarkable that neither of these ladies was called as a witness
at the trial. The bride from the first made no secret of the
unusual footing upon which she and her husband lived. She
early informed the maid, Mary Paterson, who was an old family
servant of the Gilmours, that she had married the laird un-
willingly, because her father wished her to do so, and that she
had "intended to take John Anderson."
The first important date in the case is Monday,
26th
December 1842, a month after the marriage. On that day
Mary Paterson went to visit a relative in Dunlop parish.
Before she left, her mistress told her to purchase twopence
worth of arsenic in Paisley, which was on her way, and (gave
her the money for that purpose. Mrs. Gilmour instructed her
not to buy the poison personally, but to go to a certain house
and send a "callant" (boy) to get it for her. She said she
wanted it to poison rats. We may pause here for a moment to
deplore the curious lack of originality shown by our criminals
in attempting to give a legitimate excuse for the acquisition of
arsenic. In almost every Scottish trial for poisoning, from that
of the Lady Fowlis in 1590 to Madeleine Smith's in 1857, these
equivocal rodents have figured with such wearisome persistence
that the formula seems to be accepted as classic. In England,
one must in fairness admit, the amateur toxicologist has dis-
played upon occasion less poverty of fancy. Mary forgot the
address, and on her return through Paisley on the following
day, Tuesday, 27th December, she went herself for the arsenic
to a chemist's shop kept by one Dr. Vessey. He asked her, for
whom it was required, and she answered, Mrs. Gilmour of
Inchinnan. The chemist, having taken her own name, gave
her a packet labelled "Arsenic--Poison," which Mary duly
delivered to her mistress, telling her what had happened.
Next day, Wednesday, 28th, when Mary was in "the boiling-
[195]
house" in the afternoon, Mrs. Gilmour produced a packet
similar in appearance to that containing the arsenic, which she
threw into the boiler fire in Mary's presence, with the remark
that "it would be of no use to her, and she was frightened she
could not use it right."
When Mary Paterson left for her brief holiday
Mr. Gilmour,
a hale man of thirty, was in his ordinary health and spirits, but
on Thursday, 29th, he suddenly became unwell and suffered
from violent sickness. His disorder continued during the
week-end, but, as it had been arranged that on Monday, 2nd
January, "the happy pair" should pay a New Year's visit to
the bridegroom's family in Ayrshire, Mr. Gilmour, though still
very unwell, left Inchinnan that morning with his wife in a
gig for Dunlop. At South Grange he complained of internal
pain to his father, who says that John Gilmour's face was
swelled, and that he had several attacks of sickness during
the visit. On Tuesday, 3rd January, he and his wife drove
home, arriving at Inchinnan in the afternoon. That night the
laird had a recurrence of his mysterious ailment, the symptoms
of which continued with increasing severity until his death a
week later. Throughout the illness his wife was his assiduous
and sole attendant, preparing his food and drink, and administer-
ing the medicines which, as we shall see, were afterwards pre-
scribed for him. In the earlier stages of his malady Mr.
Gilmour, as one witness says, "was whiles in bed and whiles
out of it." John Muir, one of the men on the farm, saw him at
the stables on Wednesday, the 4th. His face was then swollen
and his eyes were watering. He said he had been sick. Next
day he was confined to his room, which he was never to leave
again alive.
Friday, 6th January, is a red-letter day in
the case. John
Gilmour was on his death-bed. Early that morning his wife
left the house. She informed Mary Paterson that she was going
on an errand to Renfrew, as "she wanted something, to see if
it would do her husband any good," and asked Mary not to tell
[196]
the other servants that she had gone. Renfrew is some two
miles from Inchinnan, Paisley about four. She returned "shortly
after breakfast." Between eight and nine o'clock that morning
John Muir, "going out from his breakfast," found at the corner of
"the boiling-house," which adjoined the dwelling-house, a black
silk bag. He had passed the place as he went for his break-
fast, and the bag was not then there. He opened it, and found
that it contained a small phial full of liquid and a paper packet
tied with thread, marked with the single word "Poison." The
smell of the phial suggested scent to him; it was not the smell
of turpentine, which he knew. He handed the bag to Mary
Paterson, who also examined the packet and the "wee phial."
She carried the bag with its contents to her mistress, asking if
it was hers, and Mrs. Gilmour took it from her, remarking that
"she had got turpentine to rub John with." The packet in
appearance was similar to the one which Mary had bought
previously in Paisley. That same night, "after the horses had
been suppered," Mrs. Gilmour again left home, taking with her
Sandy Muir, another of the farm hands. She told him that,
as the master refused to see a doctor, she was going to consult
her uncle, Robert Robertson, at Paisley. When they arrived
at that gentleman's house Sandy waited for her in the kitchen,
and Christina was announced to her uncle. Mr. Robertson was
surprised by his niece's visit, as he had not seen her for four
years; he scarcely recognised her. He remarked that they
were almost neighbours now, and she said that it was against
her will that she was at Inchinnan--"she would rather have
preferred one Anderson." Whereupon her uncle delivered a
little homily on the duties of marriage, winding up with the
consoling reflection "that many persons had not got the one
they liked best," which, he says, she received "quite pleasantly
and reasonably." She then informed him of her husband's
illness and alleged aversion from professional treatment.
Mr. Robertson at once proposed to send his own medical man,
Dr. M'Kechnie, but Christina said she would rather her uncle
[197]
came down first, "to see what Mr. Gilmour would say."
Having arranged to go to Inchinnan next day, he bade his
niece good-night.
Meantime, John Muir, the other servant, had
been thinking
about the strange contents of the bag found by him that morn-
ing, with the result that after his mistress left home in the
evening he went "ben" to see his master about half-past eight.
The sick man was alone and in great pain. Without disclosing
the discovery which had prompted the suggestion, Muir asked if
he would like to see a doctor, and Mr. Gilmour replied that he
would do so in the morning if he were no better. Muir pro-
posed to fetch one there and then, to which his master agreed,
mentioning Dr. M'Laws of Renfrew. Christina, with wifely
anxiety, would seem to have unduly magnified her husband's
repugnance to the faculty. When Muir was leaving the bed-
room, his master, making use of a significant but untranslatable
Scots idiom, said, "Jock, this is an unco thing !" which suggests
that he was uneasy in his own mind as to the nature of his
illness. Accompanied by one of the other farm lads, John then
set out for Renfrew and Dr. M'Laws. They were saved their
journey by meeting fortuitously at Inchinnan Toll-house the
doctor in person, who readily agreed to go with them, though
it was then near midnight. It is in every way regrettable that
Dr. M'Laws, as unfortunately appears from the evidence to be
the fact, was at the time of his visit "under drink taken." He
afterwards stated that he found Mr. Gilmour in bed, complain-
ing of pain, fever, and thirst, but was not told about the sick-
ness. In his opinion the complaint was an inflammatory one,
so he bled the patient, and ordered him to be rubbed with
turpentine. His horse was yet at the door when Mrs. Gilmour
returned from Paisley. She went straight to her husband's
room, but we have no account of her interview with the festive
physician, whose further services were dispensed with. If, as
Christina alleged, the "wee phial" found. that morning did,
despite its smell, contain turpentine "to rub John with," that
[198]
she should have procured it before it was prescribed was a
happy coincidence.
About eight o'clock next morning, Saturday,
7th January,
a respectably-dressed young woman entered the shop of Mr.
Wylie, chemist in Renfrew, and asked for arsenic--of course
for killing rats, but with this realistic touch, "in the field." In
reply to the usual questions, the lady stated that her name was
Robertson, and that the arsenic was required for one John
Ferguson, a local farmer, but as "it was not long since she
came to the place," she could not give the name of the farm.
Mr. Wylie then ran over to her a list of such farms as he
remembered in the neighbourhood, but the customer hesitated
to select one. The chemist was not satisfied; he summoned
James Smith, the oldest inhabitant, who was conveniently
at hand. That veteran named every farm in the district, but
knew none associated with the name of Ferguson. The lady
then said it was "up by Paisley," which seems to have been
deemed sufficiently specific. Twopence worth of arsenic was
.put up in paper, marked " Poison-Arsenic," and sold to her.
Mr. Wylie entered the transaction in a book kept by him for
the purpose, the veteran signing as a witness, and "Miss
Robertson" left the shop with her purchase. Mrs. Wylie,
who was also present, noticed that she did not go in the
direction of Paisley. At the trial Wylie, his wife, and the
oldest inhabitant all positively swore to the identity of "Miss
Robertson" and Christina Gilmour, then at the bar. Mary
Paterson said that her mistress went from home upon a second
early morning errand about that time, but could not tell the
exact date. Thus, within ten days, three packets of arsenic had
found their way into Mrs. Gilmour's possession, and the rats
at Inchinnan were still unslain.
Between ten and eleven o'clock that Saturday
morning old
Mathew Gilmour, who had heard that his son was worse, came
from Dunlop to see him. John Gilmour complained of sickness,
pain, and persistent thirst; his wife was in constant attendance.
[199]
He asked his father to stay with him, but Mathew had to go
home again in the afternoon. Before he left, Mr. Robertson
arrived about four o'clock, and remained an hour with the
sufferer, who was continually sick and in great pain. He told
Mr. Robertson about Dr. M'Laws' visit the night before, and
Mrs. Gilmour said she would send for Dr. M'Kechnie if her
husband got worse. Christina, when alone with her uncle,
recurred to the subject of her marriage, saying "it had been
against her mind in taking Gilmour."
Next morning, Sunday, 8th January, Mr. Robertson
received
a message from Inchinnan at nine o'clock, asking him to send
a doctor and to come himself. Who sent this message we do
not know. At his request Dr. M'Kechnie went down and saw
the patient, whom he found very feverish--his pulse was 112--
"with a very great thirst." The doctor heard of the sickness.
He asked to see the vomited matter and also the excreta, but
was told by Mrs. Gilmour that none had been preserved. He
then gave her particular orders that these were to be kept for
his inspection on the following day. He considered the case
a bilious one, and prescribed calomel, tartaric acid and soda
powders, and a blister. Mr. Robertson arrived before the
doctor left, and stayed all night to relieve Mrs. Gilmour in
the nursing, and John Muir was dispatched forthwith to
Renfrew to get the medicines made up at Wylie's shop. On
the Sunday evening, Christina again reverted to the vexed
question of her marriage, which, as her uncle thought, "appeared
to be brooding on her mind." On Monday, the 9th, Dr. M'Kechnie
paid his second visit. He found the patient, who said he had
been less frequently sick, much relieved by the application of
the blister, and his pulse down to 94. The doctor ordered
the treatment to be continued, and asked Mrs. Gilmour for the
matters which she had been told to preserve. She replied that
"there was so little she did not think it worth while keeping
them." Unfortunately, on neither of these two occasions was
the patient sick in Dr. M'Kechnie's presence. The doctor
[200]
did not see him again alive. It is a remarkable fact that
throughout the case no mention is made of purging, one of
the leading symptoms of arsenical poisoning. On Tuesday,
the 10th, old Mathew Gilmour returned to Inchinnan, and
remained till the death of his son, which took place on the
following day. He found him much worse, complaining of
pain and thirst, and frequently sick. The father assisted the
wife in nursing him. One or other of them was always in
the room, and regularly administered the effervescing powders
prescribed by Dr. M'Kechnie. In the afternoon of Wednesday,
the 11th, Dr. M'Kechnie's son, who assisted his father, called,
and found the patient "very low"; he considered him in a
dangerous state. The young surgeon promptly bled him, and
departed. This, probably, was the last straw, for shortly after-
wards the end came. There were present in the death-chamber
the wife, the father, a cousin named Andrew Gilmour (a boy of
fourteen who was staying in the house), and Sandy Muir. Sandy
deponed that Mr. Gilmour, shortly before he died, "expressed
a wish to be opened," and that he heard him say, "Oh, that
woman! If you have given me anything !" TIhe boy stated
that he heard the dying man say "he wished to be opened,"
and also, "Oh, if you have given me anything, tell me before
I die !" He remembered the words distinctly, and had men-
tioned immediately after the death that he heard them spoken.
Old Mathew Gilmour, who was deaf, heard nothing. On Mon-
day, 16th January, the body of John Gilmour was buried in the
churchyard of Dunlop, Ayrshire; by whom the certificate of his
death was granted does not appear. After the funeral, the widow
returned to her old home at South Grange, where she lived with
her parents as before her marriage. She wrote a letter, which
was not preserved, to her former lover, John Anderson, with
whom she had held no correspondence during her brief
wedded life.
The mysterious illness and sudden death of
John Gilmour
were much discussed in the neighbourhood. The servants at
[201]
Inchinnan told what they knew, and soon the report spread
that he had died from the effects of arsenic, administered to
him by his young wife. In the month of April, according
to the evidence, the authorities first heard the rumours which
led them to investigate the circumstances of the death, and
Superintendent M'Kay of the Renfrewshire rural police went
to Inchinnan to make inquiries. As the result of these, upon
the application of the procurator-fiscal, a warrant was granted
by the Sheriff on 21st April for the apprehension of Mrs.
Gilmour and exhumation of the body. Meanwhile, Alexander
Cochran, Christina's father, aware of the reports that his son-in-
law had been poisoned, and hearing that the body would prob-
ably be raised, "advised" his daughter to leave home. He
admits that she was most unwilling to go, and that she had no
idea she was being sent to America. All that the father says
about the matter is that he employed his brother Robert (who
was not called as a witness) to make the necessary arrange-
ments for her compulsory flight. According to Christina's own
account, given later in her declaration, her family did not inform
her why she was to go away until she asked if it was because
of her husband's death "being blamed on her," when they told
her that such was the reason. She pointed out that her dis-
appearance would be construed as an acknowledgment of her
guilt, but was assured that "she would be back in a few days."
Her father would not even allow her to say good-bye to her
mother before she went. She left home on foot, in charge
of a man she did not know, and at a certain place was handed
over to another stranger, who drove her in a gig to a house,
where she was delivered to a third man, with whom she
travelled by rail to Liverpool. This third cavalier is stated
to have been one Simpson, a Renfrewshire gardener, alterna-
tively, an Ayrshire shoemaker, who was going to America, and
at Robert Cochran's request undertook to see Christina safely
to the New World. She was to pass on board ship as his wife,
and to baffle possible pursuit they adopted the names of "Mr:
[202]
and Mrs. John Spiers." On arriving at Liverpool the couple
took their passage to New York in the packet Excel, and
before sailing Christina wrote to John Anderson a letter, dated
28th April, to which we shall afterwards refer. It appears
from the account given by Christina in America that "Mr.
Spiers" was no Bayard; he sought to take advantage of their
nominal relations, and she had to appeal to the captain for
protection. In the care of that officer she may be left for the
present, while we see what was taking place at home.
On 22nd April the body of John Gilmour was
exhumed,
and was duly inspected by Drs. Wylie and M'Kinlay of Paisley,
who prepared a report of the examination then made by them.
The intestines exhibited a blush all over the external surfaces,
and were found to be stained throughout with spots and streaks
of a bright yellow colour. The internal surface of the stomach
was thickly sprinkled with small yellow particles. As the result
of their observations, the doctors reported that in their opinion
John Gilmour had died from the effects of an acrid poison,
which produced the inflammation of the stomach and bowels
above mentioned, and that from the appearances referred to
they suspected that acrid poison to have been arsenic. Certain
parts of the viscera were therefore removed for future chemical
examination.
When the police arrived at South Grange on
24th April, to
execute the warrant for Christina's arrest, they found the bird
flown. None of her relatives would give any information as to
her whereabouts, so after making some inquiries in the neigh-
bourhood Superintendent M'Kay went home for the time
empty-handed. Satisfied that she had but recently left the
district, he continued his investigation, and finally lit upon the
fugitives trail, with the result that he traced her to Carlisle,
and thence to Liverpool. As it was found that she had left the
country for America, a new warrant had to be obtained on 18th
May. Armed with this, M'Kay started in pursuit on board
the Cunard steamer Acadia, and arrived at New York three
[203]
weeks before the Excel, which had made a bad passage. In
co-operation with the New York authorities M'Kay, so soon as
the packet was signalled, went down to Staten Island to inter-
cept her, in order to prevent anyone from the shore communi-
cating with those on board. The knowledge of what was afoot
had created much interest and excitement in America, as this
was the first case of extradition under the new Treaty of Wash-
ington, concluded between Great Britain and the United States
on 9th August 1842, and the New York papers had handled
the subject with the moderation and restraint for which the
press of that city is still so justly famed. M'Kay, accompanied
by an official of the New York police, on 21st June boarded the
Excel in a Custom-House boat, and, much to the astonishment
of the captain and passengers, took the amiable "Mrs. Spiers"
into custody. At first she attempted to deny her identity, but
by a fortunate chance M'Kay, who had known John Gilmour,
once actually met Christina at Inchinnan, and knew her by
sight; so seeing that the game was up she made no further
resistance, and was forthwith taken away on the police boat.
In the hurry of the moment M'Kay did not then learn of the
existence of "Mr. Spiers," who modestly kept out of view.
That gentleman proceeded in the Excel to New York, where,
unobserved by the police, he disembarked and vanished. The
flight of the "wanted" person, the pursuit across the Atlantic,
and the subsequent dramatic arrest at sea curiously anticipate
the modern instances of Oscar Slater and Dr. Crippen.
The extradition proceedings were duly opened
before Mr.
Sylvanus Rapalyea, the United States Commissioner. Applica-
tion for delivery of the fugitive was made under Article X of
the recent Treaty, whereby persons charged with murder and
certain other crimes, committed within the jurisdiction of either
of the respective countries, seeking asylum in the other, should,
upon evidence of criminality, be surrendered to the proper
authorities. Mr. Warner of the New York bar, who appeared
for the prisoner, represented that his client was insane; he
[204]
therefore moved for and obtained a postponement of the hearing
of her case until she could be examined by medical men. This
examination having been made, the case again came before the
Commissioner on 12th July. Eight New York physicians had
minutely studied and tested the prisoner's mental capacity;
five of these were examined and cross-examined at vast length,
two did not appear when called, and the evidence of a third
was disallowed. The united testimony of these gentlemen
was to the effect that although the behaviour and conversation
of the prisoner was suggestive of imbecility--she sat on the
floor, lacerated her hands, and talked nonsense, e.g. that as
she had been sick on the voyage out, she would "rather go home
in a coach"--they could discover no sign of mental disease,
and were of opinion that her insanity was feigned. The
necessary evidence of her alleged criminality was then given
by Superintendent M'Kay, despite the vigorous protests of
her counsel. Mr. Warner, thus defeated in the first round,
now moved that the proceedings were incompetent upon a
variety of technical grounds, all of which being repelled he
appealed unto Caesar in the person of His Excellency John
Tyler, President of the United States of America. The decision
was unfavourable, and on 9th August the Secretary of State
issued an order for the surrender and delivery of Christina
Gilmour to George M'Kay, an officer of the Government of
Her Britannic Majesty. Mr. Warner made a last effort; he
presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the judges
of the Second Circuit of the Southern District of New York,
setting forth that all the proceedings hitherto had against
his client were illegal, as no legislative action had been taken
by Congress to make the Treaty of Washington effectual in law,
and further, that no sufficient evidence was produced before
the Commissioner to sustain the charge of murder. On 12th
August the judges refused to allow the writ, and Christina's
fate, so far as American law was concerned,. was sealed. She
was to fare better in the old country, as we shall presently
[205]
see. On 16th August Superintendent M'Kay and his fair
charge sailed in the packet-ship Liverpool for the port of that
name, the services of "a trustworthy elderly female belonging
to Paisley, who was anxious to return to her native country,"
being retained to attend her on the voyage, which, owing
to continuous gales, occupied twenty-six days. How Christina
must have sighed for that coach ! On reaching Liverpool she
was transferred to the steamer Achilles, in which she was
conveyed to Greenock, and thence by rail to Paisley. There
on Wednesday, 14th September, Mrs. Gilmour was judicially
examined before the Sheriff, and, having emitted a lengthy
declaration, was committed for trial.
In this document she set forth the circumstances
of her
flight, and admitted that before she left home she had heard
that her husband's body was likely to be raised. Her statement
regarding the charge made against her was to the following
effect:--Before the New-Year visit to Dunlop John Gilmour
had complained of a severe headache and pain in his breast,
"and said he thought it was his heart"; he was not sick until
after their return home. Shortly before his death he told her
that she had broken his heart, to which she replied that he had
already broken hers. One morning during his illness she
walked to Renfrew, and there bought from Wylie some arsenic,
in the name of Robertson. It was in a packet marked "Arsenic
--Poison," which she took home in a black silk bag. She
"rather thought" she dropped the bag before entering the
house, and that it was brought to her by one of the servants.
She afterwards kept the poison in her pocket till the string
came off the paper and some of the contents were spilt. This
she only discovered when she returned to her parent's home
after the death. The packet was then taken possession of by
her mother, who questioned her about the matter, and she told
that lady she had got it "because they were all tired of her and
would not let her have peace." The truth, as she now declared,
was that, being made unhappy both before and after her marriage,
[206]
she bought the arsenic "thinking that she would put an end to
herself with it." Before making the above purchase she had
procured another packet of arsenic, which Mary Paterson bought
for her in Paisley. This supply "was intended for rats," but
after hearing from Mary "what the druggist had said about the
danger of it" she burnt it "before her face" in the furnace fire
of the boiling-house, upon the same morning on which Mary
brought it to her. The packet was never opened. She adminis-
tered no arsenic to her husband at any time, either before or
during his illness. She frequently proposed to send for a doctor,
but her husband as often refused to see one. She then described
her interview with her uncle Robertson, Dr. M`Laws' visit, and
the calling in of Dr. M'Kechnie, all as before related. If arsenic
was found in her husband's body she could not account for it
"He got none from me, and I am not aware that he got any
from anybody else." It is noteworthy that she made no sugges-
tion of her husband having taken his own life.
For four months Mrs. Gilmour remained in Paisley
prison
until she was removed to Edinburgh for her trial, which began
before the High Court of Justiciary on Friday, 12th January
1844, the day after the anniversary of her husband's death.
The judges were the Lord Justice-Clerk (Hope) and Lords
Moncreiff and Wood; the counsel for the Crown, the Lord
Advocate (Duncan M'Neill, afterwards Lord Colonsay), assisted
by Messrs. Charles Neaves and David Milne, Advocate-Deputes;
and the counsel for the pannel, Messrs. Thomas Matland (later
Lord Dundrennan) and Alexander M'Neill. A contemporary
account remarks, "From the circumstances of this being the
first case that has occurred in this country under the Ashburton
Treaty, and from the interest which it had already excited in
the public mind by the proceedings in the American Courts,
independently altogether of the importance of the charge itself,
the greatest anxiety was manifested as to the issue. At a very
early hour the doors of the Court were beset by a dense crowd.
of persons of both sexes desirous of admittance, and long before
[207]
the proceedings commenced, the Court was crowded in every
part." Christina, becomingly dressed in widow's weeds, and
looking younger than her years, was placed at the bar; the
indictment was read, and the prisoner, "in a low but firm
voice," pleaded not guilty to the charge. This, briefly, was
that on repeated occasions between 26th December 1842 and
12th January 1843, at Town of Inchinnan, and on 2nd and 3rd
January 1843, at South Grange, she did wickedly, maliciously,
and feloniously administer to John Gilmour in some articles of
food or drink certain quantities of arsenic, in consequence of
which he became ill and died on 11th January 1843, and was
thus murdered by her; and that she, being conscious of her
guilt in the premises, did abscond and flee from justice. The
Lord Advocate moved that the medical witnesses be allowed to
remain in Court to hear the evidence, which practice, he said,
was not unusual; but the Lord Justice-Clerk considered such
a course "inconvenient," and the motion was refused. A jury
was then empanelled, and the Lord Advocate adduced his
proof.
The foregoing narrative of the case having
been derived
from the evidence led for the Crown, we have only to notice
such of it as has not been already mentioned. The shopman
who had seen the late Dr. Vessey sell the arsenic to Mary
Paterson corroborated her account of that purchase, and
Wylie, the chemist, produced his books, containing the entry of
a similar sale on 7th January to "Miss Robertson," with whom,
as has been said, Christina, apart from her own admission, was
clearly identified. The contention of the defence was that
John Gilmour either poisoned himself accidentally, or committed
suicide owing to the unhappy issue of his matrimonial venture,
and certain of the witnesses were cross-examined to that effect.
Mary Paterson said she had seen her master use arsenic for
killing rats about the stable. He kept it in a "kist" (chest) in
the kitchen at that time, and the "kist" was afterwards removed
to his bedroom before the marriage. Sandy Muir stated that he
[208]
had helped his master to kill rats with arsenic in the offices.
He only knew of him getting poison once for that purpose,
from Mr. Paton, a neighbour. It was not used again after
the marriage. This is the whole evidence relating to John
Gilmour's possession and use of arsenic. Several witnesses
were cross-examined with regard to the prisoner's demeanour
during the illness. Mr. Robertson, her uncle, said that when
she spoke to him of her marriage she did not do so bitterly, but
seemed to be grieved. Her tone was one of depression and
regret. He thought her kind and attentive to her husband
"she held his head when he was vomiting." There was no
excitement in her manner, and he saw nothing to indicate any
alienation between them. John Gilmour made no complaint to
him of Mrs. Gilmour's behaviour when he (witness) was at
Inchinnan. Dr. M`Kechnie stated that on the occasion of
his two visits Mrs. Gilmour behaved in all respects most
properly. She was very cool and collected, and showed no
sign of excitement.
The interest of the audience must have quickened
when the
Lord Advocate called Christina's old love, John Anderson. He
said he had known the prisoner before her marriage. He
received from her in January 1843, after her husband's death,
a letter which he had not preserved. After she left home,
she wrote to him again from Liverpool on 28th April. Her
brother asked him for that letter, and kept it. The letter
having been destroyed, the Lord Advocate proposed to ask the
witness--"Was there anything in that letter on the subject of
her husband's death?" The witness was removed while the
point was discussed whether or not the question was admis-
sible. Mr. Maitland, however, withdrew his objection, in
respect of which the Court allowed it to be put. "She said,"
replied Anderson, "she would confess she had bought arsenic
to take herself, but she did not admit she had administered
it to John Gilmour." She also complained of having been sent
away, as she would rather have "stopped till all was settled."
[209]
In cross-examination, Anderson said he had known the prisoner
from infancy; "she was of a very gentle, mild, fine disposition."
Thomas Cochran, the prisoner's brother, stated that he got the
letter from Anderson and gave it to his father. Before doing so
he read it; there was nothing in it about arsenic. Alexander
Cochran, her father, upon this point said that after reading
the letter he destroyed it. He recollected no mention of
arsenic.
There only remain the medical witnesses, who
need not
detain us, as their evidence was not disputed by the defence.
Dr. M'Kechnie stated that, having been present at the post-
mortem examination and seen the results of the analysis of
certain portions of the body, he was satisfied that the deceased
died from arsenic. The symptoms observed by him during life
were consistent with that opinion. While other doses might
have been administered before he saw the patient, he believed
that the fatal dose was not given till shortly before death. Dr.
Wylie, who, along with Dr. M'Kinlay, made the post-mortem
examination, proved their joint report. The suspicion therein
expressed regarding the cause of death became a conviction after
they had completed their analytical tests, the results of which
plainly indicated the presence of arsenic in the contents and
substance of the stomach and bowels. Dr. M'Kinlay corro-
borated. An independent analysis of other portions of the
internal organs had been made by Professor Christison. That
eminent authority, having tested the various articles submitted
to him by the processes of Reinsch and Marsh, detected arsenic
unequivocally in the contents of the stomach, in the stomach
itself, and in the liver. Dr. Christison stated in the witness
box that this was the second instance in this country in which
arsenic had been found in the liver. The symptoms of the
deceased and the post-mortem appearances, as described, were,
in his opinion, consistent with death from arsenic. One single
dose might produce such protracted illness, but not so probably
as repeated doses.
[210]
The Crown case closed with the reading of thle
prisoner's
declaration, and her counsel intimated that they did not pro-
pose to lead any evidence for the defence. The Court then
adjourned till the following day.
On Saturday, 13th January 1844, on the resumption
of the
diet, the Lord Advocate addressed the jury for the Prosecution.
The first question, he said, which they had to determine was,
Did John Gilmour's death result from the administration of
arsenic? He submitted that upon this point the medical
evidence was conclusive. The symptoms of vomiting, thirst,
and internal pain were consistent with that view, the appear
ances observed at the post-mortem examination indicated it,
and arsenic was found in the stomach and its contents and
in the liver by three medical men, one of whom was known
to all the world as a most skilful and accurate analytical
chemist. If ever there was a case where arsenic was found
in the body of a deceased person they had it there. In the
opinion of those experts, death had been caused rather by
repeated doses than by one administration. The illness began
on 29th December 1842, and ended fatally on 11th January
1843, and the continued symptoms indicated such repetition.
The second question was, How was this arsenic administered?
In all cases of criminal poisoning the administration was secret,
and evidence of it must be sought in the circumstances of the
case. There was no ground even for suspecting that John
Gilmour had committed suicide, which was, moreover, entirely
out of the question in view of the prolonged character of his
illness. He would not voluntarily have taken poison in small
doses, perseveringly repeated so as to cause a lingering and
painful death. For the same reason there was as little ground
for the theory of accidental administration. The poison with
which he was said to have once killed rats on the farm was
not proved to have been in his possession since his marriage
or at the time of his illness. No jury could expect direct
evidence of administration in any case of poisoning, Particularly
[211]
where, as in that case, the accused had charge of everything,
prepared the food, and was constantly about the person of her
victim. As the proof must necessarily be circumstantial, let
them examine the circumstances on which reliance could be
placed as establishing the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Had she possession of poison of the kind which was used, at
the time when it must have been administered? It was
proved that she had obtained no fewer than three several
packets of arsenic during that period--(1) the packet marked
"Arsenic--Poison," procured for her by Mary Paterson in
Paisley on Tuesday, 27th December 1842 ; (2) the packet
marked "Poison," found in her bag by Muir and Paterson on
Friday, 6th January; and (3) the packet marked "Poison--
Arsenic," bought by the pannel herself in Renfrew on Saturday,
7th January 1843. All these acquisitions were made in a
secret and mysterious manner. The first was obtained upon
a false pretence, and by indirect and most suspicious means;
how she got the second did not appear, further than that she
did not do so openly and avowedly; the third was bought by
her under a false name and upon statements equally false.
Was her account of the disposal of the poison thus acquired
satisfactory? She said that she threw the first packet into the
fire before the girl Paterson on the morning she obtained it,
but Paterson stated that it was not until the following after-
noon that her mistress burnt a packet which was "like" the
one she had bought for her. Had that arsenic been intended
for poisoning rats, there was no need to destroy it merely because
the chemist knew the purchaser's name and address. But if it
were not so intended, then, in view of the chemist's information,
she had either to destroy or pretend to destroy it in the
presence of the person who procured it. As to the second
supply traced to her possession, there was no account whatever
of what became of it. Then as to the third packet, which she
now endeavoured to confound with the second, discovered the
day before, but which was plainly a different parcel obtained
[212]
the next day, she said that she carried it about, in her pocket
until after her husband's death, when it was found by her
mother, who destroyed it, and that she told her mother that the
purpose for which she acquired it was suicide. No attempt
had been made to support that statement, and the mother was
not called as a witness. That this third packet obtained by her
from Wylie on the Saturday was not the packet found in her
bag by Muir on the Friday, was clearly proved by the evidence
of Muir and Paterson, who were positive that the incident
occurred on the morning of the day (Friday) when Dr. M'Laws
was summoned. Muir stated, in reply to the Court, that it was
the finding of this bag which led him to urge his master to see
the doctor that night. He was also certain that only the single
word "Poison" was written upon the packet he found, whereas
the third packet was proved to have borne the two words,
"Poison-Arsenic." Further, along with the packet in the
bag was found a small phial, also acquired by herself, containing
some fluid alleged by her to be turpentine, which, as Muir
proved, it was not. There was no evidence that she got that
phial at Dr. Wylie's or anywhere else on the Saturday. Paterson
stated that her mistress left home early in the Friday morning
"to get something for her husband," telling her not to men-
tion the matter to the other servants, and there was no trace
of anything brought home by her for her husband except the
contents of that bag. Friday, therefore, was the day on which
she had both a parcel and a phial, Saturday that on which she
had a parcel but no phial. How, then, did the prisoner account
for the acquisition of arsenic at all ? She said at, first that it
was for killing rats; in her declaration she alleged self-destruc-
tion as the reason, which rested entirely on her unsupported
statement. Her husband was dying; was that likely time
for her to be contemplating suicide? And was it credible that
for such a purpose she required those repeated quantities of
arsenic, successively procured at short intervals, more especially
as she made no attempt whatever to use it? The next element
[213]
in the case was the question of the opportunity of secret
administration, upon which the Lord Advocate remarked he
need say little; the prisoner had every opportunity that could
possibly exist. She was the sole attendant of the deceased, and
all that he took was taken from her hand without the observa-
tion of others. Then they came to the question of motive. Of
course, no motive could be adequate to so terrible a crime, but
there they had such a motive as in other cases had been found
to lead to similar lamentable results. There was the evidence
of the prisoner herself and of various witnesses that she was
dissatisfied and grieved with her condition as John Gilmour's
wife, on account of her previous attachment to another person.
She was constantly complaining to servants and others that
she had been compelled to marry her husband against her
will. Her distress was so extreme that, according to her own
account, she actually meditated suicide, and acquired poison
for the purpose of putting an end to the unbearable union.
"Gentlemen," said the learned advocate, "there are two ways
in which arsenic might be used by her to attain that end; she
might have poisoned herself, or she might have poisoned her
husband. Her husband is poisoned--she is not. By a most
extraordinary chance, the cup which she mixed for herself has
not been quaffed by her, but by some unknown and mysterious
hand was conveyed to the lips of her husband. Can you, then,
doubt the purpose for which that poison was obtained or the
purpose to which it was applied ?" No sooner was the union
dissolved by his death than she was found in correspondence
with the person who had never been absent from her mind
during the whole progress of those disastrous events. In
short, all the circumstances of that melancholy case concurred
in establishing the prisoner's guilt. Besides the general view,
there were certain minor circumstances, all pointing also to
the same conclusion, which called for attention. The first
supply of arsenic was obtained on Tuesday, 27th December;
the husband's illness began on Thursday the 29th, and, though
[214]
he continued seriously ill, no doctor was sent for till Friday
of the following week. She went, however, on that Friday
to her uncle, Mr. Robertson, and stated to him the condition
of her husband. That interview was very remarkable, and
whether she expected her husband to be alive or not, she put
off the visit of a doctor till after the Saturday. When Dr.
M'Kechnie came the first time, he gave the prisoner special
instructions to preserve certain matters for his inspection.
Those instructions were not obeyed, and the excuse she gave
was that there was so little that she had thrown it away.
Then so soon as suspicions arose and it was known that the
body was to be exhumed, she fled the country secretly and
under a false name. Though she now alleged that she went
unwillingly, still she did go, which was a strong circumstance
against her innocence. With regard to the letter which she
wrote to Anderson from Liverpool, that was destroyed by her
father, under whose advice she was acting. Anderson swore
that it contained a reference to the purchase of arsenic, and
"that she would admit" it was for her herself, but not for
Gilmour; yet neither the father nor the brother, who read it,
had any recollection of such a passage in the letter. They did
remember that it expressed her unwillingness to go away, and
still, in these circumstances, the father said he destroyed it.
In conclusion, the Lord Advocate submitted that the jury had
all the elements required in a case of murder by poisoning, and
it was his painful but imperative duty to ask them to find that
case established.
Mr. Maitland then addressed the jury for the
defence. He
contended that unless the case on the part of the Crown had
made guilt certain and innocence impossible, the jury could
not convict his client. The question was, not whether the
prisoner was covered by a very dark shadow of suspicion, not
whether they had strong doubts of her innocence, but whether
there was legal evidence which entitled them to hold her guilty.
With regard to the medical evidence, he admitted that arsenic
[215]
was found in the body, and that John Gilmour died from the
effects of that poison ; but he argued that the Crown had not
established that death had been caused by repeated doses.
Dr: Christison himself admitted that a single dose might have
produced the illness. The evidence adduced in support of the
charge was purely circumstantial, yet the crime was of no
ordinary kind, and was one which could with difficulty even be
imagined. After referring to the innocent and blameless
character of the prisoner before her marriage, and narrating
the history of her home life prior to that event, counsel sub-
mitted that apart from the improbability of a young girl so
brought up committing such a revolting crime, there was no
motive sufficiently strong to induce her to do so. Before they
could convict her they must be satisfied that she hated her
husband, of which there was not the slightest proof. She
was shown to be in some degree dissatisfied with her marriage,
and had spoken to her uncle on the subject, but she took kindly
his advice to make the best of it, and exhibited no ill-feeling
whatever towards her husband. The general conduct and
deportment of the prisoner during the deceased's illness was of
great importance. If they were to believe the Crown case, this
young and gentle girl was for thirteen days constantly and
continuously employed in perpetrating by slow degrees the
murder of her own husband. In such circumstances human
nature must have exhibited some remarkable symptoms, either
of excitement or confusion. But in the whole history of this
domestic tragedy her conduct betrayed no consciousness of guilt.
Dr. M'Kechnie declared that so far as he saw she behaved
quite collectedly and properly, and Mr. Robertson stated that
she complained of no unkindness on the part of her husband,
that she seemed grieved, and that she wept when she spoke of
her marriage. "Nothing could exceed her attention and kind-
ness," said counsel; "she did all that an affectionate wife could
do for a husband on his death-bed." She sought medical aid
when he took ill, she allowed the servants and others free access
[216]
to his sickroom, and, in short, everything she slid was incon-
sistent with the conduct of a guilty woman. Upon the important
question of her possession of poison, counsel maintained that
there were only two parcels of arsenic traced to her, and denied
it was proved that the prisoner had arsenic can Friday, 6th
January. The witnesses who spoke to finding it in her bag on
that day had, he argued, forgotten the exact date, and made
the mistake of ascribing to Friday the 6th the occurrences which
took place on Saturday the 7th. If that was so, and there were
in fact but two packets of arsenic, they had both of these
accounted for; the first was burnt, as declared by Paterson,
while the second remained in the prisoner's pocket until it
was found by her mother some weeks after her husband's
death. Except the possession of these two packets of arsenic,
the prosecutor had failed to prove a single fact warranting a
suspicion against the pannel's innocence. Her own explana-
tion sufficiently accounted for their possession. A broken heart
might lead to suicide but not to murder, and it was less
extravagant to suppose that the deceased had destroyed him-
self than that in such circumstances he was murdered by his
wife. If the union was unfortunate he had as good reason as
she to wish it terminated. But apart from the possibility of
suicide, was it not probable that he was poisoned accidentally,
either by his own or by some unknown hand? He was proved
to have had arsenic in his possession, and other white powders
were administered to him medicinally. Who, then, could say
that in this case of circumstantial evidence the proof was so
strong as to exclude a reasonable possibility of accident? In
conclusion, the learned counsel made a lengthy quotation from
the speech of Francis Jeffrey in defence of Mary Elder or
Smith, "The Wife o' Denside," on her remarkable trial for
poisoning in 1827, after which he said: "You may not be
satisfied that this unhappy lady is guiltless of her husband's
blood--nay, you may suspect or even be inclined to believe
that she is guilty. But that is not the question at issue. You
[217]
are sworn to say upon your oaths whether guilt has been
brought home to her by legal and conclusive evidence, and,
applying this test, I feel confident you can arrive at no other
verdict than that of Not Proven."
The Lord Justice-Clerk then proceeded to charge
the jury.
His lordship's observations on the case occupied four and a half
hours, but neither the official report nor the contemporary
accounts detail his review of the evidence. After commenting
on the peculiarly atrocious character of the crime charged and
the youth and previous respectability of the prisoner, his
lordship said if the jury were satisfied that the death of John
Gilmour was caused by poison, that poison must have been
administered either accidentally or voluntarily. The deceased
was proved to have been using arsenic, some of which might
still have been in the chest removed into his room after the
marriage. If it was administered accidentally no one else was
affected by it. But even if they were not satisfied of the
probability of accident, much remained to be proved before
they could fasten on the pannel the horrid charge of intentional
administration. They must consider also the possibility that
he took it voluntarily. Those two views must be dismissed
before they could convict her. His lordship cautioned them
against accepting it as proved that she was forced into the
marriage against her will. [Apparently, the jury were to dis-
believe her own repeated statements to that effect.] He was
glad for her sake that this material fact was awanting, which
otherwise might have weighed against her, as supplying a
motive for the crime. There was no proof that John Gilmour
knew of the attachment entertained by his wife for another,
and no one in the house observed any unkindness between
them. But even if he did know, was he a man of such nice
sensibility that the knowledge would drive him to suicide ? He
made no complaint against her to that respectable person,
Mr. Robertson. Would anyone committing suicide choose such
a slow and lingering death ? But it was not enough to find
[218]
the prisoner in possession of arsenic and with the opportunity
to use it, they must consider the circumstances in which it
was obtained, the purpose for which it was procured, and the
manner in which it was disposed of. The prisoner was not
suspected during her husband's life, and she so conducted
herself as to avoid all suspicion. [What of John Muir and
the action taken by him upon finding poison in her bag?]
After commenting on the medical evidence and the purchases of
arsenic by the pannel, his lordship observed, "You see, there-
fore, that with all the improbabilities which the charge rears
up, there are strong and weighty facts proved; and it will be
for you to say what result you can arrive at, taking the whole
evidence into view. It is a sad and fearful alternative that is
presented to you by the prisoner's own statement in her
declaration, that she bought the poison for the purpose of
dissolving her marriage by committing suicide, especially con-
sidering the mysterious result that her husband dies of the
same kind of poison, and that she lives. Still, that statement
may be true, and the pannel be innocent, and you, who are the
only judges of the facts in this case, may say that without any
proved act of administration on her part, your minds revolt
from the notion that she committed the crime charged against
her." Finally, if they entertained a serious doubt of her guilt,
and considered her conduct during her husband's illness incon-
sistent with the charge, if, in short, they thought there were
mysteries unexplained, which ought to have been explained
in order to clear up the truth, his lordship need not tell them
that they should give the full benefit of that doubt or obscurity
to the individual charged with such a dreadful crime.
It is unfortunate that we have no report of
how the learned
judge dealt with the "strong and weighty fact proved." The
jury then retired, and after an absence of an hour returned
unanimously a verdict of Not Proven, and the prisoner was
dismissed from the bar. The verdict, we are told, was received
in Court "with loud, but not very general applause."
[219]
In two other celebrated trials at which his
lordship after-
wards presided, namely those of Dr. Smith in 1854 and
Madeleine Smith in 1857, similar verdicts were returned. Lord
Justice-Clerk Hope is said to have enjoyed no great popularity
with members of the bar by reason of the intolerance of the
judicial temper, but even the sorest of juniors could not have
called his lordship a hanging judge. Apropos of the Justice-
Clerk's alleged susceptibility to feminine charms, the irreverent
tale is told that Madeleine, who had a pretty foot and a well
turned ankle, did, by counsel's advice, make effective display
of those assets for behoof of the bench. In the prosecution of
attractive young ladies the Crown is unduly handicapped. The
gentle Christina, in common with her more brilliant rival of
the 'fifties, doubtless owed not a little to her beauty, her cir-
cumstances and her youth.
[220]
|
