The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-07 00:00:00

tion was, whether the deceased were murdered by
poison by any one. He had to prove that they were,
and if he satisfied the jury that such 'Was the case,
the only remaining question was—were the murders
perpetrated by the prisoner. Beginning with the
first question, in another form it *as—did the ladies
die from poison, not taken in order to,' 'commit sui-
cide, nor by negligence. Taking the case of Mrs.
Pritchard first, although she died last; 4e was the
first victim, the poisoning having begun before Mrs.
Taylor went to Glasgow. The murder of the mother
was, in fact, an episode occurring during the murder
of the daughter. The first question then was, of
what did Mrs. Pritchard die ?,iler husband said of
gastric fever ; the public prosecutorsaid of poison.
The question in fact admitted of only one answer,
for the whole of the evidence contained nothing to
justify a doubt that Mrs. Pritchard died on the 18th
March from the effects of poison. The evidence on
that point was singularly clear and conclusive. He
never met with a case of poison -in his experience
that was so free from doubt ; in short, all the evi-
dence went one way. The medical examination
showed there had been no fever—that the body was
that of a healthy woman ; but it was entirely im-
pregnated with poison, and the medical men were
satisfied that the poisoias administered in small
doses, each insufficient in itself to kill, and spread
over a long period. Antimony was found diffused
through the entire body. The history of the
case, which the medical men said was necessary in
order to form an opinion as to the length of time
during which the poison had been administered,
showed that Mrs. Pritchard was well while in
Edinburgh, and returned home, not robust, but
much better. It was pitiable to hear of her com-
plaints-that she was well when away from home,
and ill as soon as she returned home.- She was
sick after her meals—continually vomiting and
purged. Were those symptoms, which were always
before the prisoner's eye, those of gastric fever ?
No; but they were symptoms of slow poisoning by
antimony. With such symptoms, and the presence
of antimony in the body, the conclusion could not
be resisted that she died not of gastric fever but of
•
poison. Coming to Mrs. Taylor's case, she went to
Glasgow on the 10th February, and was not sick
until the 13th, after taking some tapioca. So far
as was known, she was not sick again until the 24th,
the last day of her life. She was a hale, healthy old
lady of 71 years, and was going about the house as
usual on the 24th. That evening she told one of
the servants she wanted to be sick, and was afraid
she was going to have the same disease as her
daughter. She was at tea, however, at seven
o'clock, and after writing some letters she went
to her own and her daughter's room about
nine o'clock. In about half an hour the bell
was rung and she was found ill, wanting to
vomit. Subsequently she became insensible,
and the prisoner sent for Dr. Paterson, who at once
thought she was suffering from the influence of a
strong narcotic. Opium would produce it, but the
effects would be increased bf the use of aconite, and
her depresSion was like the effect of antimony.
After her death antimony was found in her body,
but no narcotics, which, being vegetable poisons,
were not detected by chemical analysis so readily as
metallic poisons. For narcotics they looked for the
symptoms during the illness. There were no signs
whatever of apoplexy.

Mr. Clark rose to address the jury for the defence. He
said—Gentlemen of the jury, in this indictment the pri-
soner is charged with the committing of two murders—the
one the murder of his mother-in-law, Mrs. Taylor ; the
other the murder of his wife. The annals of human crime
are, indeed, well filled with murders ; but if he is guilty of
the charges which are made against him, I do not hesitate
to say that he is the foulest of criminals that ever lived.
Gentlemen, he is a worthy member of an honourable pro-
fession, whose duty and whose pleasure it is to assuage
suffering and ward off the attacks of disease, and to do their
best to prolong human life ; and we all know how nobly,
how generously, how unselfishly that duty is discharged.
But here it is said that the physician became the
destroyer, and that he used his art of healing to
sap the foundations of life. That, indeed, would be a crime
for which the capital charge would in no degree indicate
the measure of the prisoner's guilt, if he indeed be guilty.
He is charged with having murdered two defenceless,
trusting, devoted women, to the one of whom, to use the
expressive language of Dr. Cowan, he was the idol, and to
the other of whom ho was united by the most tender of
human ties, who was the mother of his children, and who
loved him with all a wife's trusting, devoted heart. He
cannot plead that it was passion, or that reason for
a time left its seat, and led him on to the com-
mission of the foul deed. Palliation cannot even
be pleaded. No; for if he were truly the author
of the crime, we would have to accept the words
of the Solicitor-General, and say he is indeed
guilty. The crime with which he is charged is
the cold-blooded, deliberate poisoning of two loving,
trusting women. If he be guilty, his cruelty knew no
compassion; for if it be true that he poisoned these women,
he did not resort to the use of drugs that in a few hours or
minutes would have put them beyond the reach of pain,
but choose to practise his devilish art by slow degrees, ad-
ministering poison that gradually sapped the life's blood of
his wife—poison which, if the charge against him be true,
was administered day by day, and week after week, and yet
during the two or three months that elapsed from the com-
mencement of her illness he is represented not as watching
over the tortures and agonies of his wife, but as endeavour-
big to soothe those tortures and those agonies, and as hold-
ing lovingly in his arms, and as sleeping calmly by the
side of that woman whom we are told his infernal practices
had doomed to her death. This is the crime which is
charged. It isnothing less; it is, I believe, much greater, for
I have only attempted to pourtray those feelings which
must necessarily arise in every well-regulated mind in
conceiving a man guilty of so great a crime as that with
which the prisoner is charged. But I think that at least
I am well entitled to say that before you can hold him
guilty you must have overwhelming evidence of his guilt.
I say this, for I think it hardly conceivable that any being
made at the hands of the great God above, unless a person
utterly devoid of human sentiment and human feeling,
could practise atrocities so frightful as those which are
charged in the present instance. I make these remarks
simply for the purpose of pointing out to you the
character of the charge, because, unless you have before
you the character of the charge which is named you can-
not well appreciate the endeavour which the Crown
is seeking to establish. In regard to that evidence, I
have to say that if there be any reasonable doubt in your
mind as to the proof which has already been said by the
prosecutor, the prisoner is entitled to the benefit of that
doubt. But, gentlemen, I have yet to proceed to the con-
sideration of that evidence by which it is said so fearful a
crime has been proved against the prisoner, for I beg to say,
you must consider that the public prosecutor has not been
able to assign or suggest any motive for the commission of
such a crime. True it is that the Solicitor-General endea-
voured to show he need not assign or•suggest a motive,
and I am not here to plead that murder may not be
committed, though there be.no motive for murder. But
still, gentlemen, in considering whether there is evidence
sufficient, it is hard to throw out of view whether or not
there are considerations which might in any degree have
impelled him to the commission of these crimes. All the
Crown have been able to suggest is, I think, those trifles
arising from the alleged connection he had with Mary
M'Leod, and the expectation of some succession to be de-
rived through the death of the mother-in-law, Mrs. Taylor.
Gentlemen, if Mary M'Leod is to be believed, if without
corroboration whatever her statement is to be taken for truth,
if in the absence of proof, if any familiarity whatever ob-
served in that household between the prisoner and her—
and I cannot think there is a motive which could influence
the prisoner to the commission of these crimes—the motive
seems to-be, if I understand it, a desire to marry that girl,
Mary M'Leod ; to marry a girl whose person he previously
possessed ; and to carry out that intention he should tread
over the dead bodies of these two defenceless women. That
may have been a motive for some ono to commit the crime,
but it is impossible to conceive it to be a motive to him. In
the case of Mrs. Taylor, surely the motive is less. It ap-
pears the Crown have been at pains to show that this
unhappy man had his bank account overdrawn to the ex-
tent of £360 ; and that he had borrowed upon two policies
of insurance effected in 1851, and they
tell you that, though
he was the idol of Mrs. Taylor, and was able, I dare say,
is receive anything that she could give him, notwithstand-
ing he obtained some chance of a succession of the will in
connection with which he had no idea of the existence. This
was a succession the benefit of which he only had when his
children obtained their majority. It is not in human nature
to believe that these motives assigned, as suggested by the
Crown, could in the least degree have actuated any human
being to the commission of offences so hideous as these. Now,
therefore, you must approach the consideration of the evi-
dence in this case, keeping full before you the fearful
crimes which aro charged against the prisoner, and also
keeping before you that there is no assignable motive that
can be suggested to impel him to the commission of these
crimes. My learned friend says it was so like a doctor to,
do all this, that probably you could trace therein the finger
of a medical man. Consider the likelihoods. You
heard in evidence that antimony was a poison
that _could be traced in the body. Being a medical
man, the prisoner would not have used such a poison
if he had desired to hide Lis crime; he would have resorted
to occult poisons. The Crown said that he had opportunity
of committing this crime, and that he was in possession of
the means. It is quite true that opportunity is a great topic
in this court; but it could scarcely be brought to bear in