diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/55773-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/55773-0.txt | 7439 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 7439 deletions
diff --git a/old/55773-0.txt b/old/55773-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index c532120..0000000 --- a/old/55773-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7439 +0,0 @@ -Project Gutenberg's My Fifteen Lost Years, by Florence Elizabeth Maybrick - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - -Title: My Fifteen Lost Years - Mrs. Maybrick's Own Story - -Author: Florence Elizabeth Maybrick - -Release Date: October 18, 2017 [EBook #55773] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MY FIFTEEN LOST YEARS *** - - - - -Produced by Cindy Horton and The Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - - - - - - - - - -Mrs. Maybrick’s Own Story - -[Illustration: FLORENCE ELIZABETH MAYBRICK] - - - - - MRS. MAYBRICK’S - OWN STORY - - MY FIFTEEN LOST YEARS - - By - _FLORENCE ELIZABETH MAYBRICK_ - - [Illustration] - - FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY - NEW YORK and LONDON - 1905 - - - - - Copyright, 1904, - By FLORENCE ELIZABETH MAYBRICK - - [Printed in the United States of America] - - Published December, 1904 - - - - - To - - ALL THOSE FRIENDS IN AMERICA AND ENGLAND - - WHO, WITH UNWAVERING FAITH IN MY - INNOCENCE, WORKED STEADFASTLY FOR MY FREEDOM, - THIS BOOK IS GRATEFULLY DEDICATED - - FLORENCE ELIZABETH MAYBRICK. - - - - -CONTENTS - - - PART ONE - - MRS. MAYBRICK’S OWN STORY - - PAGE - - FOREWORD.--Sketch of My Ancestry, 9 - - CHAPTER I.--BEFORE THE TRIAL--My Arrest--A Prisoner - in My Own House--At Walton Jail--Alone--The Coroner’s - Inquest--A Plank for a Bed--The Verdict of the Coroner’s - Jury--The Doctors Disagree--Letters from Walton Jail--Lord - Russell’s Opinion--The Public Condemns Me Unheard, 23 - - CHAPTER II.--THE TRIAL--The Injustice of Trying the Case at - Liverpool--An Unexpected Verdict--The Judge’s Sentence--In - the Shadow of Death--Commutation of Sentence, 50 - - CHAPTER III.--IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT--Removal to Woking - Prison--The Convict Uniform--In Solitary Confinement--The - Daily Routine--The Exercise Hour--The Midday Meal--The - Cruelty of Solitary Confinement, 61 - - CHAPTER IV.--THE PERIOD OF PROBATION--A Change of Cell--Evils - of the Silent System--Insanity and Nervous Breakdown of - Prisoners--Need of Separate Confinement for the - Weak-Minded--Reading an Insufficient Relaxation--My - Sufferings from Cold and Insomnia--Medical Attendance--Added - Sufferings of the Delicately Nurtured--How Criminals and - Imbeciles are Made, 76 - - CHAPTER V.--THE PERIOD OF HARD LABOR--Routine--Talk with the - Chaplain--My Work in the Kitchen--The Machine-made - Menu--Visitors to the Kitchen--The “Homelike” Cell--The - Opiate of Acquiescence--Visits of Prisoners’ Friends--My - Mother’s Visits--A Letter from Lord Russell--Punished for - Another’s Fault--Forms of Punishment--The True Aim of - Punishment--The Evil of Collective Punishment--The Evil of - Constant Supervision--Some Good Points of Convict Prisons--My - Sickness--Taken to the Infirmary--The Utter Desolation of a - Sick Prisoner, 93 - - CHAPTER VI.--AT AYLESBURY PRISON--Removal from Woking--New - Insignia of Shame--Arrival at Aylesbury Prison--A New Prison - Régime--The Board of Visitors--Regulations Concerning - Letters and Visits--My Letter to Gail Hamilton--A Visit from - Lord Russell, 127 - - CHAPTER VII.--A PETITION FOR RELEASE--Denied by the Secretary - of State--Report of My Misconduct Refuted--Need of a Court of - Criminal Appeal--Historic Examples of British Injustice--The - Case of Adolf Beck, 145 - - CHAPTER VIII.--RELIGION IN PRISON LIFE--Dedication of New - Chapel--Influence of Religion upon Prisoners--Suicide of a - Prisoner--Tragedies in Prison--Moral Effect of Harsh Prison - Régime--Attacks of Levity--Self-discipline--Need of Women - Doctors and Inspectors--Chastening Effect of Imprisonment on - the Spirit--A Death-Bed Incident, 167 - - CHAPTER IX.--MY LAST YEARS IN PRISON--I Am Set to Work in the - Library--Newspapers Forbidden--How Prisoners Learn of Great - Events--Strict Discipline of Prison Officers--Their High - Character--Nervous Strain of Their Duties--Standing Orders - for Warders--Crime a Mental Disease--Something Good in the - Worst Criminal--Need of Further Prison Reform, 194 - - CHAPTER X.--MY RELEASE--I Learn the Time When My Sentence Will - Terminate--The Dawn of Liberty--The Release--In Retreat at - Truro--I Come to America--My Lost Years, 211 - - - PART TWO - - ANALYSIS OF THE MAYBRICK CASE - - INTRODUCTION.--Petitions for a Reprieve--Illogical Position of - Home Secretary--New Evidence of My Innocence Ignored--Lord - Russell’s Letter--Efforts for Release--Even New Evidence - Superfluous--The Doctors’ Doubt--Public Surprise at Verdict-- - Character of Jury--The “Mad Judge”--Justice Stephen’s Biased - Charge--Lord Russell’s Memorandum Quashed--Repeated Protests - of Lord Russell--The American Official Petition--Secretary - Blaine’s Letter to Minister Lincoln--Henry W. Lucy on Lord - Russell--Lord Russell’s Conviction of Mrs. Maybrick’s - Innocence--Explanation of Attitude of Home Secretaries-- - Upholding the Justiciary--Need of Court of Criminal Appeal, 225 - - THE BRIEF OF MESSRS. LUMLEY & LUMLEY.--Opinion Re F. E. - Maybrick--Justice Stephen’s Misdirections--Misdirections as - to Mr. Maybrick’s Symptoms--Misdirections as to Mrs. - Maybrick’s Access to Poisons--Misdirection as to “Traces” - of Arsenic--Misdirection as to Arsenic in Solution--Mr. - Clayton’s Experiments--Misdirection as to Arsenic in - Glycerin--Misdirection as to Evidence of Physicians-- - Misdirection as to Times When Arsenic May Have Been - Administered--Misdirection as to Mrs. Maybrick’s Changing - Medicine Bottles--Misdirection as to Administration with - Intent to Kill--Exclusion of Prisoner’s Testimony-- - Misdirection as to Identity of Meat-Juice Bottle-- - Misdirection in Excluding Corroboration of Prisoner’s - Statement--Misdirections to Jury to Draw Illegal - Inferences--Misdirections Regarding the Medical Testimony-- - Conflict of Medical Opinion--Misdirections as to Cause of - Death--Misdirection to Ignore Medical Testimony--Misreception - of Evidence--Cruel Misstatement by Coroner--Medical Evidence - for the Prosecution--Maybrick Died a Natural Death--The Chief - Witness for the Prosecution--Medical Evidence for Defense--A - Toxicological Study--Medical Weakness of Prosecution--The - Administration of Arsenic--The Fly-paper Episode--How Mrs. - Maybrick Accounts for the Fly-papers--Administration of - Arsenic not Proved--Intent to Murder not Proved--Absence of - Concealment by Prisoner--Some Important Deductions from - Medical Testimony--Symptoms Due to Poisonous Drugs--Death from - Natural Causes--Prosecution’s Deductions from Post-mortem - Analysis Misleading--Recapitulation of Legal Points, 262 - - MRS. MAYBRICK’S OWN ANALYSIS OF THE MEAT-JUICE INCIDENT, 366 - - MEMORIALS FOR RESPITE OF SENTENCE.--From the Physicians of - Liverpool--From the Bars of Liverpool and London--From - Citizens of Liverpool, 381 - - NEW EVIDENCE.--Arsenic Sold to Maybrick by Druggist--Arsenic - Supplied to Maybrick by Manufacturing Chemist--Depositions as - to Mr. Maybrick’s Arsenic Habit--Justice Stephen’s Retirement, 384 - - - - -LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS - - - Florence Elizabeth Maybrick, _Frontispiece_ - - FACING PAGE - - The Late Dr. Helen Densmore, 32 - - Lord Charles Russell, 48 - - St. George’s Hall, Liverpool, 52 - - Justice Fitz-James Stephen, 56 - - Baroness von Roques, 112 - - Aylesbury Prison, 128 - - Miss Mary A. Dodge (“Gail Hamilton”), 144 - - Right Hon. A. Akers-Douglas, M.P., 216 - - Hon. James G. Blaine, 248 - - Hon. Robert T. Lincoln, 256 - - Hon. John Hay, 288 - - Hon. Joseph H. Choate, 320 - - Samuel V. Hayden, 352 - - Leonidas D. Yarrell, 368 - - - - -FOREWORD - - -The writing of this book has been to me no joyful task, as its making -has been at the expense of much-needed rest and peace of mind. In -returning to my dear native land after a long imprisonment, I cherished -the hope that I might as quietly as possible be permitted to take up -the threads of outward existence so cruelly broken, little dreaming -that trials hardly less grievous than those left behind awaited me; -for no sooner had I touched these hospitable shores, when I was met -by the fear-inspiring cry, “You must write a book--you must give the -world an account of your sufferings”--as if one could never suffer -enough. My well-meaning friends could hardly have known what they were -asking in forcing upon me a mental return to the dread past. Solitary -confinement in Woking Prison (as the reader may learn from these pages) -was not such an elysium that one should voluntarily desire to hark back -to it, nor is penal servitude in Aylesbury an Arcadian dream. While -within their grim walls I did my best to exclude from thought the world -without; and now that I am once again in the world (though scarcely of -it), my one desire to shut out all the abhorrent things which so-called -“prison life” stands for has thus far not only failed of realization, -but, under conditions even more trying than the repressive prison -régime (because of the free and happy life all about, which it seemed -to poor me that I had some right to share), I have been compelled by -force of circumstance to return to my cast-off prison shell, and live -all the old heart-and-brain-crushing life over again. However, my -second “trial and imprisonment,” like the first, is at last drawing to -a close; and I devoutly trust that I shall be now permitted to enter -upon a long-coveted rest, and partake as I may of those tempered joys -which my countrymen by their beautiful sympathy have so chivalrously -endeavored to make possible for me. - -Theoretically my imprisonment terminated on English soil, but so -relentlessly have the fates pursued me that I have been in nowise free -quite up to the present moment. In Rouen, France, where I sojourned at -my mother’s home for three weeks, I was as much in durance to my genial -enemy, the ubiquitous reporter, as when the English Government held me -in its inexorable grasp. Our cottage was completely invested by him, -and all approaches and exits held with a persistency which, under other -circumstances, might well have extorted my admiration. - -Then came the ever-to-be-remembered sea voyage. I am a good sailor, -and so the physical discomforts that beset so many were agreeably -minimized; but I could not throw off the feeling that I was not yet -free--the limits of the ship were still all too suggestive of the -narrow exercise grounds of Aylesbury prison; and, while the eye -could roam without hindrance, there came upon me again and again an -irresistible desire, which the rolling billows strenuously gainsaid, to -make a dash for liberty. - -Thereupon followed a couple of days at the Holland House, New York, -with the same persistent reporter never absent. After this experience, -I was taken by the kindest of friends to where nature is at her -loveliest and human hearts beat in unison with their uplifting -surroundings. Beautiful Cragsmoor, with its wide reaches of inspiring -scenery, most appropriately the summer home of an artistic colony, is -not too easy of access to mar a desire for seclusion, and a greater -antithesis to prison walls than is afforded by this aerie can hardly be -imagined. - -Here all things that on lower planes so cruelly vex the spirit seem -far away and beneath. If only no publishers--however benevolent--had -entered this Eden, what a paradise it could have been to me! However, -in spite of these dread taskmasters, my soul drank deeply of the elixir -so bountifully held to my lips; and when in the golden autumn all -the noble woods about robed themselves in such glory as may be seen -nowhere outside my beloved native land--and perchance nowhere here more -ravishingly than in these Hudson Valley uplands--the rapture of my -heart, so long starved within the narrowest and cruelest of confines, -turned adoringly to Him who has made this world so beautiful for His -children’s eyes. - -I need hardly be at pains to say to my readers, that lessons in -literary composition form no part of the disciplinary curriculum of -Aylesbury; nay, the art of writing is distinctly discouraged there, as -interfering with the prescribed parliamentary régime. Accordingly, when -I set out to tell my pitiful little story, I was told to look at myself -objectively; then to pry into myself subjectively; then to regard -both in their relation to the outside world--to describe how this, -that, or the other affected me; in short, as one of them, more deep in -science than others, expressed it, “We want as much as possible of the -psychology of your prison life.” - -I surreptitiously looked up that awe-inspiring word in a dictionary, -and found that it refers to the soul, and that it was my soul they -wanted me to lay bare. I vehemently protested that that belonged to -my God, and I had no right to expose it for daws to peck at. But the -publishers, with the aid of my friends, persuaded me that the public -would give me their tenderest regard, and that possibly the humanities -might be furthered a bit if the story of a woman--whatever might be her -failings in other directions--wholly guiltless of the terrible charge -of wilful murder, and for which in her innocence she was made to suffer -so cruelly, be given in fullest heart detail to a sympathetic world. -So I have done what I trust is best for all--spared myself as little -as possible, lest the picture fail from suppression--and my dearest -heart-hope is that somewhat of good may come of it, especially in -behalf of those whom a dire fate shall compel to follow in my steps, -with bruised spirits and bleeding feet. - - -SKETCH OF MY ANCESTRY - -I was born at Mobile, Ala., September 3, 1862. In searching for -some account of my genealogy, I found a published letter of Gail -Hamilton’s, who was ever one of my most eloquent and steadfast -champions, and to whom I owe a debt of gratitude I can never adequately -express. From this it appears that I am the great-great-granddaughter -of Rev. Benjamin Thurston, a graduate of Harvard College, who settled -at North Hampton, N. H., and of his wife, Sarah Phillips, who was -the sister of John Phillips, who founded Phillips’ Academy in -Exeter, endowed a professorship in Dartmouth, and contributed funds -to Princeton; and who was the aunt of Samuel Phillips, who founded -Phillips’s Academy at Andover. - -The mother of Sarah Phillips was Elizabeth Green, and from her the name -of Elizabeth has come down in regular descent to myself. - -Elizabeth, daughter of Benjamin Thurston and Sarah Phillips, married -James Milk Ingraham. Joseph H. Ingraham, of this family, gave to -Portland, Me., for its improvement, property now amounting in value to -millions--beautiful State Street, the market, the property of the High -School, and much more. One of the Ingrahams was the wife of Philander -Chase, the first Bishop of Illinois, uncle of Salmon P. Chase, who -was Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln and Chief Justice of the -Supreme Court of the United States. Of the Ingraham family was that -Commodore Ingraham who won laurels for his country and himself by -rescuing Martin Koszata from the clutch of Austria. Connected with the -Ingrahams was that Edward Preble, born at Falmouth Neck, whose father -served under Wolfe and was wounded at Quebec; also that Commander -Preble whose achievement before Tripoli was rewarded with a gold medal -and the thanks of Congress. Rev. John Phillips and Thurston Ingraham, -author of “Why We Believe the Bible,” both rectors in the Protestant -Episcopal Church, were sons of James Milk Ingraham and Elizabeth -Thurston Ingraham. John Ingraham, son of the preceding, is rector of -Grace Church, St. Louis, Mo. His sister, Elizabeth Thurston Ingraham, -married Darius Blake Holbrook, who was born in Dorchester, Mass. His -mother was a Ridgeway. Her sister married a Quincy, and was aunt to -John Quincy Adams. Mr. Holbrook was an originator of the land grant -for the Illinois Central Railroad and its first president. He owned -Cairo, at the mouth of the Ohio, and was associated with Cyrus Field -in laying the first Atlantic cable. Caroline Elizabeth was the only -child of Darius Blake Holbrook and Elizabeth Thurston Holbrook. She -married William G. Chandler, of the banking house of St. John Powers & -Co., Mobile, Ala. William G. Chandler’s father was Daniel Chandler, a -lawyer of high standing in Georgia; his mother was Sarah Campbell, a -sister of John A. Campbell, at one time Assistant Secretary of State -for the Confederacy, and previously judge of the Supreme Court of the -United States. Judge L. Q. C. Lamar, long a United States Senator, and -afterward a justice of the Supreme Court, was near of kin. - -To William G. Chandler and Caroline Elizabeth Holbrook Chandler two -children were born--Holbrook St. John and Florence Elizabeth. Their -father died in 1863, and their mother, on account of the war, took the -children abroad to be educated. The son died while pursuing his medical -studies. - -As will be seen from the above summary of Gail Hamilton’s statement, I -am descended, on both my paternal and my maternal side for generations, -from good American stock. I was educated partly in Europe and partly -in America, under the instruction of masters and governesses. I was too -delicate for college life. I lived partly with my maternal grandmother, -Elizabeth Holbrook, of New York, and partly with my mother, the -Baroness von Roques, whose home was abroad. When not with them I was -visiting or traveling with friends. My life was much the same as that -of any other girl who enjoyed the pleasures of youth with a happy -heart. I was very fond of tracing intricate designs and copying the -old-time churches and cathedrals. My special pastime, however, was -riding, and this I could indulge in to my heart’s content when residing -with my stepfather, Baron Adolph von Roques, who, now retired, was at -that time a cavalry officer in the Eighth Cuirassier Regiment of the -German army and stationed at Cologne. - -At the age of eighteen I married James Maybrick, on the 27th of July, -1881, at St. James Church, Piccadilly, London, and returned to America, -where we made our home at Norfolk, Va. For business reasons we settled -in a suburb of Liverpool called Aigworth. A son was born to us on the -24th of March, 1882, and a daughter on June 20, 1886. - - FLORENCE ELIZABETH MAYBRICK. - - - - -CHAPTER ONE - -Before the Trial - - -MY ARREST - -Slowly consciousness returned. I opened my eyes. The room was in -darkness. All was still. Suddenly the silence was broken by the bang of -a closing door which startled me out of my stupor. Where was I? Why was -I alone? What awful thing had happened? A flash of memory! My husband -was dead! I drifted once more away from the things of sense. Then a -voice, as if a long way off, spoke. A feeling of pain and distress shot -through my body. I opened my eyes in terror. Edwin Maybrick was bending -over me as I lay upon my bed. He had my arms tightly gripped, and was -shaking me violently. “I want your keys--do you hear? Where are your -keys?” he exclaimed harshly. I tried to form a reply, but the words -choked me, and once more I passed into unconsciousness. - -It is the dawn of a Sabbath day.[1] I am still lying in my clothes, -neglected and uncared for; without food since the morning of the day -before. Consciousness came and went. During one of these interludes -Michael Maybrick entered. - -“Nurse,” he said, “I am going up to London. Mrs. Maybrick is no longer -mistress of this house. As one of the executors I forbid you to allow -her to leave this room. I hold you responsible in my absence.” - -He then left the room. What did he mean? How dare he humble me thus in -the presence of a stranger? - -Toward the night of the same day I said to the nurse, “I wish to see -my children.” She took no notice. My voice was weak, and I thought -perhaps she had not heard. “Nurse,” I repeated, “I want to see my -children.” She walked up to my bed, and in a cold, deliberate voice -replied: “You can not see Master James and Miss Gladys. Mr. Michael -Maybrick gave orders that they were to leave the house without seeing -you.” I fell back upon my pillow, dazed and stricken, weak, helpless, -and impotent. Why was I treated thus? My brain reeled in seeking a -reply to this query. At last I could bear it no longer, and my soul -cried out to God to let me die. A third dreary night, and the day broke -once again. I was still prostrate. The dull pain at my heart, the -yearning for my little children, was becoming unbearable, but I was -dumb. - -Suddenly the door opened and Dr. Humphreys entered. He walked silently -to my bedside, felt my pulse, and without a word left the room. A few -minutes later I heard the tramp of many feet coming up-stairs. They -stopped at the door. The nurse advanced, and a crowd of men entered. -One of them stepped to the foot of the bed and addressed me as follows: - -“Mrs. Maybrick, I am superintendent of the police, and I am about to -say something to you. After I have said what I intend to say, if you -reply be careful how you reply, because whatever you say may be used as -evidence against you. Mrs. Maybrick, you are in custody on suspicion of -causing the death of your late husband, James Maybrick, on the eleventh -instant.” I made no reply, and the crowd passed out. - - -A PRISONER IN MY OWN HOUSE - -Was I going mad? Did I hear myself accused of poisoning my husband? Why -did not his brothers, who said they had his confidence, tell the police -what all his intimate friends knew, that he was an arsenic eater? Why -was I accused--I, who had nursed him assiduously day and night until -my strength gave out, who had engaged trained nurses, and advised a -consultation of physicians, and had done all that lay in my power to -aid in his recovery? To whom could I appeal in my extreme distress? I -lay ill and confined to my bed, with two professional nurses attending -me, and with a policeman stationed in my room, although there was not -and could not be the slightest chance of my escaping. The officer would -not permit the door to be closed day or night, and I was denied in my -own house, even before the inquest, the privacy accorded to a convicted -prisoner. I asked that a cablegram be sent to my lawyers in New York. -Inspector Baxendale read it, and then said he did not consider it of -importance and should not send it. I then implored Dr. Humphreys to ask -a friendly lawyer, Mr. R. S. Cleaver, of Liverpool, to come out to see -me. After some delay Mr. Cleaver obtained a permit to enter the house -and undertook to represent me. - -The fourth day came and went. On the fifth day, May 16, the stillness -of the house was broken by the sound of hushed voices and hurrying -footsteps. “Nurse,” I exclaimed, when I could no longer bear the -feeling of oppression that possessed me, “is anything the matter?” She -turned, and in a cold, harsh voice replied, “The funeral starts in an -hour.” “Whose funeral?” I asked. “Your husband’s,” the nurse exclaimed; -“but for you he would have been buried on Tuesday.” I stared at her for -a moment, and then, trembling from head to foot, got out of bed and -commenced with weak hands to dress myself. The nurse looked alarmed, -and came forward. “Stand back!” I cried. “I will see my husband before -he is taken away.” She placed herself in front of me; I pushed her -aside and confronted the policeman at the door. “I demand to see my -husband,” I exclaimed. “The law does not permit a person to be treated -as guilty until she is proven so.” - -He hesitated, and then said, “Follow me.” With tottering steps, -supported by the nurse, I was led into the adjoining room. Upon the -bed stood the coffin, covered with white flowers. It was already -closed. I turned to the policeman and the nurse. “Leave me alone with -the dead.” They refused. I then knelt down at the bedside, and God in -His mercy spared my reason by granting me, there and then, the first -tears which many days of suffering had failed to bring. Death had wiped -out the memory of many things. I was thankful to remember that I had -stopped divorce proceedings, and that we had become reconciled for -the children’s sake. Calmed, I arose and returned to my room. I sat -down near a window, still weeping. Suddenly the harsh voice of a nurse -broke on my ears: “If you wish to see the last of the husband you have -poisoned you had better stand up. The funeral has started.” I stumbled -to my feet and clutched at the window-sill, where I stood rigid and -tearless until the hearse had passed, and was out of sight, and then I -fainted. - -When I recovered consciousness I asked why my mother had not been sent -for. No answer was made, but a tardy summons was sent to her at Paris. -When she arrived she came to me at once. What a meeting! She kissed -me, and was speaking a few loving words in French, when the nurse -interposed and said, “You must speak in English,” and the policeman -joined in with “I warn you, madam, that I will write down all you -say,” and he produced paper and pencil. I then begged my mother to go -into Liverpool to see the Messrs. Cleaver, who represented me, as they -would give her all the information she required; and then I cried out -in the bitterness of my heart, “Mother, they all believe me guilty, -but I swear to you I am innocent.” That night I had a violent attack -of hysteria. Two nurses and the policeman held me down, and when my -mother, outraged by his presence, wished to take his place and send -him from the room, Nurse Wilson became insolent and turned her out. - - -AT WALTON JAIL - -The next morning, Saturday, the 18th of May, Dr. Hopper and Dr. -Humphreys visited me, to ascertain whether I was in a condition to -permit of formal proceedings taking place in my bedroom. In a few -minutes they gave their consent. The magistrates and others then came -up-stairs. - -There were present Colonel Bidwell, Mr. Swift (clerk), Superintendent -Bryning, and my lawyers, the Messrs. Cleaver, Dr. Hopper, and Dr. -Humphreys. I was fully conscious, but too prostrate to make any -movement. Besides those in the room, there were seated outside the -policeman and the nurse. Superintendent Bryning, who had taken up his -position at the foot of the bed, said: “This person is Mrs. Maybrick, -charged with causing the death of the late James Maybrick. She is -charged with causing his death by administering poison to him. I -understand that her consent is given to a remand, and therefore I need -not introduce nor give evidence.” - -Mr. Swift: “You ask for a remand for eight days?” - -Mr. Arnold Cleaver: “I appear for the prisoner.” - -Colonel Bidwell: “Very well; I consent to a remand. That is all.” - -These gentlemen then departed. The police were in such a hurry to -prefer the formal charge, they could not wait until the doctors -should certify that I was in a fit state to be taken to the court in -the ordinary way. The nurse then told me I must get up and dress. I -prayed that my children might be sent for to bid me good-by--but I -was peremptorily refused. I begged to gather together some necessary -personal apparel, only to meet with another refusal. I was hurried -away with such unseemly haste, that even my hand-bag with my toilet -articles was left behind. My mother implored to be allowed to say -good-by, but was denied. She had gone up to her bedroom, so she tells -me, which looked out on the front, to try and see my face as they put -me in the carriage, when they turned the key and locked her in. After I -had gone a policeman unlocked the door. - -[Illustration: THE LATE DR. HELEN DENSMORE, An American advocate of -Mrs. Maybrick’s innocence.] - -After a two hours’ drive we arrived at Walton Jail, in the suburbs of -Liverpool. I shuddered as I looked at the tall, gloomy building. A -bell was ringing, and the big iron gates swung back and allowed us to -pass in. I was received by the governor and immediately led away by -a female warder. We crossed a small courtyard and stopped at a door -which she unlocked and relocked. Then we passed down a narrow passage -to a door that led into a dark, gloomy room termed the “Reception.” A -bench ran along each side, a bare wooden table stood in the middle, -a weighing-machine by the door, with a foot measure beside it. A -female warder asked me to give up any valuables in my possession. -These consisted of a watch, two diamond rings, and a brooch. They were -entered in a book. Then I was asked to stand upon the weighing-machine, -and my weight was duly noted. These formalities completed, I was led -through a building into a cell especially set apart for sick prisoners. -The escort locked me in, and, utterly exhausted, stricken with a sense -of horror and degradation, I sank upon the stone floor, reiterating, -until consciousness left me, “Oh, my God, help me--help me!” - - -ALONE - -When I opened my eyes I was in bed and alone. I gazed around. At the -bedside was a chair with a china cup containing milk, and a plate -of bread upon it. The cell was bare. The light struggled in dimly -through a dirty, barred window. The stillness was appalling, and I felt -benumbed--a sense of terrible oppression weighed me down. If only I -could hear once more the sound of a friendly voice! If only some one -would tell whose diabolical mind had conceived and directed suspicion -against me! - -I remained in the cell three days, when my lawyer visited me. He -arranged that I was to have a room especially set apart for prisoners -awaiting trial who can afford to pay five shillings ($1.25) weekly, for -the additional comfort of a table, an arm-chair, and a wash-stand. Had -I not been able to do so I should have been consigned to an ordinary -prison cell, and my diet would have been the same as that of convicted -prisoners. Instead, my food was sent from a hotel outside. I was locked -in this room for twenty-two hours out of the twenty-four. The only time -I was permitted to leave it was for chapel in the morning and an hour’s -exercise in the afternoon in the prison yard. The stillness, unbroken -by any sound from the outside world, got on my nerves, and I wanted -to scream, if only to hear my own voice. The unnatural confinement, -without any one to speak to, was torture. The governor, the doctor, and -the chaplain, it is true, came around every morning, but their visits -were of such short duration, and so formal in their nature, that it was -impossible to derive much relief from conversation with them. - - -THE CORONER’S INQUEST - -On the 28th of May the Coroner’s inquest was held, but I was not well -enough to attend. I was represented by my legal advisers. On the 3d of -June I was still too ill to appear before the court. Mr. W. S. Barrett, -as magistrate, accompanied by Mr. Swift, the clerk, held a Magisterial -Court at Walton Jail. Mr. R. S. Cleaver did not attend, having -consented to the police obtaining another remand for a week. Only one -newspaper reporter was allowed to be present. I was accompanied to the -visitors’ room by a female warder, and silently took a seat at the -foot of a long table. I was quite composed. Superintendent Bryning rose -from his seat at the end of the room and said: - -“This person, sir, is Mrs. Maybrick, who is charged with the murder of -her husband, at Aigburth, on the 11th of last month. I have to ask that -you remand her until Wednesday next.” - -Mr. Swift: “Mr. Cleaver, her solicitor, has sent me a note in which he -consents to a remand until Wednesday.” - -Mr. Barrett: “If there is no objection she will be remanded until -Wednesday morning.” - - -A PLANK FOR A BED - -The magistrate then signed the document authorizing the remand, and I -withdrew. On the 5th of June the adjourned inquest was held, and I was -taken from jail at half-past eight in the morning to the Coroner’s -Court in a cab, accompanied by Dr. O’Hagan, a female attendant, and -a policeman. I was taken into the ante-room for the purpose of being -identified by the witnesses for the prosecution. I was not taken -into court, but at three o’clock Mr. Holbrook Gaskell, a magistrate, -attended for the purpose of granting another remand, pending the result -of the inquest, and again no evidence was given in my presence. I was -taken to the county police station, Lark Lane. I passed the night in a -cell which contained only a plank board as a bed. It was dark, damp, -dirty, and horrible. A policeman, taking pity on me, brought me a -blanket to lie on. In the adjoining cell, in a state of intoxication, -two men were raving and cursing throughout the night. I had no -light--there was no one to speak to. I was kept there three days, until -the coroner’s jury had returned their verdict. A greengrocer near by, -named Mrs. Pretty, to whom I had occasionally given orders for fruit, -sent me in a daily gift of her best with a note of sympathy--a deed -all the more striking in its generosity and nobleness, since the -charity of none other of my own sex had reached to that degree of -justice to regard me as innocent until proven guilty. - - -THE VERDICT OF THE CORONER’S JURY - -On the 6th of June I was again driven to Garston to hear the coroner’s -verdict. There was an elaborate array of lawyers, reporters, and -witnesses, as well as many spectators. - -I waited in the ante-room until the coroner’s jury had summed up. The -jury consisted mostly of gentlemen who at one time had been guests in -my own house. Of all former friends present, there was only one who had -the moral courage to approach me and shake my hand. Throughout the time -I sat awaiting the call to appear before the coroner he remained beside -me, speaking words of encouragement. But the others, who, without -a word of evidence in my defense, had already judged and condemned -me, passed by on the other side, for had they not already judged and -condemned me? - -When my name was called a dead hush pervaded the court, and the coroner -said: - -“Have you agreed upon your verdict, gentlemen?” - -The Foreman: “We have.” - -Q. “Do you find that death resulted from the administration of an -irritant poison?” - -A. “Unanimously.” - -Q. “Do you say by whom that poison was administered?” - -A. “By twelve to one we decide that the poison was administered by Mrs. -Maybrick.” - -Q. “Do you find that the poison was administered with the intent of -taking life?” - -A. “Twelve of us have come to that conclusion.” - -The Coroner: “That amounts to a verdict of murder.” - -Then the requisition was made out in the following terms: - - “That James Maybrick, on the 11th of May, 1889, in the township of - Garston, died from the effects of an irritant poison administered to - him by Florence Elizabeth Maybrick, and so the jurors say: that the - said Florence Elizabeth Maybrick did wilfully, feloniously, and of - malice aforethought kill and murder the said James Maybrick.” - -I was then driven back to the Lark Lane Police Station, locked up, and -remained the night. The next day I was returned to Walton Jail. How -shall I describe my feelings? Mere words are utterly inadequate to do -so. Not only was my sense of justice and fair play outraged, but it -seemed to me a frightful danger to personal safety if the police, on -the mere gossip of servants, and where a doctor had been unable to -assign the cause of death, could go into a home and take an inmate -into custody in the way I have shown. - -On the 13th of June I was brought before the magistrates, and for the -first time evidence was given in my presence. I had been driven over to -the court-house the evening before, and had passed the night there in -charge of a policeman’s daughter, who remained in the room with me. Her -father kept watch on the other side of the door. That night, on going -to bed, as I knelt weary and lonely to say my prayers, I felt a hand on -my shoulder and a tearful voice said, softly, “Let me hold your hand, -Mrs. Maybrick, and let me say my prayers with you.” A simple expression -of sympathy, but it meant so much to me at such a time. - - -THE DOCTORS DISAGREE - -At half-past eight I was taken to a room adjoining the court, where, in -charge of a female warder and a policeman, I awaited my call. I then -passed into the court, where two magistrates, Sir William B. Forwood -and Mr. W. S. Barrett, sat officially to hear the evidence. When the -testimony had been given the court adjourned. - -When I rose to leave the court, in order to reach the door, I had -to meet face to face well-dressed women spectators at the back, and -the moment I turned around these started hissing me. The presiding -justice immediately shouted to the officer on duty to shut the door, -while the burly figures of several policemen, who moved toward the -hostile spectators, effectually put an end to the outburst. It was amid -such scenes, and this sort of preparation for my ordeal, that on the -following day, the 14th of June, the Magisterial Inquiry was resumed, -and the evidence connected with the charge of murder gone into. On -conclusion of the testimony the magistrates retired, and after a brief -consultation returned into court. - -Sir William Forwood: “Our opinion is that this is a case which ought to -be decided by jury.” - -Mr. Pickford (my counsel): “If that is clearly the opinion of the Bench -I shall not occupy their time by going into the defense now, because I -understand, whatever defense may be put forward, the Bench may think it -right for a jury to decide.” - -The Chairman: “Yes, we think so.” - -I was then ordered to stand up and was formally charged in the usual -manner. - -I replied: “I reserve my defense.” - -Sir William Forwood made answer: “Florence Elizabeth Maybrick, it is -our duty to commit you to take your trial at the ensuing Assizes for -wilful murder of the late James Maybrick.” - -I was then remanded into custody. - -I found it difficult to understand why these magistrates committed -me to trial for murder on that evidence. There was certainly not -sufficient evidence that the cause of death was arsenic. The doctors -could not say so. No arsenic had been found by the analyst in the -stomach, the appearance of which at the _post-mortem_, Dr. Humphreys -said, was “consistent” with either poisoning or ordinary congestion -of the stomach; but, after examination, a minute quantity of arsenic, -certainly not enough to cause death, was detected in the liver, the -appearance of which, Dr. Humphreys said, showed no evidence of any -irritant poison. On this point Dr. Carter agreed with Dr. Humphreys, -“but in a more positive manner,” while Dr. Barron did not exactly agree -with Dr. Carter. - -The analyst had found both arsenic and “traces” of arsenic, in some -bottles and things which had been found in the house after death, as -to which, where they came from, or who had put them there, no one -had any knowledge. This is the evidence upon which I was committed. -Justice Stephen, in addressing the grand jury, even thus early showed -a predisposition against me, due at this time, no doubt, to the -sensational reports in the press. A true bill was found, and I was -brought to trial before him on the 31st of July. - - -LETTERS FROM WALTON JAIL - -The six weeks intervening before my trial were very terrible. The -mental strain was incessant, and I suffered much from insomnia. The -stress and confinement were telling on my health, as was the separation -from my children. I insert here two extracts from letters, written by -me, from Walton Jail. One is to my mother, dated the 21st of July, -1889, a few days before my trial: - - “I am not feeling very well. This fearful strain and the necessity for - continued self-control is beginning to tell upon me. But I am not in - the least afraid. I shall show composure, dignity and fortitude to the - last.” - -The following is an extract from a letter I wrote to a friend on June -27, before my trial on July 31: - - “I have made my peace with God. I have forgiven unreservedly all those - who have ruined and forsaken me. To-morrow I partake of the Holy - Communion with a clear conscience, and I place my faith in God’s - mercy. - - “God give me strength is my constant prayer. I feel so lonely--as - if every hand were against me. To think that for three or four days - I must be unveiled before all those uncharitable eyes. You can not - think how awful it appears to me. So far the ordeal has been all - anticipation; then it will be stern reality--which always braces the - nerves and courage. - - “I have seen in the Liverpool _Post_ the judge’s address on the - prosecution to the jury, and it is enough to appal the stoutest heart. - I hear the police are untiring and getting up the case against me - regardless of expense. - - “Pray for me, my friend, for the darkest days of my life are now to - be lived through. I trust in God’s justice, whatever I may be in the - sight of man.” - - -LORD RUSSELL’S OPINION - -I received many visits from my lawyers, the Messrs. Cleaver, and just -before the trial one from my leading counsel, Sir Charles Russell, -later Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Chief Justice of England. The -following statement made by him relative to this visit may interest my -readers: - - “I will make no public statement of what my personal belief is as to - Mrs. Maybrick’s guilt or innocence, but I will tell you, who have - stood by her all these years, that, perplexed with the instructions - in the brief, I took what was an unusual step: I went to see her in - prison before her trial, and questioned her there to the best of - my ability for the purpose of getting the truth out of her. During - the whole seven days of her trial I made careful observation of her - demeanor, and since her imprisonment I have availed myself of my - judicial right to visit her at Aylesbury Prison; and, making the best - use of such opportunities of arriving at a just conclusion about her - own self-consciousness, I decided in my own mind that it never for a - moment entered her mind to do any bodily injury to her husband. On the - last occasion that I saw her I told her so, as I felt it would and did - give the poor woman some comfort.” - -[Illustration: - - Copyright by W. & D. Downey, London - -LORD CHARLES RUSSELL, Q.C., Late Lord Chief Justice of England, Mrs. -Maybrick’s counsel.] - - -THE PUBLIC CONDEMNS ME UNHEARD - -The day preceding my trial found me calm in spirit, and in a measure -prepared for the awful ordeal before me. Up to that time I had shown -a composure that astonished every one. Indeed, some went so far as to -say I was without feeling. Perhaps I was toward their kind. I would -have responded to sympathy, but never to distrust. At that time I was -suspected by all--or, rather, people were not sufficiently just to -content themselves with suspicions; they condemned me outright, and, -unheard, struck at a weak, defenseless woman; and this upon what is now -generally admitted to have been insufficient evidence to sustain the -indictment. - -FOOTNOTE: - -[1] May 12, 1889. - - - - -CHAPTER TWO - -The Trial - - -THE INJUSTICE OF TRYING THE CASE AT LIVERPOOL - -My trial was set for the 31st of July in St. George’s Hall, Liverpool. -Immediately after nine o’clock on that day, the part of the building -which is open to the general public was filled by a well-dressed -audience, including many of my one-time friends. During all the days -of my trial, I am told, Liverpool society fought for tickets. Ladies -were attired as for a matinée, and some brought their luncheons that -they might retain their seats. Many of them carried opera-glasses, -which they did not hesitate to level at me. The Earl of Sefton occupied -a seat on the bench with the judge, and among the audience were many -public and city men and judicial officers. The press had for two -months supplied nourishment in the form of the most sensational stories -about me, to feed the morbid appetite of the public. The excitement -ran so high that the Liverpool crowds even hissed me as I was driven -through the streets. It was a mockery of justice to hold such a trial -in such a place as Liverpool, at such a time, by a common jury; and it -was a mockery of common sense to expect that any Liverpool common jury -could, when they got into the jury-box, dismiss from their minds all -they had heard and seen. In a letter which I wrote to my mother, when -in Walton Jail, on the 28th of June, about a month before the trial, I -said: “I sincerely hope Messrs. Cleaver will arrange for my trial to -take place in London. I shall receive an impartial verdict there, which -I can not expect from a jury in Liverpool, whose minds will virtually -be made up before any evidence is heard.” Owing, however, to a lack of -funds this hope was not realized. - -I was at this time alone, utterly forsaken, and the only persons to -whom I could look for protection and advice were my lawyers, Messrs. -Cleaver. - -At half-past eight on the morning of my trial, a black van was driven -up to the side door, in the fore part of which were already confined -the male prisoners awaiting trial. I was placed in the rear, a female -warder stepped in, the door was shut, and I felt as if I were already -buried. A crowd witnessed my departure from Walton Jail, and a larger -one was assembled outside St. George’s Hall. But I was conducted into -the building without attracting attention. - -At ten o’clock I heard a blast of trumpets that heralded the judge’s -entrance into court. Shortly after my name was called, and, accompanied -by a male and a female warder, I ascended slowly the stone staircase -from the cells leading to the dock. I was calm and collected in manner, -although aware of the gravity of my position. But the consciousness of -innocence, and a strong faith in Divine support, made me confident -that strength would be given to endure the awful ordeal before me. - -[Illustration: ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LIVERPOOL, Where the trial of Mrs -Maybrick was held.] - -In reply to the Clerk of Arraigns, who read the charge against me of -“feloniously and wilfully murdering my husband, James Maybrick,” I -answered “Not guilty.” It is customary in criminal courts in England -to compel a prisoner to stand in the dock during the whole trial, but -I was provided with a seat by recommendation of the prison doctor, -as I suffered from attacks of faintness, though against this humane -departure a great public outcry was raised. - -The counsel engaged in the case were Mr. Addison, Q.C., M.P. (now judge -at the Southwark County Court), Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Swift, for the -prosecution; Sir Charles Russell, assisted by Mr. Pickford and Messrs. -Cleaver, for the defense. - - -AN UNEXPECTED VERDICT - -When the trial began there was a strong feeling against me, but as it -proceeded, and the fact was made clear that Mr. Maybrick had long -been addicted to taking large quantities of arsenic, coupled with the -evidence, to quote Sir Charles Russell, (1) that there was no proof -of arsenical poisoning, (2) that there was no proof that arsenic was -administered to him by me, the prejudice against me gradually changed, -until, at the close of the trial, there was a complete revulsion of -sentiment, and my acquittal was confidently expected. - -When the jury retired to consider their verdict I was taken below, and -here my solicitor came to speak to me; but the tension of mind was so -great I do not recall one word that he said. - -After what seemed to me an age, but was in reality only thirty-eight -minutes, the jury returned into court and took their places in the -jury-box. I was recalled to the dock. When I stood up to hear the -verdict I had an intuition that it was unfavorable. Every one looked -away from me, and there was a stillness in court that could be felt. -Then the Clerk of Arraigns arose and said: - -“Have you agreed upon the verdict, gentlemen?” - -“We have.” - -“And do you find the prisoner guilty of the murder of James Maybrick or -not guilty?” - -The Foreman: “Guilty.” - -A prolonged “Ah!” strangely like the sighing of wind through a forest, -sounded through the court. I reeled as if struck a blow and sank upon -a chair. The Clerk of Arraigns then turned to me and said: “Florence -Elizabeth Maybrick, you have been found guilty of wilful murder. Have -you anything to say why the court should not pronounce sentence upon -you according to the law?” - -I arose, and with a prayer for strength, I clasped the rail of the dock -in front of me, and said in a low voice, but with firmness: “My lord, -everything has been against me; I am not guilty of this crime.” - - -THE JUDGE’S SENTENCE - -These were the last words which the law permitted me to speak. Mr. -Justice Stephen then assumed the full dress of the criminal judge--the -black cap--and pronounced the sentence of the court in these words: - - “Prisoner at the bar, I am no longer able to treat you as being - innocent of the dreadful crime laid to your charge. You have been - convicted by a jury of this city, after a lengthy and most painful - investigation, followed by a defense which was in every respect worthy - of the man. The jury has convicted you, and the law leaves me no - discretion, and I must pass the sentence of the law: - - “The court doth order you to be taken from hence to the place from - whence you came, and from thence to the place of execution, and that - you be hanged by the neck until you are dead, and that your body be - afterward buried within the precincts of the prison in which you shall - be confined after your conviction. And may the Lord have mercy upon - your soul!” - -[Illustration: - - Copyright by Bassano, London. - -JUSTICE FITZ-JAMES STEPHEN. Who presided at the trial of Mrs. -Maybrick.] - -Utterly stunned I was removed from the court to Walton Jail, there -to be confined until this sentence of the law should be carried into -effect. - -The mob, as the Liverpool public was styled by the press, before they -had heard or read a word of the defense had hissed me when I entered -the court; and now, that they had heard or read the evidence, cheered -me as I drove away in the prison-van, and hissed and hooted the judge, -who with difficulty gained his carriage. - - -IN THE SHADOW OF DEATH - -In all the larger local English prisons there is one room, swept and -ready, the sight of which can not fail to stir unwonted thoughts. -The room is large, with barred windows, and contains only a bed and -a chair. It is the last shelter of those whom the law declares to -have forfeited their lives. Near by is a small brick building in the -prison-yard, that has apparently nothing to connect it with the room; -yet they are joined by a sinister suggestion. - -For nearly three terrible weeks I was confined in this cell of the -condemned, to taste the bitterness of death under its most appalling -and shameful aspect. I was carefully guarded by two female warders, who -would gladly have been spared the task. They might not read nor sleep; -at my meals, through my prayers, during every moment of agony, they -still watched on and rarely spoke. Many have asked me what my feelings -were at that awful time. I remember little in the way of details -as to my state of mind. I was too overwhelmed for either analytic -or collective thought. Conscious of my innocence, I had no fear of -physical death, for the love of my Heavenly Father was so enveloping -that death seemed to me a blessed escape from a world in which such an -unspeakable travesty of justice could take place; while I petitioned -for a reconsideration of the verdict, it was wholly for the sake of my -mother and my children. - -I knew nothing of any public efforts for my relief. I was held fast on -the wheels of a slow-moving machine, hypnotized by the striking hours -and the flight of my numbered minutes, with the gallows staring me in -the face. The date of my execution was not told me at Walton Jail, -but I heard afterward that it was to have taken place on the 26th -of August. On the 22d, while I was taking my daily exercise in the -yard attached to the condemned cell, the governor, Captain Anderson, -accompanied by the chief matron, entered. He called me to him, and, -with a voice which--all honor to him--trembled with emotion, said: - -“Maybrick, no commutation of sentence has come down to-day, and I -consider it my duty to tell you to prepare for death.” - -“Thank you, governor,” I replied; “my conscience is clear. God’s will -be done.” - - -COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE - -He then walked away and I returned to my cell. The female warder was -weeping silently, but I was calm and spent the early part of the night -in my usual prayers. About midnight exhausted nature could bear no -more, and I fainted. I had barely regained consciousness when I heard -the shuffle of feet outside, the click of the key in the lock--that -warning catch in the slow machinery of my doom. I sprang up, and with -one supreme effort of will braced myself for what I believed was the -last act of my life. The governor and a chaplain entered, followed -by a warder. They read my expectation in my face, and the governor, -hastening forward, exclaimed in an agitated voice: “It is well; it is -good news!” When I opened my eyes once more I was lying in bed in the -hospital, and I remained there until I was taken to Woking Convict -Prison. - - - - -CHAPTER THREE - -In Solitary Confinement - - -REMOVAL TO WOKING PRISON - -On the morning of the 29th of August I was hastily awakened by a female -warder, who said that orders had come down from the Home Office for my -removal that day to a convict prison. - -When I left, the governor was standing at the gate, and, with a -kindliness of voice which I deeply appreciated, told me to be brave and -good. - -A crowd was in waiting at the station. I was roughly hustled through it -into a third-class carriage. - -The only ray of light that penetrated those dark hours of my journey -came from an American woman. God bless her, whoever she is or wherever -she is! At every station that the train stopped she got out and came to -the carriage door and spoke words of sympathy and comfort. She was the -first of my countrywomen to voice to me the protest that swelled into -greater volume as the years rolled by. - -As the train drew up at Woking station a crowd assembled. Outside stood -a cab, to which I was at once conducted, and we drove through lovely -woods; the scent of flowers was wafted by the breeze into what seemed -to be a hearse that was bearing me on toward my living tomb. - -As we approached the prison the great iron gate swung wide, and the -cab drove silently into the yard. There I descended. The governor -gave an order, and a woman--who I afterward found was assistant -superintendent--came forward. Accompanied by her and an officer, I was -led across a near-by yard to a building which stood somewhat apart from -the others and is known as the infirmary. There a principal matron -received me, and the assistant superintendent and the chief matron -returned to their quarters. - - -THE CONVICT UNIFORM - -In the grasp of what seemed to me a horrible nightmare, I found -myself in a cell with barred windows, a bed, and a chair. Without, -the stillness of death reigned. I remained there perhaps half an hour -when the door opened and I was commanded by a female warder to follow -her. In a daze I obeyed mechanically. We crossed the same yard again -and entered a door that led into a room containing only a fireplace, a -table, and a bath. Here I was told to take off my clothes, as those I -had traveled in had to be sent back to the prison at Liverpool, where -they belonged. - -When I was dressed in the uniform to which the greatest stigma and -disgrace is attached, I was told to sit down. The warder then stepped -quickly forward, and with a pair of scissors cut off my hair to the -nape of my neck. This act seemed, above all others, to bring me to a -sense of my degradation, my utter helplessness; and the iron of the -awful tragedy, of which I was the innocent victim, entered my soul. I -was then weighed and my height taken. My weight was one hundred and -twelve pounds, and my height five feet three inches. - -Once more I was bidden to follow my guide. We recrossed the yard and -entered the infirmary. Here I was locked in the cell already mentioned. -At last I could be alone after the anguish and torture of the day. I -prayed for sleep that I might lose consciousness of my intolerable -anguish. But sleep, that gentle nurse of the sad and suffering, came -not. What a night! I shudder even now at the memory of it. Physically -exhausted, smarting with the thought of the cruel, heartless way in -which I had been beaten down and trodden under foot, I felt that mortal -death would have been more merciful than the living death to which I -was condemned. In the adjoining cell an insane woman was raving and -weeping throughout the night, and I wondered whether in the years to -come I should become like her. - -The next day I was visited by the governor on his official rounds. Then -the doctor came and made a medical examination, and ordered me to be -detained in the infirmary until further orders. My mind is a blank as -to what happened for some time afterward. My next remembrance is being -told by a coarse-looking, harsh-spoken female warder to get ready to go -into the prison. Once more I was led across the big yard, and then I -stood within the walls that were to be for years my tomb. Outside the -sun was shining and the birds were singing. - - -IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT - -Without, picture a vast outline of frowning masonry. Within, when I -had passed the double outer gates and had been locked out and locked -in in succession, I found myself in a central hall, from which ran -cage-like galleries divided into tiers and landings, with a row of -small cells on either side. The floors are of stone, the landings of -slate, the railings of steel, and the stairs of iron. Wire netting -is stretched over the lowest tier to prevent prisoners from throwing -themselves over in one of those frenzies of rage and despair of which -every prison has its record. Within their walls can be found, above all -places, that most degrading, heart-breaking product of civilization, -a human automaton. All will, all initiative, all individuality, all -friendship, all the things that make human beings attractive to one -another, are absent. Suffering there is dumb, and when it goes beyond -endurance--alas! - -I followed the warder to a door, perhaps not more than two feet in -width. She unlocked it and said, “Pass in.” I stepped forward, but -started back in horror. Through the open door I saw, by the dim light -of a small window that was never cleaned, a cell seven feet by four. - -“Oh, don’t put me in there!” I cried. “I can not bear it.” - -For answer the warder took me roughly by the shoulder, gave me a push, -and shut the door. There was nothing to sit upon but the cold slate -floor. I sank to my knees. I felt suffocated. It seemed that the walls -were drawing nearer and nearer together, and presently the life would -be crushed out of me. I sprang to my feet and beat wildly with my hands -against the door. “For God’s sake let me out! Let me out!” But my -voice could not penetrate that massive barrier, and exhausted I sank -once more to the floor. I can not recall those nine months of solitary -confinement without a feeling of horror. My cell contained only a -hammock rolled up in a corner, and three shelves let into the wall--no -table nor stool. For a seat I was compelled to place my bedclothes on -the floor. - - -THE DAILY ROUTINE - -No one can realize the horror of solitary confinement who has not -experienced it. Here is one day’s routine: It is six o’clock; I arise -and dress in the dark; I put up my hammock and wait for breakfast. I -hear the ward officer in the gallery outside. I take a tin plate and a -tin mug in my hands and stand before the cell door. Presently the door -opens; a brown, whole-meal, six-ounce loaf is placed upon the plate; -the tin mug is taken, and three-quarters of a pint of gruel is measured -in my presence, when the mug is handed back in silence, and the door is -closed and locked. After I have taken a few mouthfuls of bread I begin -to scrub my cell. A bell rings and my door is again unlocked. No word -is spoken, because I know exactly what to do. I leave my cell and fall -into single file, three paces in the rear of my nearest fellow convict. -All of us are alike in knowing what we have to do, and we march away -silently to Divine service. We are criminals under punishment, and -our keepers march us like dumb cattle to the worship of God. To me the -twenty minutes of its duration were as an oasis in a weary desert. When -it came to an end I felt comforted, and always a little more resigned -to my fate. Chapel over, I returned directly to my cell, for I was in -solitary confinement, and might not enjoy the privilege of working in -company with my prison companions. - -Work I must, but I must work alone. Needlework and knitting fall to my -lot. My task for the day is handed to me, and I sit in my cell plying -my needle, with the consciousness that I must not indulge in an idle -moment, for an unaccomplished task means loss of marks, and loss of -marks means loss of letters and visits. As chapel begins at 8:30 I am -back in my cell soon after nine, and the requirement is that I shall -make one shirt a day--certainly not less than five shirts a week. If I -am obstinate or indolent, I shall be reported by the ward officer, and -be brought to book with punishment--perhaps reduced to a diet of bread -and water and total confinement in my cell for twenty-four hours. If I -am faint, weak, or unwell, I may be excused the full performance of my -task; but there must be no doubt of my inability. In such case it is -for me to have my name entered for the prison doctor, and obtain from -him the indulgence that will remit a portion of my prescribed work to -three or four shirts. - -However, as I am well, I work automatically, closely, and with -persistence. Then comes ten o’clock, and with it the governor with -his escort. He inspects each cell, and if all is not as it should -be, the prisoner will hear of it. There is no friendly greeting of -“Good-morning” nor parting “Good-night” within those gloomy walls. -The tone is formal and the governor says: “How are you, Maybrick? -Any complaints? Do you want anything?” and then he passes on. Then -I am again alone with my work and my brooding thoughts. I never -made complaints. One but adds to one’s burden by finding causes for -complaint. With the coming and the going of the governor the monotony -returns to stagnation. - - -THE EXERCISE HOUR - -Presently, however, the prison bell rings again. I know what the -clangor means, and mechanically lay down my work. It is the hour -for exercise, and I put on my bonnet and cape. One by one the cell -doors of the ward are opened. One by one we come out from our cells -and fall into single file. Then, with a ward officer in charge, we -march into the exercise yard. We have drawn up in line, three paces -apart, and this is the form in which we tramp around the yard and -take our exercise. This yard is perhaps forty feet square, and there -are thirty-five of us to expand in its “freedom.” The inclosure is -oppressively repulsive. Stone-flagged, hemmed within ugly walls, it -gives one a hideous feeling of compression. It seems more like a -bear-pit than an airing ground for human beings. But I forget that -we are not here to have things made easy, comfortable, and pleasant -for us. We are here to be punished, to be scourged for our crimes and -misdeeds. Can you wonder that human nature sometimes revolts and dares -even prison rigor? Human instincts may be suppressed, but not wholly -crushed. - -There were at Woking two yards in which flowers and green trees were -visible, but it was only in after years that I was permitted to take my -exercise in these yards, and then only half an hour on Sunday. - -When the one hour for exercise is over, in a file as before, we -tramp back to our work. Confined as we are for twenty-two hours in -our narrow, gloomy cells, the exercise, dull as it is, is our only -opportunity for a glimpse of the sky and for a taste of outdoor life, -and affords our only relief from an otherwise almost unbearable day. - - -THE MIDDAY MEAL - -At noon the midday meal. The first sign of its approach is the sound of -the fatigue party of prisoners bringing the food from the kitchen into -the ward. I hear the ward officer passing with the weary group from -cell to cell, and presently she will reach my door. My food is handed -to me, then the door is closed and double locked. In the following two -hours, having finished my meal, I can work or read. At two o’clock the -fatigue party again goes on its mechanical round; the cell door is -again unlocked, this time for the collection of dinner-cans. The meal -of each prisoner is served out by weight, and the law allows her to -claim her full quantity to the uttermost fraction of an ounce. She is -even entitled to see it weighed if she fancies it falls short. Work is -then resumed until five o’clock, when gruel and bread is again served, -as at breakfast, with half an hour for its disposal. From that time -on until seven o’clock more work, when again is heard the clang of -the prison bell, and with it comes the end of our monotonous day. I -take down my hammock, and once more await the opening of the door. We -have learned exactly what to do. With the opening of our cells we go -forward, and each places her broom outside the door. So shall it be -known that we each have been visited in our cells before the locking of -our doors and gates for the night. If any of us are taking medicine by -the doctor’s orders we now receive it. On through the ten long, weary -hours of the night the night officers patrol the wards, keeping watch, -and through a glass peep-hole silently inspect us in our beds to see -that nothing is amiss. - - -THE CRUELTY OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT - -Solitary confinement is by far the most cruel feature of English penal -servitude. It inflicts upon the prisoner at the commencement of her -sentence, when most sensitive to the horrors which prison punishment -entails, the voiceless solitude, the hopeless monotony, the long vista -of to-morrow, to-morrow, to-morrow stretching before her, all filled -with desolation and despair. Once a prisoner has crossed the threshold -of a convict prison, not only is she dead to the world, but she is -expected in word and deed to lose or forget every vestige of her -personality. Verily, - - The mills of the gods grind slowly, - But they grind exceeding small, - And woe to the wight unholy - On whom those millstones fall. - -So it is with the Penal Code which directs this vast machinery, doing -its utmost with tireless, ceaseless revolutions to mold body and soul -slowly, remorselessly, into the shape demanded by Act of Parliament. - - - - -CHAPTER FOUR - -The Period of Probation - - -A CHANGE OF CELL - -The day I had completed the nine months of solitary confinement I -entered upon a new stage, that of probation for nine months. I was -taken from Hall G to Hall A. There were in Woking seven halls, A, B, C, -D, E, F, G, separated by two barred doors and a narrow passage. Every -hall has three wards. The female warder who accompanied me locked me -in my cell. I looked around with a sense of intense relief. The cell -was as large again as the one I had left. The floor was of wood instead -of slate. It contained a camp bedstead on which was placed a so-called -mattress, consisting of a sack the length of the bed, stuffed with -coir, the fiber of the coconut. There were also provided two coarse -sheets, two blankets, and a red counterpane. In a corner were three -iron shelves let in the wall one above the other. On the top shelf -was folded a cape, and on top of this there was a small, coarse straw -bonnet. The second shelf contained a tin cup, a tin plate, a wooden -spoon, and a salt-cellar. The third shelf was given up to a slate, on -which might be written complaints or requests to the governor; it is a -punishable offense in prison to write with a pencil or on any paper not -provided. - -There was also a Bible, a prayer-book and hymn-book, and a book from -the library. Near the door stood a log of wood upright, fastened to the -floor, and this was the only seat in the cell. It was immovable, and so -placed that the prisoner might always be in view of the warder. Near -it, let into the wall, was a piece of deal board, which answered for a -table. Through an almost opaque piece of square glass light glimmered -from the hall, the only means of lighting the cell at night; facing -this, high up, was a barred window admitting light from the outside. - - -EVILS OF THE SILENT SYSTEM - -The routine of my daily life was the same as during “solitary -confinement.” The cell door may be open, but its outer covering or gate -is locked, and, although I knew there was a human creature separated -from me only by a cell wall and another gate, not a whisper might I -breathe. There is no rule of prison discipline so productive of trouble -and disaster as the “silent system,” and the tyrannous and rigorous -method with which it is enforced is the cause of two-thirds of all -the misconduct and disturbance that occurs in prison. The silence -rule gives supreme gratification to the tyrannous officer, for on the -slightest pretext she can report a woman for talking--a turn of the -head, a movement of the lips is enough of an excuse for a report. -And there is heavy punishment that can be inflicted for this offense, -both in the male and female prisons. An offender may be consigned to -solitary confinement, put for three days on bread and water, or suffer -the loss of a week’s remission, which means a week added to her term of -imprisonment--and all this for incautiously uttering a word. - -Unless it be specifically intended as a means of torture, the system of -solitary confinement, even for four months, the term to which it has -since been reduced, can meet only with condemnation. I am convinced -that, within limits, the right of speech and the interchange of -thought, at least for two hours daily, even during probation, would -insure better discipline than perpetual silence, which can be enforced -only by a complete suppression of nature, and must result in consequent -weakness of mind and ruin of temper. During the first months of her -sentence a prisoner is more frequently in trouble for breach of this -one rule than from all other causes. The reduction of the term of -probation from nine to four months has been followed by a reduction in -mental afflictions, which is proof that nothing wholesome or good can -have its growth in unnatural solitude. - -The silent system has a weakening effect upon the memory. A prisoner -often finds difficulty in deciding upon the pronunciation of words -which she has not heard for a considerable period. I often found -myself, when desirous of using unusual words, especially in French or -German, pronouncing them to myself in order to fix the pronunciation -in my memory. It is well to bear in mind what a small number of words -the prisoner has an opportunity of using in the monotony of prison -life. The same inquiries are made day after day, and the same responses -given. A vocabulary of one hundred words will include all that a -prisoner habitually uses. - - -INSANITY AND NERVOUS BREAKDOWN OF PRISONERS - -No defender of the silent system pretends that it wholly succeeds in -preventing speech among prisoners. But be that as it may, a period -of four months’ solitary confinement in the case of a female, and -six months’ in the case of a male, and especially of a girl or -youth, is surely a crime against civilization and humanity. Such a -punishment is inexpressible torture to both mind and body. I speak -from experience. The torture of continually enforced silence is known -to produce insanity or nervous breakdown more than any other feature -connected with prison discipline. Since the passing of the Act of 1898, -mitigating this form of punishment, much good has been accomplished, as -is proved by the diminution of insanity in prison life, the decreasing -scale of prison punishment, and the lessening of the death-rate. -By still further reducing this barbarous practise, or, better, by -abolishing it entirely, corresponding happy results may confidently -be expected. The more the prisoners are placed under conditions and -amid surroundings calculated to develop a better life, the greater is -the hope that the system will prove curative; but so long as prisoners -are subjected to conditions which have a hardening effect at the very -beginning of their prison life, there is little chance of ultimate -reformation. - - -NEED OF SEPARATE CONFINEMENT FOR THE WEAK-MINDED - -There are many women who hover about the borderland of insanity for -months, possibly for years. They are recognized as weak-minded, and -consequently they make capital out of their condition, and by the -working of their distorted minds, and petty tempers, and unreasonable -jealousy, add immeasurably not only to the ghastliness of the “house -of sorrow,” but are a sad clog on the efforts to self-betterment of -their level-minded sisters in misery. Of these many try hard to make -the best of what has to be gone through. Therefore, is it necessary, -is it wise, is it right that such a state of things should be allowed? -The weak-minded should be kept in a separate place, with their own -officers to attend them. Neither the weak-minded, the epileptic, nor -the consumptives were isolated. There is great need of reform wherever -this is the case. Prisoners whose behavior is different from the normal -should be separated from the other prisoners, and made to serve out -their sentences under specially adapted conditions. - -I read in the newspapers that insanity is on the increase; this fact is -clearly reflected within the prison walls. It is stated that the insane -form about three per thousand of the general population. In local -English prisons insanity, it is said, even after deducting those who -come in insane, is seven times more prevalent than among the general -population. - - -READING AN INSUFFICIENT RELAXATION - -The nervous crises do not now supervene so frequently as formerly -in the case of prisoners of a brooding disposition, but the fact -remains that, in spite of the slight amelioration, mental light is -still excluded--that communion on which rests all human well-being. -The vacuity of the solitary system, to some at least, is partially -lighted by books. But what of those who can not read, or who have -not sufficient concentration of mind to profit by reading as a -relaxation? There are many such, in spite of the high standard of -free education that prevails at the present day. The shock of the -trial, and the uprooting of a woman’s domestic ties, coupled with -the additional mental strain of having to start her prison career in -solitary confinement, is surely neither humane, nor merciful, nor -wise. These months of solitary confinement leave an ineffaceable mark. -It is during the first lonely months that the seeds of bitterness -and hardness of heart are sown, and it requires more than a passive -resistance--nay, nothing short of an unfaltering faith and trust in an -overruling Providence--to bring a prisoner safely through the ordeal. -Let the sympathetic reader try to realize what it means never to feel -the touch of anything soft or warm, never to see anything that is -attractive--nothing but stone above, around, and beneath. The deadly -chill creeps into one’s bones; the bitter days of winter and the still -bitterer nights were torture, for Woking Prison was not heated. My -hands and feet were covered with chilblains. - - -MY SUFFERINGS FROM COLD AND INSOMNIA - -Oh, the horrors of insomnia! If one could only forget one’s sufferings -in sleep! During all the fifteen years of my imprisonment, insomnia was -(and, alas! is still) my constant companion. Little wonder! I might -fall asleep, when suddenly the whole prison is awakened by shriek -upon shriek, rending the stillness of the night. I am now, perforce, -fully awake. Into my ears go tearing all the shrill execrations and -blasphemies, all the hideous uproars of an inferno, compounded of -bangs, shrieks, and general demoniac ragings. The wild smashing of -glass startles the halls. I lie in my darkened cell with palpitating -heart. Like a savage beast, the woman of turmoil has torn her clothing -and bedding into shreds, and now she is destroying all she can lay -hands on. The ward officers are rushing about in slippered feet, the -bell rings summoning the warders, who are always needed when such -outbursts occur, and the woman, probably in a strait-jacket, is borne -to the penal cells. Then stillness returns to the ghastly place, and -with quivering nerves I may sleep--if I can. - - -MEDICAL ATTENDANCE - -But what if one is ill in the night? The lonely prisoner in her cell -may summon aid by ringing the bell. The moment it is set in motion it -causes a black iron slab to project from the outer wall of her cell -in the gallery. On the slab is the prisoner’s number, and the ward -officer, hearing the bell, at once looks for the cell from which the -call has been sent. Presently she finds it, then fetches the principal -matron, and together they enter the hard, unhomelike place. If the -prisoner is ill they call the doctor of the prison, and medicines and -aid will be given. But sympathy is no part of their official duty, and -be the warder never so tender in her own domestic circle, tenderness -must not be shown toward a prisoner. The patient may be removed from -her cell to the infirmary, where they will care for her medically, -perhaps as well as they would in a hospital; she may even receive a -few flowers from an infirmary warder whose heart comes out from its -official shell; but through it all, sick though she be, she is still a -prisoner under lock and key, a woman under surveillance, a woman denied -communion with her kind. - - -ADDED SUFFERINGS OF THE DELICATELY NURTURED - -What words can adequately describe the long years, blank and weary -enough for all prisoners, but which are indescribably so to one who -has been delicately nurtured! I had enjoyed the refinements of social -life; I had pitied, and tried, as far as lay in my power, to help the -poor and afflicted, but I had never known anything of the barbarism, -the sordid vices of low life. And I was condemned to drag out existence -amid such surroundings, because twelve ignorant men had taken upon -themselves to decide a question which neither the incompetent judge nor -the medical witnesses could themselves determine. - -So far as I can learn, there is no other instance of a woman -undoubtedly innocent and of gentle birth, confined for a term of nearly -fifteen years in an English convict prison. In the nature of things a -delicate woman feels more acutely than a robust prisoner the rigors of -prolonged captivity. - -Neither confidence nor respect can be secured when punishment is -excessive, for it then becomes an act of persecution, suitable only -for ages of darkness. The supineness of Parliament in not establishing -a court of criminal appeal fastens a dark blot upon the judicature of -England, and is inconsistent with the innate love of justice and fair -play of its people. - - -HOW CRIMINALS AND IMBECILES ARE MADE - -The law in prison is the same for the rich as the poor, the “Star -Class” as for the ignorant, brutalized criminal. My register was “L. -P. 29.” These letters and numbers were worked in white cotton upon a -piece of black cloth. Your sentence is indicated thus: “L” stands for -penal servitude for life; “P” for the year of conviction, which in my -case was the sixteenth year since the previous lettering. This is done -every twenty-five years. The “29” meant that I was the twenty-ninth -convict of my year, 1889. In addition to this register I wore a red -cloth star placed above it. The “Star Class,” of which I was a member, -consisted of women who have been convicted of one crime only, committed -in a moment of weakness or despair, or under pressure which they were -not strong enough to resist at the time, such as infanticide, forgery, -incendiarism; and who, having been educated and respectably brought -up, betray otherwise no criminal instincts or inclinations; and who, -when in the world, would be distinct in character from the habitual -criminal, not only from a social point of view, but in their virtues, -faults, and crimes. - -There should be separate rules and privileges to meet the case -of a prisoner guilty of moral lapses only, as distinguished from -the habitual breaker of the laws. At present the former gets the -same treatment and discipline as the habitual criminal of several -convictions, and can not claim a single privilege that the old offender -has not a right to ask--for example, members of both classes are -limited to the same number of letters and visits. The “Star Class” is -supposed to be kept separate from ordinary prisoners. It was so at -Woking Prison. But at Aylesbury Prison, to which I was transferred -later, they were sandwiched between two wards of habitual criminals, -with whom they came continually in contact, not only in passing to -and from the workshops, fetching meals, and going to exercise, but -continuously. That contamination should ensue is hardly surprising. -It requires a will of iron, and nearly the spirit of a saint, not -to be corrupted by the sights and sounds of a prison, even when no -word is spoken. It is a serious accusation against any system to say -“that it produces the thing it is designed to prevent,” but such, I -am convinced, is the fact as regards the manufacture of criminals and -imbeciles by the present system of penalism almost the world over. - - - - -CHAPTER FIVE - -The Period of Hard Labor - - -ROUTINE - -Having passed solitary confinement and probation, I entered upon -the third stage, hard labor, when I was permitted to leave my cell -to assist in carrying meals from the kitchen, and to sit at my door -and converse with the prisoners in the adjoining cells for two hours -daily--but always in the presence of an officer who controls and limits -the conversation. My daily routine was now also somewhat different from -that of solitary confinement and probation. - -At six o’clock the bell rings to rise. Half an hour later a second bell -signifies to the officers that it is time to come on duty. Each warder -in charge of certain wards--there are three wards to each hall--then -goes to the chief matron’s office, where she receives a key wherewith -to unlock the prisoners’ cells. All keys are given up by the female -warder before going off duty, and locked for the night in an iron safe -under the charge of a male warder. When again in possession of her key -she repairs to her ward, and at the order, “Unlock,” she lets out the -prisoners to empty their slops. This done, they are once more locked -in, with the exception of three women who go down to the kitchen to -fetch the cans of tea and loaves of bread which make up the prisoners’ -breakfast. At Woking the breakfast was of cocoa and coarse meal bread, -while later, at Aylesbury, it consisted of tea and white bread. I am -constrained to remark here that more consideration should be shown by -the medical officer toward women who complain of being physically unfit -to do heavy lifting and carrying. The can is carried by two women up -two or three flights of stairs, according to the location of their -ward, and the bread by one woman only. Each can contains fourteen -quarts of tea, and the bread-basket holds thirty pounds or more of -bread. To a woman with strong muscles it may cause no distress, but in -the case of myself and others equally frail, the physical strain was -far beyond our strength, and left us utterly exhausted after the task. - -The breakfast was served at seven o’clock, when the officers returned -to the mess-room to take theirs. At 7:30 a bell rang again, and the -officers returned to their respective wards. At ten minutes to eight -the order was given, “Unlock.” Once more the doors were opened. Then -followed the order, “Chapel,” and each woman stood at her door with -Bible, prayer-book, and hymn-book in hand. At the words “Pass on,” they -file one behind the other into the chapel, where a warder from each -ward sits with her back to the altar that she may be able the better -to watch those under her charge and see that they do not speak. After -a service of twenty minutes the prisoners file back to their cells, -place their books on the lower shelf, and with a drab cape and a white -straw hat stand in readiness for the next order, “To your doors.” This -given, they descend into the hall and pass out to their respective -places of work. - - -TALK WITH THE CHAPLAIN - -Many of these women have their tender, spiritual moments. At such times -they will beg for a favorite hymn to be sung at the chapel service -on Sunday, and their requests are generally granted by the chaplain. -He is the only friend of the prisoner, and his work is arduous and -often thankless. He is the only one within the walls to whom she may -turn for sympathy and advice. It may not be every woman who gladly -avails herself of the enforced privilege of attending daily chapel. -“Religion,” as a term, is unpalatable to many. But there are very few -who are not better and happier for the few moments’ unofficial talk -with her chaplain, be she Protestant or Roman Catholic. - -It is to be regretted that his authority is so limited, and his -opportunities for brightening the lives of those who walk in dark -places so few. Red tape and standing orders confront him at every -turn, so that even the religious training is drawn and sucked beneath -the mighty wheel of the Penal Code, and there is no time for personal -suasion to play more than a minor part in a convict’s life. - - -MY WORK IN THE KITCHEN - -The work for first offenders, who are called the “Star Class,” consists -of labor in the kitchen, the mess, and the officers’ quarters. Six -months after I entered upon the third stage I was put to work in the -kitchen. My duties were as follows: To wash ten cans, each holding -four quarts; to scrub one table, twenty feet in length; two dressers, -twelve feet in length; to wash five hundred dinner-tins; to clean -knives; to wash a sack of potatoes; to assist in serving the dinners, -and to scrub a piece of floor twenty by ten feet. Besides myself there -were eight other women on hard labor in the kitchen. Our day commenced -at 6 A.M., and continued until 5:30 P.M. A half hour at breakfast time, -twenty minutes at chapel, one hour and a half after the midday meal, -and half an hour after tea summed up our leisure. The work was hard and -rough. The combined heat of the coppers, the stove, and the steamers -was overpowering, especially on hot summer days; but I struggled on, -doing this work preferably to some other, because the kitchen was the -only place where the monotony of prison life was broken. It was the -“show place,” and all visitors looked in to see the food. - - -THE MACHINE-MADE MENU - -What dining in prison means may be judged by a perusal of the schedule -as given in the Prison Commission Report: - - - DIET FOR FEMALE CONVICTS - - - Breakfast - - Three-quarters of a pint of cocoa, containing ½ ounce of cocoa, 2 - ounces milk, ½ ounce of molasses. Bread. - - - Dinner - - Sunday. 4 ounces tinned pressed beef. Bread. - - } 3 ounces (cooked), with its - } own liquor, flavored with ½ - Monday. Mutton } ounce onions, and thickened - Tuesday. Beef } with bread and potatoes left - Wednesday. Mutton } on previous days, 1/8 ounce - Friday. Beef } of flour, and for every 100 - } convicts, ¾ ounce of pepper. - } ¾ pound potatoes. Bread. - - Saturday. 1 pint soup, containing 6 ounces of shins of beef - (uncooked), 1 ounce pearl barley, 3 ounces of fresh vegetables, - including onions, and for every 100 convicts, ¾ ounce pepper. ¾ - pound potatoes. Bread. - - Thursday. ¾ pound pudding, containing 1 ounce 2 drachms water. ¾ pound - potatoes. Bread. - - - Supper - - 1 pint gruel, containing 2 ounces oatmeal, ¾ ounce molasses, 2 ounces - milk. Bread. - - Bread per convict per week, 118 ounces. - - Bread per convict each week-day, 16 ounces. - - Bread per convict each Sunday, 22 ounces. - - Salt per convict per day, ½ ounce.[2] - - -VISITORS TO THE KITCHEN - -During the four years I worked in the kitchen I saw many people. The -Duke of Connaught, Sir Evelyn Wood and his staff, Lord Alverston, Sir -Edward du Cane, the late Lord Rothschild, and Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise, -besides judges, magistrates, authors, philanthropists and others of an -inquiring turn of mind, who had obtained the necessary permit to make -the tour of the prison under the escort of the governor or one or two -of his satellites. These ladies and gentlemen expressed the most varied -and sometimes startling opinions. I recollect on one occasion, when -some visitors happened to be inspecting the kitchen during the dishing -up of the hospital patients’ dinner, one old gentleman of the party was -quite scandalized at the sight of a juicy mutton-chop and a tempting -milk pudding. He expostulated in such a way that the governor hastened -to explain that it was not the ordinary prison diet, but was intended -for a very sick woman. Even then this old gentleman was not satisfied, -and stalked out, audibly grumbling about people living on the fat of -the land and getting a better dinner than he did. I firmly believe that -he left the prison under the impression that its inmates lived like -pampered gourmets, and that he no longer marveled there were so many -criminals when they were fed on such luxuries. - - -THE “HOMELIKE” CELL - -On another occasion a benevolent-looking old lady, having given -everything and everybody as minute an inspection as was possible, -expressed herself as being charmed, remarking: - -“Everything is so nice and homelike!” - -I have often wondered what that good lady’s home was like. - -A little philosophy is useful, a saving grace, even in prison; but -people have such different ways of expressing sympathy. A visitor, who -I have no doubt intended to be sympathetic, noticing the letter “L” on -my arm, inquired: - -“How long a time have you to do?” - -“I have just completed ten years,” was my reply. - -“Oh, well,” cheerfully responded the sympathetic one, “you have done -half your time, haven’t you? The remaining ten years will soon slip -by”; and the visitor passed on, blissfully ignorant of the sword she -had unwittingly thrust into my aching heart. Even if a prisoner has -little or no hope of a mitigation, it is not pleasant to have an old -wound ruthlessly handled, and ten years’ imprisonment as lightly spoken -of as ten days might be. - - -THE OPIATE OF ACQUIESCENCE - -I preferred the kitchen work, although often beyond my strength, to any -other that fell to a prisoner’s lot, because of the glimpses into the -outside world it occasionally afforded. But I never permitted myself -to dwell upon the fact that at one time I had been the social equal -of at least the majority of those with whom I thus came into passing -contact, since to do so would have made my position by contrast so -unbearable that it would have unfitted me to do the work in a spirit -of submission, not to speak of the mental suffering which awakened -memories would have occasioned. I soon found that both my spiritual and -my mental salvation, under the repressive rules in force, depended upon -unresisting acquiescence--the keeping of my sensibilities dulled as -near as possible to the level of the mere animal state which the Penal -Code, whether intentionally or otherwise, inevitably brings about. - -I have been frequently asked by friends, since my release, how I could -possibly have endured the shut-in life under such soul-depressing -influences. I have given here and there in my narrative indications -of my feelings under different circumstances. Here I may state in -general that I early found that thoughts of without and thoughts of -within--those that haunted me of the world and those that were ever -present in my surroundings--would not march together. I had to keep -step with either the one or the other. The conflict between the two -soon became unbearable, and I was compelled to make choice: whether -I would live in the past and as much as possible exclude the prison, -and take the punishment which would inevitably follow--as it had in -so many cases--in an unbalanced mind; or would shut the past out -altogether and coerce my thoughts within the limitations of the prison -regulations. My safety lay, as I found, in compressing my thoughts to -the smallest compass of mental existence, and no sooner did worldly -visions or memories intrude themselves, as they necessarily would, than -I immediately and resolutely shut them out as one draws the blind to -exclude the light. While I thus suppressed all emotions belonging to -a natural life, I nevertheless found, whenever I came accidentally in -contact with visitors from the outside world, that my inner nature was -attuned like the strings of a harp to the least vibration of others’ -emotions. The slightest unconscious inflection of the voice, whether -sympathetic or otherwise, would call forth either a grateful response -or an instant withdrawal into the armor of reserve which I had to adopt -for my self-protection. But this exclusion of the world created a dark -background which served only to intensify the light that shone upon me -from realms unseen of mortal eyes. Lonely I was, yet I was never alone. -But, however satisfying the spiritual communion, the human heart is so -constituted that it needs must yearn for love and sympathy from its own -kind, for recognition of all that is best in us, by something that is -like unto it, in its experiences, feelings, emotions, and aspirations. - - -VISITS OF PRISONERS’ FRIENDS - -A prisoner is allowed to receive a visit from her friends at intervals -of six, four, and two months, according to her stage of service. -There are four stages, each of nine months’ duration: first, solitary -confinement; second, probation; while the third and fourth stages are -not specially designated. During the first two stages the prisoner is -clothed in brown, at the third stage in green, and the fourth in navy -blue. Every article worn by the prisoner or in use by her is stamped -with a “broad arrow,” the convict’s crest. - -A visit may be forfeited by bad conduct or delayed through a loss -of marks. When a prisoner is entitled to receive a visitor, she -applies to the governor for permission to have the permit sent to the -person she names; but if the police report concerning the designated -visitor is unfavorable the request is not granted. When a prisoner’s -friends--three being the maximum--arrive at the prison gates they ring -a bell. The gatekeeper views them through a grille and inquires their -business. They show their permit; whereupon he notifies the chief -matron, who in turn notifies the officer in charge of the prisoner. - -The rule regarding visits precluded any discussion of prison affairs, -or anything regarding treatment, or aught that passes within the -prison walls. Had I permitted myself to break this rule the visit -would have been stopped at once by the matron in charge. Consequently, -all the statements on such matters reported from time to time in the -press during my imprisonment, and quoted as received from my mother or -friends, are shown to be pure fabrications. - - -MY MOTHER’S VISITS - -A visit! What joy or what sorrow those words express in the outside -world! But in prison--the pain of it is so great that it can hardly be -borne. - -Whenever my mother’s visit was announced, accompanied by a matron I -passed into a small, oblong room. There a grilled screen confronted me; -a yard or two beyond was a second barrier identical in structure, and -behind it I could see the form of my mother, and sitting in the space -between the grilles, thus additionally separating us, was a prison -matron. No kiss; not even a clasp of the hand; no privacy sacred to -mother and daughter; not a whisper could pass between us. Was not this -the very depth of humiliation? - -My mother crossed every two months from France to visit me. Neither -heat nor cold deterred her from taking this fatiguing journey. Thus -again and again she traveled a hundred miles for love of me, to cheer, -comfort, and console; a hundred miles for thirty minutes! - -At these visits she would tell me as best she could of the noble, -unwearied efforts of my countrymen and countrywomen in my cause; of -the sympathy and support of my own Government; of the earnest efforts -of the different American ambassadors in my behalf. And though their -efforts proved all in vain, the knowledge of their belief in my -innocence, and of their sympathy comforted, cheered, and strengthened -me to tread bravely the thorny path of my daily life. - -Almost before we had time to compose ourselves there would come a -silent sign from the mute matron in the chair--the thirty minutes -had passed. “Good-by,” we say, with a lingering look, and then turn -our backs upon each other, she to go one way, I another; one leading -out into the broad, open day, the other into the stony gloom of the -prison. Do you wonder that when I went back into my lonely cell the -day had become darker? I went forth to meet a crown of joy and love, -only to return with a cross of sorrow; for these visits always created -passionate longings for freedom, with their vivid recollections of past -joys that at times were almost unbearable. No one will ever know what -my mother suffered. - - -A LETTER FROM LORD RUSSELL - -As the years passed the repression of the prison system developed a -kind of mental numbness which rendered my life, in a measure, more -endurable. It also came as a relief to my own sufferings to take an -interest in those of my fellow prisoners. Then Lord Russell of Killowen -wrote me a letter[3] expressing his continued confidence in me, which -greatly renewed my courage, while the loving messages from my friends -in America kept alive my faith in human nature. - - -PUNISHED FOR ANOTHER’S FAULT - -By the exercise of great self-control and restraint I had maintained a -perfect good-conduct record at Woking for a period of years, when an -act of one of my fellow prisoners got me into grievous trouble. - -It is the rule to search daily both the cell and the person of all -prisoners--those at hard labor three times a day--to make sure that -they have nothing concealed with which they may do themselves bodily -injury. - -To me it was a bitter indignity. I was never allowed to forget that, -being a prisoner, even my body was not my own. It was horrible to -be touched by unfriendly hands, yet I was compelled to submit--to -be undressed and be searched. During the term of my imprisonment I -was searched about ten thousand times, and on only one occasion was -anything found contrary to regulations. I had no knowledge of it at -the time, as the article had been placed surreptitiously in my cell by -another prisoner to save herself from punishment. - -The facts are as follows: I was working in the kitchen, when a prisoner -upset some boiling water on my foot. I thought it best not to speak of -it, and did not, therefore, mention it to any one. My foot, however, -became inflamed and caused me great pain, and the prisoner in question, -noticing that I limped, inquired what the matter was. I told her that -the coarse wool of my stocking was irritating the blister on my foot. -Thereupon she offered to give me some wool of a finer quality with -which to knit a more comfortable pair. I was not aware at the time that -this was not permitted, nor that the wool was stolen. When it neared -her turn to be searched, having a lot of this worsted concealed in -her bed, she made the excuse of indisposition in order to return to -her cell and get rid of it. While there she transferred it from her -cell to mine, its neighbor, the doors of the cells being open during -working-time. - -[Illustration: BARONESS VON ROQUES, The mother of Mrs. Maybrick.] - -When the time came to search my cell, the wool was, of course, found, -and I was at once reported. The warder took me to the penal ward, and -I was shut in a cell, in which the light came but dimly through a -perforated sheet of iron. This was at eight A.M. At ten o’clock I was -brought before the governor for examination and judgment. I stated that -the wool did not belong to me and that I was ignorant as to how it got -into my cell. The governor took the officer’s deposition to the effect -that it was found in my cell, and reasoned that I must, therefore, -have knowledge of the article. I was taken back to the punishment cell -and left there for eight hours. When the officer opened the door to -read to me the governor’s judgment, I was found in a dead faint on the -floor. With some difficulty I was restored to consciousness and was -then removed to the hospital. When I had sufficiently recovered from -the shock, I was allowed to return to my own cell in the hall to do my -punishment. I was degraded for a month to a lower stage, with a loss of -twenty-six marks, and had six days added to my original sentence. - -Had this offense occurred under the more enlightened system that -obtains at Aylesbury Prison at the present time, I should have been -forgiven, as it was a first offense under this particular rule. The -governor at Woking was a just and humane man, and he was not a little -troubled to reconcile the fact of my being in possession of this -worsted, when I had no means of access to the tailor shop or of coming -in contact with any of the workers there who alone had the handling -of it. Of course, I could not explain that the worsted had been passed -into the kitchen by one of the tailoresses, who came every morning to -fetch hot water for use in the tailor-room, and who was a friend of the -prisoner who put it in my cell. - -I was kept in the hall during the months of my penal punishment, and -also for twelve months thereafter, since at that time a “report” always -carried with it a loss of the privilege of working in the kitchen. -When I had an opportunity, in “association time,” of speaking to the -prisoner who had got me into this trouble, and reproached her for the -injury she had done me, she frankly confessed her deed, but excused -herself by saying that she did not expect I would be punished; that -she was tempted to do it because at that time her case was under -consideration at the Home Office, and that she had received the promise -of an early discharge if she did not have any “reports.” She well knew -that if this worsted had been found in her cell this promise would -have been revoked. As she was a “life woman,” and had served a long -time, I had not the heart to deprive her of this, perhaps her only -chance of freedom, through a vindication of myself. A week later I had -the satisfaction of knowing that my silence had been the means of her -liberation. - - -FORMS OF PUNISHMENT - -The punishment of prisoners at Woking consisted of: - -1. Loss of marks, termed in prison parlance, “remission on her -sentence,” but without confinement in the penal ward. - -2. Solitary confinement for twenty-four hours in the penal ward, with -loss of marks. - -3. Solitary confinement, with loss of marks, on bread and water from -one to three days. - -4. Solitary confinement, with loss of marks, on bread and water for -three days, either in a strait-jacket or “hobbles.” Hobbling consists -in binding the wrists and ankles of a prisoner, then strapping them -together behind her back. This position causes great suffering, is -barbarous, and can be enforced only by the doctor’s orders. - -5. To the above was sometimes added, in violent cases, shearing and -blistering of the head, or confinement in the dark cell. The dark -cell was underground, and consisted of four walls, a ceiling, and a -floor, with double doors, in which not a ray of light penetrated. No. 5 -punishment was abolished at Aylesbury, but in that prison even to give -a piece of bread to a fellow prisoner is still a punishable offense. - - -THE TRUE AIM OF PUNISHMENT - -Punishment should be carried out in a humane, sympathetic spirit, and -not in a dehumanizing or tyrannous manner. It should be remedial in -character, and not degrading and deteriorating. It should be the aim -and object of the prison system to send a prisoner back into the world -capable of rehabilitating himself or herself and becoming a useful -citizen. The punishment in a convict prison, within my knowledge, is -carried out in an oppressive way, the delinquent is left entirely to -herself to work out her own salvation, and in nine cases out of ten -she works out her own destruction instead, and leaves prison hardened, -rancorous, and demoralized. - - -THE EVIL OF COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT - -There are so many prisoners with whom complaint-making is a mania, -who on every possible occasion make trivial, exaggerated, and false -complaints, that it is not altogether strange that officials look -with a certain skepticism on all fault-finding; hence it frequently -happens that those with just grievances are discredited because of the -shortcomings of the habitual grumblers. At the same time, one can not -disapprove too strongly of collective punishment which involves the -utter absence of trust in any prisoner, however deserving. A prisoner -slightly abuses a privilege or is guilty of some small infringement of -the rules, when down comes the hammer wielded by the inexorable Penal -Code, and strikes not only the one offending, but, in its expansive -dealing, all the other prisoners, guilty or innocent of the offense. -Many a privilege, trivial in itself and absolutely harmless, has been -condemned because of its abuse by one prisoner. - -I cite one instance. Each cell was provided with a nail on which, -during the day, the prisoner could hang a wet towel, and, during the -night, her clothes. Those who worked in the laundry came in with wet -clothing every evening, which, as no change is allowed, must be either -dried at night or put on wet the next morning. One prisoner pulled her -nail out and purposely wounded herself. She was weak-minded, and no -doubt thought to excite pity. The matter was referred to the director, -Mr. Pennythorne, who gave the order that all the nails throughout -the building be removed. Hence, because of the shortcomings of one -weak-minded woman, all opportunity for the working women to dry their -clothes was taken from them. Others besides myself appealed to the -director and protested. He replied that we would be obliged to submit -to the edict the same as the rest, and that no distinction could be -made in our favor. Of course we could not argue the matter; the penalty -fell heavier upon the laundry women and the kitchen workers than upon -myself. It is a glaring instance of the great wrong done by collective -punishment. However, the prisoners had their revenge, for they never -referred to him afterward except as “Mr. Pennynails.” - - -THE EVIL OF CONSTANT SUPERVISION - -Individual supervision is compulsory, and in many cases it is -essential, but not in all. Surely there are some prisoners who might, -with good results, be trusted. The supervision is never relaxed; the -prisoner is always in sight or hearing of an officer. During the day -she is never trusted out of sight, and at night the watchful eye of the -night officer can see her by means of a small glass fitted in the door -of each cell. She may grow gray during the length of her imprisonment, -but the rule of supervision is never relaxed. Try and realize what -it means always to feel that you are watched. After all, these -prisoners are women, some may be mothers, and it is surely the height -of wickedness and folly to crush whatever remnant of humanity and -self-respect even a convict woman may still have left her. These poor -creatures who wear the brand of prison shame are guarded and controlled -by women, but men make the rules which regulate every movement of -their forlorn lives. - - -SOME GOOD POINTS OF CONVICT PRISONS - -The rules of prison, rigorous as they are, are not wholly without -some consideration for the hapless beings who are condemned to suffer -punishment for their sins within their gloomy walls. On the men’s side -the system is harsher, the life harder, and the discipline more strict -and severe; and I can well believe that for a man of refinement and -culture the punishment falls little short of a foretaste of inferno. -But gloomy and tragic as the convict establishment is, it is a better -place than the county prison, and I have heard habitual criminals avow -that a convict prison is the nearest approach to a comfortable “home” -in the penal world. I know that a certain type of degenerate women, -after serving their sentences, have committed grave offenses with the -sole object of obtaining a conviction which would send them back to -penal servitude. For such the segregation system would be the most -effectual remedy. - - -MY SICKNESS - -I had never been a robust woman, and the hardships of prison life were -breaking down my constitution. The cells at Woking were not heated. In -the halls were two fireplaces and a stove, which were alight day and -night; but as the solid doors of the cells were all locked, the heat -could not penetrate them. Thus, while the atmosphere outside the cell -might be warm, the inside was icy cold. During the hard winter frosts -the water frequently froze in my cell over night. The bed-clothing was -insufficient, and I suffered as much from the cold as the poorest and -most miserable creature on earth. Added to this, I was compelled to go -out and exercise in all kinds of weather. On rainy days I would come in -with my shoes and stockings wet through, and as I possessed only one -pair of shoes and one pair of stockings, I had to keep them on, wet as -they were. The shoes I had to wear until worn out; the stockings until -changed on the Saturday of each week, which was the only day a change -of any kind of underwear could be obtained, no matter in what condition -it might be. Therefore, the majority of the inmates in the winter time -seldom had dry feet, if there was much rain or snow, the natural result -being catarrh, influenza, bronchitis, and rheumatism, from all of which -I suffered in turn. - - -TAKEN TO THE INFIRMARY - -As long as the prisoner is not feverish she is treated in her own cell -in the ward, her food remaining the ordinary prison dietary; but as -soon as her temperature rises, as occurred in my case frequently, she -is admitted as a patient to the infirmary, where she is fed according -to medical prescription. - -The infirmary stands a little detached from the prison grounds. It has -several wards, containing from six to fifteen beds, and several cells -for cases that require isolation. The beds are placed on each side of -the room, and are covered with blue and white counterpanes. At the head -of each is a shelf, on which stand two cups, a plate, and a diet card. -In the middle of each room is a long deal table. On the walls are a few -old Scriptural pictures. - - -THE UTTER DESOLATION OF A SICK PRISONER - -When a prisoner is admitted she is first weighed and then allotted a -bed. Her food and medicine are given her by an officer, who places it -on a chair at her bedside if she is too ill to sit at the table. The -doctor makes his rounds in the morning and evening, and if the patient -is seriously ill he may make a visit in the night also. The matron -in charge goes through the wards at stated times to see that all is -going well, but there is no nursing. The prisoner must attend to her -own wants, and if too weak to do so, she must depend upon some other -patient less ill than herself to assist her. To be sick in prison is -a terrible experience. I felt acutely the contrast between former -illnesses at home and the desolation and the indifference of the -treatment under conditions afforded by a prison infirmary. To lie all -day and night, perhaps day after day, and week after week, alone and in -silence, without the touch of a friendly hand, the sound of a friendly -voice, or a single expression of sympathy or interest! The misery and -desolation of it all can not be described. It must be experienced. I -arrived at Woking ill, and I left Woking ill. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2] A convict employed in washing, or other exceptional hard work, may -have daily an extra allowance of 3 ounces bread, and cheese 1 ounce, -as an intermediate meal between breakfast and dinner, and an extra -allowance of 1 ounce of meat (uncooked) four times a week. A convict -on entering the second-class will have the choice of 1 pint of tea -(made of 1/6 ounce tea, ½ ounce of sugar, 2 ounces milk) and 2 ounces -additional bread instead of gruel for supper; and a convict on entering -the first or special class will have, in addition to the above, the -choice of 4 ounces of baked mutton cooked in its own liquor, not -flavored or thickened, instead of boiled meat or soup, if she takes tea -instead of gruel. The food is wholesome, but spoiled by overcooking. -But oh, how jaded the palate becomes! - -[3] Reproduced in the Introduction to Part Two. - - - - -CHAPTER SIX - -At Aylesbury Prison - - -REMOVAL FROM WOKING - -I had been admitted to the infirmary suffering from a feverish cold. -I had been in bed a fortnight and was feeling very weak, when, on the -morning of November 4, 1896, I awoke to find the matron standing at -my bedside. “Maybrick,” she said, “the governor has given orders that -you are to be removed to-day to Aylesbury Prison. Get up at once.” -Without a word of explanation she left. I had become a living rule of -obedience, and so with trembling hands dressed myself. Presently I -heard footsteps approaching. A female warder entered with a long, dark -cloak covered with broad arrows, the insignia of the convict. I was -told to put on this garment of shame. Then, supported by the warder, -I crossed the big yard to the chief matron’s office. There other women -of the “Star Class” were waiting, handcuffed. A male warder stepped -forward and told me to hold out my hands, whereupon he fastened on a -pair of handcuffs and chained me to the rest of the gang. This was done -by means of a chain which ran through an outer ring attached to each -pair of handcuffs, thus uniting ten women in a literal chain-gang. -This was to me the last straw of degradation--the parting indignity -of hateful Woking; but, happily, this was a painful prelude to a more -merciful régime at Aylesbury. - -Some of the women were weeping, some swearing. When all were ready the -prison-van drove into the yard and we filed out to the clanking of our -chains. Then the door was shut and we were driven off. A special train -was waiting at the station, and escorted between male warders we got -in. It was bitterly cold and raining heavily, but crowds lined the road -and platforms. - -[Illustration: - - Copyright by S. G. Payne & Son, Aylesbury. - -AYLESBURY PRISON, Where Mrs. Maybrick was confined from 1896 to 1904.] - - -NEW INSIGNIA OF SHAME - -We were objects of morbid curiosity to the idle and curious people, who -may or may not have felt sorry for us. But to be stared at was most -distressing to all, to the first offender in particular. If the public -but realized how prisoners suffer when their disgrace is thus brought -to the public notice, they might feel ashamed of their lack of ordinary -human consideration and pass on. But why should it be necessary at all -to subject a prisoner to such humiliation and degradation? Male as well -as female prisoners could be transferred from one prison to another -without attracting any notice in the street or at the station, if -they were provided with garments for traveling upon which the hideous -brand of shame--the “broad arrow”--is not stamped. It is this mark of -condemnation which attracts the morbid curiosity of the people. Such -exhibitions and the callous disregard of a prisoner’s feelings can -only harden and embitter the heart and lower his or her self-respect. - - -ARRIVAL AT AYLESBURY PRISON - -After a journey of nearly five hours we arrived at Aylesbury Station. -The public were apparently aware that the first batch of convicts was -to be transferred that day, as there were crowds at all the stations at -which we stopped. When we got out at Aylesbury it was with difficulty -that a passage was made for us. The prison-vans were in readiness, and -we were rapidly driven away. I felt weak and faint and cold. A thick -fog enveloped the town, and I could see only the dim outlines of houses -appearing and disappearing as we passed along. We stopped before what -appeared a gigantic structure, and then drove through two large iron -gates into a small courtyard. There we descended and drew up in line -to be counted by the officer, while our numbers and names were given -to the governor, who stood waiting to receive us. The order “Pass on!” -was called by the matron in charge, whereupon we entered a long, dark, -gloomy passage, at the end of which was a strong, barred door. This was -unlocked, and, when we had passed in, relocked. - -I have already described what a prison is like. Again we stood in line. -Then a male warder came forward. He unlocked my handcuffs and unclasped -the chain which bound me to my fellow convicts. With a clang that -echoed through the empty halls they fell together to the ground. My -wrists were bruised and sore from the long pressure of their combined -weight. - -Presently the order “Pass on!” was repeated, and, led by a female -warder, we went up two flights of the iron stairway to the top ward of -the hall. Each prisoner was then in turn locked into a cell. Thus ended -my second journey as a prisoner. The contrast with former journeys in -my life drew bitter tears from my eyes. - -During the remainder of the week daily batches of prisoners continued -to arrive, and on the sixth day all had been duly transferred from -Woking Prison, which was then turned into military barracks. - -After this short break in our prison life the same daily routine was -once more taken up. Whether it was due to the change of air or other -physical causes I can not say, but from the time of my arrival I began -to droop. I lost strength and suffered terribly from insomnia. - - -A NEW PRISON RÉGIME - -Six months after our arrival, there came a change of authorities, and -with the passing of the years a more enlightened régime was instituted -by the Home Office. If a prisoner has any complaint to make or -wishes to seek advice, she asks to have her name put down to see the -governor. She is then termed a “wisher,” and is “seen” by him in his -office in the presence of the chief matron. Her request is written down -by him in her penal record, and if he can not settle the matter out of -hand it is referred to a “visiting director,” to whom the prisoner is -permitted to make a statement. If this gentleman finds that his powers -are insufficient to deal with the question, he in turn passes it on to -the prison commission, and sometimes it goes even to the Secretary of -State himself. - -The same privilege holds good concerning medical matters. If a prisoner -is feeling ill she asks the officer in charge of the ward where she -is located to enter her name on the doctor’s book. At ten o’clock -the prisoner is sent for, and sees the doctor in the presence of an -infirmary nurse. He enters her name in a book, also the prescription, -both of which are copied later in the prisoner’s medical record. If a -prisoner is dissatisfied with the treatment she is receiving, she can -make application to see the “medical inspector,” who comes to the -prison every three months. But if neither the governor, nor the doctor, -nor the director, nor the inspector gives satisfaction, then there is -the “Board of Visitors” to inquire into the complaint. - - -THE BOARD OF VISITORS - -The idea of the “Board of Visitors” is to act as a guaranty to the -public that everything is honest and above board, and that there -can be no possibility of inhuman treatment. If this is the sole -object in view--namely, that the prisoners shall be seen by these -“visitors”--then the object is largely attained. They have done much -to ameliorate the prisoners’ condition. Whereas, at one time the women -slept in their clothes, they are now provided with nightdresses; -instead of sitting with their feet always on the stone floor, they are -now allowed a small mat, as well as a wooden stool; and, as the result -of many complaints regarding the rapid decay of teeth, toothbrushes -are allowed, a concession which I much appreciated. For a short time -felt slippers were granted us, but these have been discontinued on -the ground of expense. The same beneficent influence also secured -wide-brimmed hats for the women. Formerly they had nothing to protect -their eyes, and the reflected glare from the stone walls was the cause -of much weakness and inflammation. - -There were several changes in the diet also. Tea was substituted for -cocoa at breakfast and supper, white bread in lieu of wholemeal bread, -and tinned meat replaced the dry bread and cheese previously given on -Sunday. - -The time of solitary confinement was reduced from nine months to four, -and immediately on its expiration the probationers can now work in -“association” in either the laundry or the tailor’s shops where the -officers’ uniforms--of brown cashmere in summer and navy-blue serge -in winter--are made, besides all the clothing for the prisoners’ own -use; also in the twine-room, where excellent spinning is done; while -the prisoner with special aptitude may be recommended to the bead-room, -which turns out really artistic work. - - -REGULATIONS CONCERNING LETTERS AND VISITS - -The prisoners were also allowed to receive three photographs of near -relatives and to keep them in their cells. Previously these had to be -returned within twenty-four hours. Best of all, the intervals between -letters and visits were reduced by a month. The number of letters -permitted to be sent by a prisoner varies according to the stage she -is in. In the fourth stage a letter is allowed every two months, and -a “special letter” occasionally, if the prisoner’s conduct has been -satisfactory. - -The following is a copy of the prison regulations concerning -communications between prisoners and their friends: - - “The following regulations as to communications, by visit or letter, - between prisoners and their friends, are notified for the information - of their correspondents: - - “The permission to write and receive letters is given to prisoners - for the purpose of enabling them to keep up a connection with their - respectable friends, and not that they may be kept informed of public - events. - - “All letters are read by the prison authorities. They must be - legibly written, and not crossed. Any which are of an objectionable - tendency, either to or from prisoners, or containing slang or improper - expressions, will be suppressed. - - “Prisoners are permitted to receive and to write a letter at - intervals, which depends on the rules of the stage they attain by - industry and good conduct; but matters of special importance to a - prisoner may be communicated at any time by letter (prepaid) to the - governor, who will inform the prisoner thereof, if expedient. - - “In case of misconduct the privilege of receiving and writing a letter - may be forfeited for a time. - - “Money, books, postage-stamps, food, tobacco, clothes, etc., should - not be sent to prisoners for their use in prison, as nothing is - allowed to be received at the prison for that purpose. - - “Persons attempting to clandestinely communicate with, or to introduce - any article to or for prisoners, are liable to fine or imprisonment, - and any prisoner concerned in such practises is liable to be severely - punished. - - “Prisoners’ friends are sometimes applied to by unauthorized persons - to send money, etc., to them privately, under pretense that they can - apply it for the benefit of the prisoners, and under such fraudulent - pretense such persons endeavor to obtain money for themselves. Any - letter containing such an application received by the friends of a - prisoner should be at once forwarded by them to the governor. - - “Prisoners are allowed to receive visits from their friends, according - to rules, at intervals which depend on their stage. - - “When visits are due to prisoners notification will be sent to the - friends whom they desire to visit them.” - -While in Woking Prison, under the privilege of these rules, I wrote the -following letter to the late Miss Mary A. Dodge (“Gail Hamilton”)--she -who was my most eloquent and steadfast champion in America: - - P 29, June 24, 1892. - - DEAR MISS DODGE: - - I feel that I owe you such a debt of gratitude for the truly noble, - beautiful, and womanly manner in which you have used that glorious - gift of God--your genius--in the cause of a helpless and sorely - afflicted sister, whose claim to your compassion was but that of a - common humanity and nationality, that I feel I must send you a few - lines, if only to disabuse your mind of any lingering doubts of my - gratitude that my silence may have caused to arise. My dear mother - has, I believe, explained to you the almost insurmountable difficulty - I find in writing to friends abroad, with only one letter every two - months at my disposal, and which I do not feel justified in depriving - her of. I can, therefore, only express through her from time to time - my heartfelt thanks for all that has been and is still being done - in my behalf. I utterly despair, however, of finding words that - shall convey to you even the faintest idea of the fulness of a heart - completely overwhelmed by the sympathy, kindness, and generosity of my - friends. My feelings of love, however, and admiration for you and them - is simply beyond all power of expression. - - The world may and does bemoan the gradual extinction in this - generation of those finer and nobler traits of character which - our forefathers so beautifully exemplified; lays at the door of a - higher civilization the terrible increase of selfishness, pride, and - indifference to all the higher duties of Christianity. But, I ask, - where can a grander exception be found to such apparent degeneration - than that displayed by the conduct of those truly noble men and women, - who, without a thought of self or of the trouble involved, have stood - forth to plead the cause of their countrywoman? Could man do more - than he is doing? Could woman do more for her nearest and dearest than - the ladies of America are doing for me? No! a thousand times, no! - - Some day, my health and purse permitting, I shall hope to tell them - face to face, if mere words can tell, how greatly their faithful, - unwearying efforts, their undaunted energy, their sympathy and - kindness and generosity have helped me to rise above the depressing - influences of the injustice I am suffering under, to endure patiently, - to bear bravely the hardships of this life, and to feel through all - that the hope and comfort afforded me by their help is but a beautiful - example of the way in which God answers the prayers of his people. - - I would now fain beg of you, dear friend, to express my deepest and - most heartfelt gratitude to President Harrison, Mr. Blaine, and the - other members of the Cabinet. Also to all the distinguished gentlemen - who so generously attached their signatures to the splendid petition - sent lately from Washington to the Hon. Henry Matthews, Secretary - of State, London, and to assure them of my great appreciation of the - honor and justice they have done me in thus espousing my cause. Oh, - how wretchedly I have expressed what I really feel and would like to - say! But you, too, have a woman’s heart, and you can therefore realize - the feelings I find it so hard to express. It would be a still more - hopeless task to try to tell you what I think of you--noblest and - truest of women; that must wait until we meet. Until that glad day, - believe me, - - Yours gratefully and sincerely, - FLORENCE E. MAYBRICK. - - P.S. My next date for receiving letters is 19th July. - -TO MISS DODGE, - Washington, D. C., U. S. A. - - -A VISIT FROM LORD RUSSELL - -I was sitting in my cell one day feeling very weak and ill. I was -recovering from an attack of influenza, and the cold comfort of -my surroundings increased the physical and mental depression which -accompanies this complaint. I wondered vaguely why my life was spared, -why I was permitted to suffer this terrible injustice, when my sad -thoughts were distracted by the sounds of approaching voices. I arose -from my seat--which is a compulsory attitude of submission when an -authority approaches a prisoner--and stood waiting for I knew not -what. Presently I heard the tones of a voice which I can never forget -while memory lasts, though that voice is now hushed in death; a voice -which, through the darkest days of my life, ever spoke words of trust, -comfort, and encouragement. Surely I must be dreaming, I thought, or my -mind is growing weak and I am becoming fanciful; for how should this -voice reach me within these prison walls? I looked up, startled, and -once more thought my mind was wandering, for there stood the noblest, -truest friend that woman ever had: the champion of the weak and -the oppressed; the brave upholder of justice and law in the face of -prejudice and public hostility--Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Chief -Justice of England. He stepped into my cell with a kindly smile on his -face, and sat down on my stool, while the governor waited outside. He -talked to me for half an hour, and I can never forget the beauty and -grandeur of that presence. As he rose to leave he turned toward me, -and, seeing unshed tears in my eyes, he took my hand in his, and in his -strong, emphatic way said: “Be brave, be strong; I believe you to be an -innocent woman. I have done and will continue to do all I can for you.” - -It has been denied in England that Lord Russell took any interest in me -other than he might in any client he was paid to defend; but the letter -which I have already given, written to me at Woking, as well as various -statements made by him, and quoted elsewhere, must set that aspersion -at rest. - -[Illustration: MISS MARY A. DODGE (“Gail Hamilton”), An American -advocate of Mrs. Maybrick’s innocence.] - - - - -CHAPTER SEVEN - -A Petition for Release - - -DENIED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE - -I had been at Aylesbury about eight months when I petitioned the -Secretary of State for a reconsideration of my case, with a view to my -release. To this I received the usual official reply, “Not sufficient -grounds.” - -A prisoner may petition the Secretary of State every three months. In -my opinion, the privilege of petitioning on a case should be reduced -from four times a year to once a year, with the provision that if -anything of importance to a prisoner transpires within that period -it may be duly submitted to the Secretary of State on recommendation -of the governor or director; that all complaints regarding food, -treatment, or medical attention should be referred to the visiting -director in the first instance, instead of the Secretary of State, -who under the present system passes it back to the directors for the -necessary investigation. This would do away with the continual daily -distress and irritation and disappointment created in the prison -on receipt of unfavorable replies from the Home Office. A prisoner -petitions. A private inquiry is held, to which the prisoner is not a -party, and of which she has no information, nor does she receive any -during its progress or after its conclusion, save that the result, -which is nearly always negative, is communicated to her. In this -inquiry any one who is opposed to the prisoner may seek to influence -the official mind. I will state a case in point. A friend asked the -Secretary of State for the United States, the Hon. John Hay, to -interest himself in my case. Mr. Hay replied that he had been informed -by the Home Office that I had been “a disobedient and troublesome -prisoner.” - - -REPORT OF MY MISCONDUCT REFUTED - -When I was told this at a visit I had my name entered to see the -governor. I insisted that the governor should inform me when, and after -what breach of the rules, such a report had been sent to the Home -Office. After carefully looking through my penal record he could find -no entry to that effect, and concluded by saying that I must have been -misinformed. He said that my conduct was good, and that he had never -made any report to the contrary. Obviously, therefore, this report from -the Home Office to Mr. Hay was due to an adverse influence, of which I -have still no knowledge. Statements are made against a prisoner, of the -nature of which she is entirely ignorant. Being ignorant, she has no -way of refuting them. Worse still, they are retained in the Home Office -to her dying day, and the unfortunate woman knows nothing of them or -their effect. The only thing certain is that she is further condemned. - - -NEED OF A COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL - -The Home Office, while exercising a private function of reconsideration -grounded on the royal prerogative of mercy, emphatically disclaims -being a court of appeal or a judicial tribunal in any sense of -the word. Yet the consideration of a convict’s case rests alone -with the Secretary of State. It is a matter of unwritten law that -the Home Secretary shall act individually and solely upon his own -responsibility, and none of his colleagues are to assume or take part -therein. - -There are numerous instances where judges, witnesses, and juries have -gone wrong. Indeed, it will be found that even in cases which have -seemed the clearest and least complicated in the trial grievous -mistakes have been made. But in England the blame rests on the public -and the bar in that no means are provided to set the wrong right. -What a difference it would have made in my life if I had been granted -a second trial! I could have called other witnesses, submitted -fresh evidence, and refuted false testimony. Is it not the climax -of injustice that men and women, if sued for money, even for a few -shillings, can appeal from court to court--even to the House of Lords, -the English court of last resort; but when character, all that life -holds dear, and life itself, are in jeopardy, a prisoner’s fate may -depend upon the incompetent construction of one man, and there is no -appeal? - -A hard-worked Secretary of State, whose time, night and day, is -crowded with every kind of duty, correspondence, and labor, in the -House of Commons or in the Home Office, has to consider a vast number -of petitions, complaints, and miscarriages of justice, or too severe -sentences, any one of which might require hours and sometimes days to -investigate. He is assisted by several officers, but, strange to say, -it is no part of their qualifications (or that of the Home Secretary -himself), that they should be familiar with the criminal law or the -prosecution or defense of prisoners. These permanent officials are, -besides, occupied with hundreds of other matters which come before -the Home Office, on which they have to guide their chief. Think of -the untold sufferings of individuals and families, the shame and -degradation which they would be spared, if England had a court of -criminal appeal. - - -HISTORIC EXAMPLES OF BRITISH INJUSTICE - -The Home Office detects and corrects a larger number of erroneous -verdicts than the public is aware. This arises from the secret and -partial methods of remedying miscarriages of justice frequently -adopted. The first object is to maintain the public belief in the -infallibility of judges and juries. If an innocent person could slip -out quietly, without shaking this belief, he might be permitted to -do so. The Home Secretary is, in fact, a politician, who has little -time to spare for the consideration of criminal cases, and furthermore -must see to it that his conduct does not injure his party. Thus he is -often deterred from interfering with verdicts and sentences by sheer -timidity. When he affirms a sentence he can throw the greater part -of the blame on others if he is afterward proved to be wrong; but -when he reverses either verdict or sentence, he must take the whole -responsibility upon himself. This is, I believe, the true explanation -of the secret and partial reversals which are not unusual at the -Home Office. The Home Secretary, as well as his subordinates, must -frequently let “dare not wait upon I would.” - -If a crime is committed and no one is brought to justice, the police -are blamed; but if a person is convicted the police are praised, -without regard as to whether the right person has been convicted. -Hence there is usually a strong effort to beat up evidence against the -person suspected, as in my case and that of Adolf Beck (see page 155), -and to keep back anything in favor of the prisoner that comes to the -knowledge of the police. When an appeal is made from the verdict to -the Home Secretary, the first step is to consult the very judge who is -responsible, in nine cases out of ten, for the erroneous verdict. It -is easy to see that, where such reference is made, the judge is liable -to be biased in support of his own rulings. How much more the ends of -justice would be furthered by having the case retried! - -God only knows how many men and women have been innocent of the charges -brought against them, and for which they have been unjustly punished. I -will mention a few only of many cases on record. - -A man, Hebron by name, was convicted at Manchester, of murder. He -was sentenced to death, but fortunately this was commuted to penal -servitude for life. After serving two years the real murderer, a man -named Peace, was discovered, and Hebron was “graciously pardoned.” - -Another cruel case was that of John Kensall, who was convicted of -murder, but, through action taken by the late Lord Chief Justice -Russell, was shown to be innocent. The Home Office could not at first -“see its way to interfere,” and had it not been for Lord Russell’s -clear head and splendid generalship, by which the authorities at the -Home Office were outwitted, he would not have been released so soon. - -The case of the man Hay, wrongly convicted, was of a serious nature, -showing that he was the victim of a conspiracy; yet had it not been for -Sir William Harcourt’s instituting an investigation independent of the -Home Office, it is very doubtful whether Hay would have been able to -establish his innocence. But he did so, and a pardon was granted him. - -It looks almost as if justice in England were growing of late more than -ordinarily blind. Thrice, within three years, has the Home Secretary’s -“pardon” been granted to men found to have been wrongfully convicted. - -The average man takes it for granted that these hideous mistakes must, -of necessity, be few and far between; but the criminologist knows -better. He, at all events, is well aware that every year a number -of innocent people are sentenced to suffer either an ignominious -death upon the scaffold, or the long-drawn-out living death of penal -servitude. - -Many of these judicial miscarriages never come to light at all. Others -are purposely glossed over by the powers that be. But occasionally one -occurs of so appalling a nature that it rivets the attention and shocks -the conscience of the entire civilized world, as in the case of Adolf -Beck. - - -THE CASE OF ADOLF BECK - -Adolf Beck was twice convicted for crimes committed by a man who -somewhat resembled him. He served his first sentence and had been -convicted for a second crime on “misrepresented identity” when his -innocence was providentially established. The case is too lengthy for -detailed account in these pages, and I shall content myself in giving -the summing-up of Mr. George R. Sims in the pamphlet reprinted from his -presentation of the case in the columns of _The Daily Mail_ of London: - - “I have told in plain words the story of a foul wrong done to an - innocent man. - - “I have proved beyond all question that Adolf Beck was in 1896, by the - Common Sergeant, Sir Forrest Fulton, at the Old Bailey, sentenced to - seven years’ penal servitude for being an ex-convict named John Smith. - - “I have proved that he was _not_ found guilty of being John Smith by - the jury. - - “The former conviction for which Mr. Adolf Beck was sentenced and - punished was not only never submitted to the jury, but they were - warned by the judge that they were not to take the issue of Beck being - Smith into consideration in arriving at their verdict. They were to - dismiss it completely from their minds. - - “I have proved that if this issue had been left for the jury to - consider they must have acquitted Mr. Beck, who showed by an - indisputable alibi that he could not be Smith, the man convicted in - 1877. - - “I have proved that this terrible mockery of justice, the conviction - of an innocent man for a series of crimes that it was quite impossible - he could have committed, was brought about by the action of the - leading counsel for the Treasury, which action was supported by the - Common Sergeant, Sir Forrest Fulton. - - “I have proved that the evidence of the policeman, Eliss Spurrell, - which was used at the police-court to assist in getting Beck committed - for trial, was kept out at the Old Bailey, where it would have insured - Beck’s acquittal. - - “I have proved that at the police-court in 1896 Mr. Gurrin, the - Treasury expert, reported that all the documents connected with the - 1896 frauds were in the handwriting of John Smith of 1877. - - “I have proved that at the 1896 trial at the Old Bailey Mr. Gurrin - swore that, to the best of his belief, all the documents were in the - disguised handwriting of Mr. Beck. - - “I have proved that no one in his senses could at the trial have - accepted the theory that Adolf Beck was John Smith after listening to - the evidence of Major Lindholm, Gentleman of the Chamber to the King - of Denmark, Col. Josiah Harris, and the Consul-General for Peru at - Liverpool. - - “The Common Sergeant accepted as true their evidence of a complete - alibi for Mr. Beck, so far as 1877 and the years Smith was in prison - were concerned, or he would, it is to be presumed, have taken measures - to have those gentlemen prosecuted for committing wilful and corrupt - perjury in order to defeat the ends of justice. - - “I have proved that Beck, after his imprisonment, compelled the Home - Office authorities to acknowledge that he was not Smith, and to admit - the physical impossibility of his being Smith--Smith was a Jew, and - he, Beck, was not--and that therefore, by the evidence of the Treasury - witnesses, he had been wrongfully committed. - - “I have proved that Beck was stripped and officially examined for body - marks before his trial, in order that such marks might be compared - with those on the record in the possession of the authorities as the - body marks of John Smith. - - “I have proved that Adolf Beck had none of the body marks of John - Smith, the man in whose handwriting Mr. Gurrin had declared the - incriminating documents of 1896 to be. - - “I have proved that all the petitions setting forth these facts - and others, which fully established Beck’s innocence, met with no - consideration. - - “I have proved that when the frauds of 1877 and 1896 were repeated - in 1904, and the incriminating documents were found to be in the - handwriting of 1877, stroke for stroke, peculiarity for peculiarity, - almost word for word, the fact that the authorities had admitted - that Mr. Beck _could not be_ the author of the 1877 frauds or the - writer of the 1877 documents was utterly ignored, and the responsible - authorities, with every proof of Mr. Beck’s innocence in their - possession, allowed him to be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted - again. - - “I have proved that the identification of Mr. Beck by the female - witnesses as the man who robbed them was a monstrous farce. - - “I have proved that, so far from Mr. Beck being the ‘double’ of - John Smith, he was utterly unlike him, except that each had a gray - mustache. Beck had neither the noticeable scar at the point of the - jaw nor the noticeable wart over one eye that are striking marks of - identity in John Smith--marks which would not escape the most casual - observer. - - “I have proved that Beck’s conviction in 1896 was secured by a device - which was utterly unworthy of a British court of justice--a device - so unfair and unjust that an innocent and inoffensive foreigner, a - Norwegian who had sought the hospitality of our shores, was by its - employment sent into penal servitude for seven years for the crimes of - another man. - - “I have proved that Mr. Beck was in 1904 convicted of repeating letter - for letter, word for word, trick for trick, check for check, false - address for false address, false name for false name, the frauds of - 1877 and 1896, of which the authorities had absolute proof that he was - innocent, and of which, though they had never remitted one day of his - sentence, they had _admitted_ that he was innocent. - - “I have been careful to keep to the main issue, and have refrained - from examining the side issues, some of which reveal most lamentable - features in connection with our criminal procedure. - - “I will prove one thing more, and leave the facts I have established - to the judgment of the public. - - “At the end of the report of the second trial of Adolf Beck, which - took place at the Old Bailey on June 27, 1904 (Sessions Paper CXL., - Part 837), are these words, printed as I give them below: - - “‘GUILTY. _He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of obtaining goods - by false pretenses at this Court on February 26, 1896. Judgment - respited._’ - - “Pleaded guilty to a former conviction! Adolf Beck pleaded guilty to - nothing. How could he plead guilty, being an innocent man! He cried - aloud when the charge of the first conviction was read aloud to him, - ‘As God is my witness, I was innocent then as I am innocent now.’ - - “The epilogue to the tragedy of our English Dreyfus is written in - those damning words in the Sessions Paper, the official minutes of - evidence in Central Criminal Court trials. - - “Beck’s last hope had perished. Once more a merciless fate had blinded - the eyes and closed the ears of Justice to his innocence. He was to - be immured in a convict cell for ten, perhaps for fourteen, years; he - was to pass the closing years of his life a branded felon amid all the - horrors of a convict prison. In all human probability he would die - without ever seeing the light of freedom again, for he could not have - borne this second torture. - - “His voice, crying aloud for freedom, would be heard no more. - Petitions for a reinvestigation of his case would be hopeless. He had - been robbed of his last earthly chance of proving his innocence. - - “Those words, ‘The prisoner pleaded guilty to a former conviction,’ - would have damned him to the last day of his life. - - “My painful task is ended. - - “A foreigner, a stranger within our gates, a man of kindly heart and - gentle ways, has been foully wronged. There is but one reparation we - can make him. The people of this country owe him a testimonial of - sympathy that shall endure and remain. On the site of his martyrdom - there should rise a national monument. Let that monument take the - form of a Court of Criminal Appeal. That is the one reparation that - the English people can make to Adolf Beck for the foul wrong he has - suffered in their midst.” - -In a sense the innocent man who is hanged may be regarded as better -off than he who is called upon to endure lifelong imprisonment. There -are plenty of examples of these judicial murders. Over a score of -undoubted cases occurred in the first two decades of the last century, -and since then there have been twice as many more. A notorious and -awful case was that of Eliza Fenning, who, at eighteen years of age, -was sent to the gallows upon the perjured evidence of an accomplice of -the real murderer. The latter afterward confessed. - -Another similar case occurred in 1850, when a man named Ross was -executed for poisoning his young wife by mixing arsenic with her food. -A few years later certain facts came to light, proving conclusively -that the real criminal was a female acquaintance and confidante of the -dead woman. - -Thomas Perryman, again, was found guilty in 1879 of the murder of -his aged mother on the very flimsiest of evidence. His sentence was -commuted to penal servitude for life, and in the ordinary course -of events he should now be free. More than 100,000 people have, at -different times, petitioned for the release of this convict, and the -highest judicial authorities have expressed their belief in his entire -innocence of the crime imputed to him. Yet he has been compelled to -drink his terrible cup to the bitter dregs. - -In 1844 a gentleman named Barker was sentenced to penal servitude -for life for a forgery of which he was afterward proved to have been -wholly innocent. He served four years, and was then released and -readmitted to practise as an attorney. In 1859, eleven years after -having been “pardoned,” he was, upon the recommendation of a Select -Committee of the House of Commons, voted a sum of £5,000, “as a -national acknowledgment of the wrong he had suffered from an erroneous -prosecution.” - -The famous Edlingham case will doubtless be fresh in the minds of -most people. In February, 1879, the village vicarage was entered -by burglars, and a determined attempt was made to murder the aged -incumbent. For this outrage two men, Brannagham and Murphy, were -sentenced to lifelong imprisonment. After a lapse of nine years the -crime was confessed to by two well-known criminals named Richardson and -Edgell, the result being that the innocent convicts were released, with -an honorarium of £800 apiece. - -The eminent King’s Counsel, Sir George Lewis, has openly said that he -will not allow himself to speak of the way in which the “Edalji” trial -was conducted, and he further adds: “I have it on undoubted authority -that every ‘M.P.’ connected with the legal profession believes as I do -that that man is innocent. And yet a declaration from such a source is -allowed by the public to pass unnoticed. As I have before stated, ‘it -is not the business of the public, nor of individual citizens, to prove -the innocence of any unhappy person whom the process of law selects -for punishment; but it is the business of every citizen to see that -the courts incontestably prove the guilt of any person accused of a -crime before sentence is passed.’ Neither condition was fulfilled in -the case of the prisoner. I have studied the evidence, and say, from -knowledge gained by fifteen years’ association with criminals, that -this unfortunate young man is _innocent_.” Surely after the disclosures -of the Adolf Beck case this one, on the word of Sir George Lewis, ought -to receive unbiased consideration from the Home Office. - - - - -CHAPTER EIGHT - -Religion in Prison Life - - -DEDICATION OF NEW CHAPEL - -On our arrival at Aylesbury Prison there was no chapel. Divine service -was held in one of the halls, in which the prisoners assembled each -morning for twenty minutes of service. This arrangement had many -disadvantages, and one of the ladies on the Board of Visitors came -nobly to our relief with an offer to provide the prison with a chapel. -The Home Office “graciously” accepted this generous proposition, and -twelve months later it was completed and dedicated by the Lord Bishop -of Reading. (It was burned to the ground since my departure from -Aylesbury.) - -On the day preceding the ceremony I was asked to assist in decorating -the chapel with flowers kindly sent by Lady Rothschild. It was a -delicate expression of sympathy for the prisoners, which she repeated -on all high festival days. She was deeply affected when I told her how -profoundly the women appreciated her recognition of a common humanity. - -On the appointed day all work was suspended to enable the prisoners to -be present. In the galleries were seated the families of the governor, -chaplain, and doctor; at the right of the altar the generous donor of -the chapel, Adeline, Duchess of Bedford, was seated with her friends. -The organist played a prelude, and then the bishop, accompanied by the -chaplain and the clergymen of the diocese, entered the chapel. After -a hymn had been sung, a short service followed, and then the bishop -stepped forward and, facing the altar, read the “dedication service.” -It was most impressive. Then followed a prayer and a hymn, and the -service was over. The prisoners filed back to their respective cells -and the visitors made the tour of the prison. - -I was a patient in the infirmary at the time, but had received -permission to attend the chapel. Before the Bishop of Reading left the -prison he visited the sick, and as he passed my cell he stopped and -spoke to me words of hope and encouragement, adding his blessing. - - -INFLUENCE OF RELIGION UPON PRISONERS - -Another occasion on which the Bishop of Reading visited the prison was -the holding of a confirmation service. Many women of earnest minds in -prison sought in this manner to prove the sincerity of their repentance -and their resolution to live godly lives; and, with one exception, all -those confirmed that day have remained true to their profession. - -Penal servitude is a fiery test of one’s religious convictions. One’s -faith is either strengthened and deepened or else it goes under -altogether. I have witnessed many a sad spiritual shipwreck within -those walls. - -On a dark, gloomy day in October the rain pattered against the window -of my cell and the wind howled dismally around that huge “house of -sorrow.” Now and then the sound of weeping broke upon the stillness, -and I prayed in my heart for the poor souls in travail whose pains -had broken through the enforced rule of silence. There is no sound in -all the world so utterly unnerving as the hopeless sob of the woman -in physical isolation who may not be spiritually comforted. Separated -from loved ones, beyond the reach of tender hands and voices, she has -no one, as in former years, to share her sufferings or minister to her -pain. Alone, one of a mass, with no one to care but the good God above; -for “to suffer” thus is the punishment that man has decreed. - -The humanizing influences, in my opinion, can be brought to bear -upon prisoners with beneficial results only when supported by the -advantages of religious teachings. During the early part of my sentence -there were Scripture readers, laymen and laywomen, in all convict -prisons, to assist the chaplain in his arduous duties; but, on the -ground of expense, these have been dispensed with, thus practically -removing the only means of administering the moral medicine which is -essential to the cure of the habitual prisoner’s mental disease. - -A large amount of crime is due to physical and mental degeneration. -Nevertheless, crime is also the result of lovelessness, when it is not -a disease, and the true curative system should give birth to love in -human souls. There is not a man or woman living so low but we can do -something to better him or her, if we give love and sympathy in the -service and have an all-embracing affection for both God and man. - -If the future system is to treat the criminal in a curative or -reformative way, rather than by punitive methods, the means to -this end must certainly be increased. Even the worst woman can be -approached through the emotional side of her nature. A kind word, a -sympathetic look, a smile, a little commendation now and then, given -by the officers in charge, would soon gain the respect and confidence -of the prisoner, and thereby render her the more amenable to rules -and regulations. A prisoner with whom I worked, and whose inner life -by near association was revealed to me, had got into a very morbid, -depressed state of mind. She was under close observation by the -doctor’s orders. Her penal record was not a good one; her hasty temper -was continually getting her into trouble, and when she was punished she -would brood over it. - - -SUICIDE OF A PRISONER - -One day she asked for permission to see me; the permission was refused. -She made the request a second time, and, the fact coming to the -knowledge of the chaplain, he advised that it be granted, believing, -from his personal knowledge of my influence in the prison, that it -would have a beneficial effect. I was allowed to see her, and after a -few minutes’ conversation she appeared brighter. I told her that the -people of God have a promise of a Comforter from heaven to come to them -and abide with them, even in tribulation and in prison. She promised -me she would try to be more submissive and accept her punishment in -a better spirit. For several days after she seemed to improve. But -one afternoon she once more made the request to be allowed to see me. -As none of the authorities were in the building at the time, and the -chief matron could not take upon herself the responsibility of granting -the request, it was refused. I felt rather anxious about it, but was -helpless. At five o’clock that evening, just before supper was served, -the woman was found dead in her cell; she had hanged herself to the -window. She was only twenty-four years of age, and was serving a five -years’ sentence for shooting her betrayer under great provocation. -The tragedy was naturally kept quiet; none of the prisoners knew of -it until the following morning. How the truth got abroad I do not -know, but when the doors were unlocked after breakfast, instead of -the women passing out of their cells in the usual orderly way, they -rushed out, shouting excitedly at the top of their voices: “M---- has -hanged herself; ... she was driven to it!” In vain the officers tried -to pacify them or to explain the true state of things; they would not -listen, and continued to scream: “Don’t talk to us--you are paid to say -that! If you did not say that it was all right you would be turned out -of the gates!” And the uproar increased. As I have already stated, the -“Star Class” was sandwiched between two wards of habitual criminals, -and we had the benefit of every disturbance. During the excitement one -of the ringleaders caught sight of me and shouted: “Mrs. Maybrick, is -it true that M---- was driven to it?” The tumult was increasing and -was growing beyond the control of the warder, when the chief matron, -becoming alarmed, sent up word that I might explain to the women. -Accompanied by an officer, I did so, and in a few minutes the uproar -calmed down and the women returned quietly to their cells. I have -reason to believe that I always had the full confidence of my fellow -prisoners; they were quick to know and appreciate that I had their -welfare at heart, and that I never countenanced any disobedience or -breach of the rules. A first offender, under sentence for many years, -will suffer from the punishment according as she maintains or damages -her self-respect. - - -TRAGEDIES IN PRISON - -Above others there are four tragic prison episodes which, once -witnessed, can never be forgotten: - -1. Breaking bad news to a prisoner--telling her that a dear one in -the outside world is dying, and that she may not go to him; that she -must wait in terrible suspense until the last message is sent, no -communication in the mean time being permitted. - -2. Receiving an intimation of the death of a beloved father, mother, -brother or sister, husband or child, whose visits and letters have been -the sole comfort and support of that prisoner’s hard lot. - -3. The loss of reason by a prisoner who was not strong enough to endure -the punishment decreed by Act of Parliament. - -4. The suicide, who prefers to trust to the mercy of God rather than -suffer at the hands of man. - -Why should a woman be considered less loving, less capable of -suffering, because she is branded with the name of “convict?” She may -be informed that her nearest and dearest are dying, but the rules will -permit no departure to relieve the heart-breaking suspense. In the -world at large telegrams may be sent and daily bulletins received, but -not in the convict’s world. - -Death is a solemn event under any circumstances, and reverence for the -dead is inculcated by our religion, but to die in prison is a thing -that every inmate dreads with inexpressible horror. When a prisoner is -at the point of death, she is put into a cell alone, or into a ward, -if there is one vacant. There she lies alone. The nurse and infirmary -officers come and go; her fellow prisoners gladly minister to her; -the doctor and chaplain are assiduous in their attentions; but she is -nevertheless alone, cut off from her kin, tended by the servants of the -law instead of the servants of love, and it is only at the very last -that her loved ones may come and say their farewell. Oh! the pathos, -the anguish of such partings--who shall describe them? And when all -is over, and the law has no longer any power over the body it has -tortured, it may be claimed and taken away. - -The case of the prisoner who becomes insane is no less harrowing. She -is kept in the infirmary with the other patients for three months. If -she does not recover her reason within that period, she is certified -by three doctors as insane and then removed to the criminal lunatic -asylum. In the mean time the peace and rest of the other sick persons -in the infirmary are disturbed by her ravings, and their feelings -wrought upon by the daily sight of a demented fellow creature. - -And the suicide! To see the ghastly and distorted features of a fellow -prisoner, with whom one has worked and suffered, killed by her own -hands--such scenes as these haunted me for weeks; and it needed all my -reliance on God to throw off the depression that inevitably followed. - - -MORAL EFFECT OF HARSH PRISON REGIME - -Have you ever tried to realize what kind of life that must be in which -the sight of a child’s face and the sound of a child’s voice are ever -absent; in which there are none of the sweet influences of the home; -the daily intercourse with those we love; the many trifling little -happenings, so unimportant in themselves, but which go so far to make -up the sum of human happiness? It commences with the clangor of bells -and the jingling of keys, and closes with the banging of hundreds -of doors, while the after silence is broken only by shrieks and -blasphemies, the trampling of many feet, and the orders of warders. - -In the winter the prisoners get up in the dark, and breakfast in the -dark, to save the expense of gas. The sense of touch becomes very -acute, as so much has to be done without light. Until I had served -three years of my sentence I had not been allowed to see my own face. -Then a looking-glass, three inches long, was placed in my cell. I -have often wondered how this deprivation could be harmonized with a -purpose to enforce tidiness or cleanliness in a prisoner. The obvious -object in depriving prisoners of the only means through which they -can reasonably be expected to conform to the official standard of -facial cleanliness is to eradicate woman’s assumed innate sense of -vanity; but whether or no it succeeds in this, certain it is that -cleanliness becomes a result of compulsion rather than of a natural -womanly impulse. Also she must maintain the cleanliness of her prison -cell on an ounce of soap per week. After I left Aylesbury I heard that -the steward had received orders from the Home Office to reduce this -enormous quantity. If true it will leave the unfortunate prisoners with -three-quarters of an ounce of soap weekly wherewith to maintain that -cleanliness which is said to be next to godliness. The prisoners are -allowed a hot bath once a week, but in the interval they may not have a -drop of hot water, except by the doctor’s orders. - - -ATTACKS OF LEVITY - -All human instincts can not be crushed, even by an act of Parliament, -and sometimes the prisoners indulge in a flight of levity, which -is, however, promptly stopped by the officer in charge. But even -wilfulness and levity are to some a relief from the perpetual silence. -A young girl, fifteen years of age, came in on a conviction of penal -servitude for life. In a fit of passion she had strangled a child of -which she had charge. In consideration of her youth and the medical -evidence adduced at her trial, sentence of death was commuted. She -was in the “Star Class,” and it aroused my indignation to witness her -sufferings. A mature woman may submit to the inevitable patiently, as -an act of faith or as a proof of her philosophy; but a child of that -age has neither faith nor philosophy sufficient to support her against -this repressive system of torture. At times, however, the girl had -attacks of levity which manifested themselves in most amusing ways. -One day she was put out to work in the officers’ quarters and told to -black-lead a grate. With a serious face she set to work. Presently the -officer asked whether she had finished her task, to which she meekly -replied “Yes,” at the same time lifting her face, which, to the utter -amazement of the female warder, had been transformed from a white to a -brightly polished black one. - -On another occasion she was told that she would be wanted in the -infirmary. She was suffering great pain at the time, and had begged the -doctor to extract a tooth. When the infirmary nurse unlocked her door -she was found in bed. This is strictly against the rules, unless the -prisoner has special permission from the doctor to lie down during the -day. Of course, the officer ordered her to get up at once, to which she -replied, “I can’t.” “Why not?” asked the officer. “Because I can’t,” -the girl repeated. Whereupon the officer lifted off the bed covering to -see what was amiss. To her astonishment she saw that the child had got -inside the mattress (which I described in the beginning as a long sack -stuffed with the fiber of the coconut), and had drawn the end of it on -a string around her neck, so that nothing but her head was visible. - -It has been said that no apples are so sweet as those that are -stolen, and the great pleasure the women in prison derive from their -surreptitious levity is because it can so rarely be indulged in, and -the opportunities for its expression must always be stolen. - -There is an axiom in prison, “The worse the woman, the better the -prisoner.” As one goes about the prison, and observes those women who -are permitted little privileged tasks, such as tidying the garden, -cleaning the chapel, or any of the light and semi-responsible tasks -which convicts like, one will notice the privileged are not, as a rule, -the young or respectably brought up, but old, professional criminals. -They know the rules of the prison, they spend the greater part of -their lives there, and they know exactly how to behave so as to earn -the maximum of marks; their object is to get out in the shortest -possible time, and to have as light work as possible while they are -in. The officers like them because they know their work without having -to be taught. “There is no servant like an old thief,” I have heard it -said. “They do good work.” This is quite typical of a certain kind of -prisoner who is the mainstay of the prisons. - -The conviction of young girls to penal servitude is shocking, for it -destroys the chief power of prevention that prisons are supposed to -possess, and accustoms the young criminal to a reality which has far -less terror for her than the idea of it had. Prison life is entirely -demoralizing to any girl under twenty years of age, and it is to -prevent such demoralizing influence upon young girls that some more -humane system of punishment should be enacted. - - -SELF-DISCIPLINE - -In saying a word on what is, perhaps, best described as “prison -self-discipline,” I trust the reader will acquit me of any motive -other than a desire that it may result in some sister in misfortune -deriving benefit from a similar course. That the state of mind in -which one enters upon the life of a convict has some influence on -conduct--whether she does so with a consciousness of innocence or -otherwise--should, perhaps, go without saying. Nevertheless, innocent -or guilty, a proper self-respect can not fail to be helpful, be the -circumstances what they may; and from the moment I crossed Woking’s -grim threshold until the last day when I passed from the shadow and the -gloom of Aylesbury into God’s free sunlight, I adhered strictly to a -determination that I would come out of the ordeal--if ever--precisely -as I had entered upon it; that no loving eyes of mother or friends -should detect in my habits, manners, or modes of thought or expression -the slightest deterioration. - -Accordingly I set about from the very start to busy myself--and this -was no small helpfulness in filling the dreary hours of the seemingly -endless days of solitary confinement--keeping my cell in order and -ever making the most of such scant material for adornment as the rules -permitted. Little enough in this way, it may be imagined, falls to a -convict’s lot. Indeed, the sad admission is forced that nearly every -semblance of refinement is maintained at one’s peril, for “motives” -receive small consideration in the interpretation of prison rules, -however portentously they may have loomed in the process that placed an -innocent woman under the shadow of the scaffold, and only by grace of a -commutation turned her into a “life” convict. - -Come what would, I was determined not to lose my hold on the amenities -of my former social position, and, though I had only a wooden stool and -table, they were always spotless, my floor was ever brightly polished, -while my tin pannikins went far to foster the delusion that I was in -possession of a service of silver. - -Confinement in a cell is naturally productive of slothful habits and -indifference to personal appearance. I felt it would be a humiliation -to have it assumed that I could or would deteriorate because of my -environment. I therefore made it a point never to yield to that feeling -of indifference which is the almost universal outcome of prison life. -I soon found that this self-imposed regimen acted as a wholesome -moral tonic, and so, instead of falling under the naturally baneful -influences of my surroundings, I strove, with ever-renewed spiritual -strength, to rise above them. At first the difference that marked me -from so many of my fellow prisoners aroused in them something like -a feeling of resentment; but when they came to know me this soon -wore off, and I have reason to believe that my example of unvarying -neatness and civility did not fail in influencing others to look a bit -more after their personal appearance and to modify their speech. At -any rate, it had this effect: Aylesbury Prison is the training-school -for female warders for all county prisons. Having served a month’s -probation here, they are recommended, if efficient in enforcing the -prison “discipline,” for transference to analogous establishments in -the counties. It happened not infrequently, therefore, that new-comers -were taken to my cell as the model on which all others should be -patterned. - -I partook of my meals, coarse and unappetizing as the food might be, -after the manner I had been wont in the dining-room of my own home; -and, though unseen, I never permitted myself to use my fingers (as -most prisoners invariably did) where a knife, fork, or spoon would be -demanded by good manners. Neither did I permit myself, either at table -(though alone) or elsewhere, to fall into slouchy attitudes, even -when, because of sickness, it was nearly impossible for me to hold up -my head. - -I speak of this because of the almost universal tendency among -prisoners to mere animality. “What matters it?” is the general retort. -Accordingly, the average convict keeps herself no cleaner than the -discipline strenuously exacts, while all their attitudes express -hopeless indifference, callous carelessness, to a degree that often -lowers them to the behavior of the brutes of the field. The repressive -system can neither reform nor raise the nature or habits of prisoners. - - -NEED OF WOMEN DOCTORS AND INSPECTORS - -Women doctors and inspectors should be appointed in all female prisons. -Otherwise what can be expected of a woman of small mental resources, -shut in on herself, often unable to read or write with any readiness; -of bad habits; with a craving for low excitement; whose chief pleasure -has been in the grosser kind of animal delight? The mind turns morbidly -inward; the nerves are shattered. Although the dark cell is no longer -used, mental light is still excluded. Recidivation is more frequent -with women than with men. The jail taint seems to sink deeper into -woman’s nature, and at Aylesbury numbers of the more abandoned ones are -seldom for long out of the male warders’ hands. - - -CHASTENING EFFECT OF IMPRISONMENT ON THE SPIRIT - -For a considerable period I was given work in the officers’ mess. Their -quarters are in a detached building within the prison precincts, and -are reached by crossing a small grass-plot which separates it from -the prison. Each officer has a small bedroom, in which she sleeps and -passes her time when off duty. All meals are served in the mess-room, -and consist of breakfast at seven o’clock, lunch on turn between nine -and eleven, dinner at twelve-thirty, tea at five, and supper whenever -they are off duty. The cooking is excellent and varied. A matron is in -charge of the commissariat department, and has four prisoners of the -“Star Class” working under her. I did scullery work, which consisted -of washing up all the crockery, glass, knives, forks, and spoons used -at these five meals, besides all the pots and pans required in their -preparation. As a staff of twenty-five sat down to these frequent meals -daily, the work was very hard and quite beyond my strength. The “Star -Class” of workers should not be kept at it more than six months at a -time. Some of the life women have been in the kitchen and mess-room as -long as three and four years, and, as neither the culinary arrangements -nor the ventilation are modern, the consequent physical and mental -depression arising from these defects, and the monotony of the work, is -only too apparent. - -I was not feeling well at the time, and soon after I had a long -illness--a nervous breakdown, due partly to insomnia and partly to the -unrelieved strain and stress of years of hard labor. My recovery was -very slow. I was in the infirmary about eighteen months, and was glad -when finally discharged, as the intervals between my letters and visits -were shorter when I was in discipline quarters and could earn more -marks. During the long years of my imprisonment I learned many lessons -I needed, perhaps, to have learned during my earlier life; but, thank -God, I was no criminal! I was being punished for that of which I was -innocent. I believe it is God’s task to judge and ours to endure, but I -could not understand what his plans and his purposes were. I believed -they were good, although I could not see how eternity itself could make -up for my sufferings. Perhaps they were intended to work out some good -to others, by ways I should never know, until I saw with the clear -eyes of another world. Still, the external conditions of life acted -on my body and mind, and I scarcely knew at times how to bear them. -I could not have endured them without God’s sustaining grace. I used -often to repeat these lines: - - “With patience, then, the course of duty run; - God never does nor suffers to be done - But that which you would do if you could see - The end of all events as well as he.” - - -A DEATH-BED INCIDENT - -A woman lay dying in a near-by cell. Of the sixty years of her life she -had spent forty within prison walls. What that life had been I will not -say, but when she was in the agony of death she called to me: “I don’t -know anything about your God, but if he has made you tender and loving -to a bad lot like me, I know he will not be hard on a poor soul who -never had a chance. Give me a kiss, dear lass, before I go. No one has -kissed me since my mother died. - - - - -CHAPTER NINE - -My Last Years in Prison - - -I AM SET TO WORK IN THE LIBRARY - -When I recovered from my nervous breakdown, by medical order I was -given lighter employment, and went into the library. I was now the only -prisoner in the building who had suffered under the hardships of the -old system at Woking Prison, all the rest of those who came with me -having in the interim returned to the world. In fact, I was the only -one who had served over ten years. - -My task in the library was to assist the schoolmistress and to change -the library books twice a week. They were carried from cell to cell, -and this represented the handling of over two hundred and fifty books. -In addition to this, I had to be “literary nurse,” whose duties were -to attend to worn-out books, binding up their wounds and prolonging -their days of usefulness; doing cataloguing and entry work; to print -the name of each prisoner on a card placed over her cell door; to copy -hymns, and to make scrap-books for the illiterate prisoners, besides -other miscellaneous duties. - -The library was a very good one and contained not only the latest -novels, but philosophical works and books for study; also a limited -number in French and German. To these were added religious works, -especially poetry, and sermons for Sunday reading. I found a choice -collection to help me support the Sabbath day, for the suspended -animation makes a day of misery of the “day of rest.” One could not -read all day without tiring, and the absence of week-day work usually -made it a day of heavy, creeping depression. There are two periods of -exercise, and chapel morning and afternoon. The remainder of the time -the prisoners are locked in their cells. Reading was my only solace; -from first to last I read every moment that I could call my own. The -best index of the quality of the books was that every volume was read -or examined by the chaplain and his staff before it was admitted to -the library. If it contained any articles on prison life or matters -relating to prisoners, these were always carefully cut out. - -From my observations I consider that prison schoolmasters and -schoolmistresses are overburdened with miscellaneous and incompatible -duties. No one needs to be told that the average prisoner is a slow -learner, and that even a dull boy or girl is a better pupil than a -grown man or woman plodding along in the first steps of knowledge, and -who is taught, not in a class, but in a cell. Yet the schoolmaster -or schoolmistress has to devote hours daily to teaching, to help in -letter-writing, in the office work, in the distribution of library -books, in the library work; and now that their number is likewise -reduced on the ground of expense, the pressure of their work is out of -all proportion to the hours within which it can be reasonably performed. - -I have always been fond of reading, and during my leisure hours I got -through a large number of books. This was between noon and half-past -one, and seven and eight in the evening, when my light had to be put -out. - - -NEWSPAPERS FORBIDDEN - -The rules forbid that any public news be conveyed to the prisoners, -either at visits or by letters. This seems to be a very short-sighted -view to take of the matter. To allow newspapers in the prison might, of -course, lead to cipher communications to prisoners from their friends; -but no harm can possibly come of allowing information regarding public -affairs of national interest to be conveyed through the legitimate -channels of letters and visits. It would give the prisoners fresh food -for thought, and tend greatly to relieve that vacuity of mind which -is the outcome of lack of knowledge of external things, and of the -monotony of their lives; it would also make a pause in their broodings -over their cases, which is the sole subject of their thoughts and -conversations when permitted to converse at all. - - -HOW PRISONERS LEARN OF GREAT EVENTS - -The lowering of the prison flag told us of the death of Queen Victoria, -although we had heard several days before that she was sinking. When -King Edward was dangerously ill it was talked of among the officers, -and the prisoners, through me, asked that special prayers might be said -in the chapel. - -When Mafeking was relieved and when peace with the Boers was declared, -flags were hoisted. Jubilee and Coronation days were the only occasions -I remember when we had any relaxation of prison rules, and then -there was much disappointment, since in lieu of a mitigation of our -sentences, as was the case in India, they gave us extra meat and plum -pudding. - - -STRICT DISCIPLINE OF PRISON OFFICERS - -I have served under three governors, each of whom was an intelligent -and conspicuously humane man. They knew their prisoners and tried to -understand them, but there is not much a governor can do for them of -his own initiative. I consider that he who holds this responsible -position should have more of a free hand, and be allowed to use his -discretion in all ordinary matters pertaining to the prison discipline -and welfare of the prisoners. - -They were all advanced disciplinarians. The routine reeled itself off -with mechanical precision. The rules were enforced and carried out to -the letter. The deadly monotony never varied; all days are alike; -weeks, months, years slowly accumulate, and, in the mean time, the -mental rust is eating into the weary brain, and the outspoken cry rises -up daily--“How long, O Lord! how long?” - -The officers are almost as keen as the governor in their efforts to -keep things up to the mark. It is seldom they allow prisoners under -their observation or supervision any slight relaxation which nature may -demand, but the rules forbid. They dislike to punish a woman, and in -their hearts make many excuses for the black sheep. - - -THEIR HIGH CHARACTER - -As a class, with few exceptions, the prison staff is worthy of respect -and confidence, and might be trusted with any task. The patience, -civility, and self-control which the officers exhibit under the most -trying circumstances, as a rule, mark them as men and women possessing -a high sense of duty, not only as civil servants, but as Christians. - - -NERVOUS STRAIN OF THEIR DUTIES - -The hours of work are long, the nervous strain is incessant. I could -wish that those in high places showed a little more appreciation of -what these faithful servants do, and were not so sparing of their -praise and commendation. The small remuneration they receive can not -make up for the deprivation of the amenities of life which the prison -service entails. Two writers on prison life have expressed themselves -in widely different ways regarding the warders and officers. One writer -compares them to slave-and cattle-drivers; another expresses surprise -that they are as good as they are. As, I trust, an impartial observer, -I agree with the latter opinion. Experience has taught me that, in most -cases, if the prisoner is amiable and willing, the officer on her part -is ready to meet the prisoner fully half way--at all events, as far as -circumstances and duty will permit, for the continual daily changes of -duty, from ward to ward and hall to hall, make it nearly impossible -for any officer to acquire a true knowledge of the character of those -under her charge. - -It would be interesting if a trained psychologist could watch -and report upon the insidious effect of the repressive rules and -regulations of a prison on the more impressionable officers and -prisoners. When such officers first enter this service they are natural -women with a natural demeanor and expression of countenance. After a -time, however, the molding effects of “standing orders” become apparent -in the sternness of their expression, the harsh tones of their voices, -and the abruptness of their manner. - - -STANDING ORDERS FOR WARDERS - -These “standing orders” may be paraphrased as follows: - -“You must not do this or say that, or look sympathetic or friendly, or -converse with prisoners in any way. You must always suspect them of -wishing to do something underhand, sly, and contrary to orders. You -must never let them for a moment out of your sight, or permit them to -suppose that you have either trust or confidence in them. It is your -duty to see that the means of punishment devised by the Penal Code -are faithfully carried out. You are not to trouble yourself about the -result upon the prisoner--that is the affair of the Government.” - -Any familiarity on the part of an officer with a prisoner is -strictly forbidden by the rules of prison service, and the slightest -manifestation of the sort would entail serious punishment on the -officer. Surely this is not as it should be; on the contrary, greater -discretionary power should be permitted to officers in their relations -with prisoners, for the influence for good which a kind, well-disposed -officer could exert upon a prisoner is incalculable. But all this -possible influence for good is denied expression by the spirit of -mistrust and suspicion which pervades the entire prison administration. -This is one of the most regrettable features of the system. No officer -is trusted by her superior, and no prisoner, however exemplary her -conduct, may be trusted by any one officially connected with the -institution. - -An officer who commits a breach of any rule laid down for her may be -fined a sum varying from one to ten shillings, and if the offense is a -grave one she may be discharged. - - -CRIME A MENTAL DISEASE - -When will those connected with prisons awake to the fact that the -criminal is mentally diseased? Ninety-nine out of a hundred criminals, -when not such by accident, through poverty, or environment, come -to their lot through inherited, malformed brains. It ought to be -the sacred duty of earnest men to deal kindly, intelligently, and -patiently with them. The prison, which is now a dreadful place of -punishment and humiliation, ought to be made a home of regeneration and -reformation, in which intelligent effort is made to raise the prisoner -to a higher level; and this surely is not done by withdrawing all the -refining influences. - -I hope the time is not far off when men and women will take more of -a heart interest in prisoners, and when, no matter how low they may -have sunk, an opportunity to live honestly will be given them on their -release; when the society against which they have sinned will treat -them so kindly that for very shame they will seek to do better, and -repentance shall enter into the most darkened soul. The “eye for an -eye and tooth for a tooth” doctrine is not a part of the Christian -dispensation. Our Lord Jesus Christ gave his last supreme lesson, as he -turned toward the thief at his side on the cross, and there put an end -to that old law forever. - - -SOMETHING GOOD IN THE WORST CRIMINAL - -There is some good to be found in the worst criminal, which, if -nourished by patience and sympathy, will grow into more good. I speak -from a large, intimate personal experience, for during my imprisonment -it was my happy fortune to evoke kindly reciprocations from some of the -worst and most degraded characters. I will cite an instance. - -One day I was crossing the hall when a fight occurred. I can not -describe it--it was too horrible. The crowd surged toward me, and I was -being drawn in among the combatants, when one of them, catching sight -of me, stepped out with a face streaming with blood, and pushed me into -an open cell, closing the door after me. When I thanked her the next -day she replied: - -“Why, bless your heart, Mrs. Maybrick, did you think I would let them -hurt a hair of your head?” - -I believe I had the sympathy and respect of all my fellow prisoners, -and when I left Aylesbury, my feelings were those of mingled relief -and regret. I could not but feel attached to those with whom I had -lived and suffered and worked for so many weary years. I knew, perhaps, -more of the life history of these poor women, their inner thoughts and -feelings, than any one else in the prison. In suffering, in sympathy, -in pity, we were all akin. In the association hour they would bring me -their letters from home to read, and show me the photographs of their -children or other dear ones, while tears would course down their cheeks -at the memory of happier days. - - -NEED OF FURTHER PRISON REFORM - -Many opinions have been written regarding prisons, but with few -exceptions they are the observations of outsiders, which means, they -must of necessity be to a certain extent superficial. - -I have touched only a few spots of the great diseased system of prison -management, but what public opinion did to ameliorate past abuses, -public opinion can still do to improve the treatment of to-day’s -criminal. A little over a hundred years ago there were thirty-four -offenses in England punishable by capital punishment. To-day there is -only one. Charles Dickens did more than any agency toward doing away -with imprisonment for debt, yet last year there were no less than -eleven thousand prisoners in confinement for debt in English prisons. -How many of these have since joined the ranks of the criminals through -loss of self-respect? What has been the effect upon their wives and -families? Why is a man imprisoned for debt? Certainly not to enable him -to pay it. He can earn nothing while in prison, where he is supported -at the expense of the state; and if he has a wife or family, they -either become dependent on the rates, or incur debts which he will -have to pay on his release. Again, he may not improbably lose his -employment, and have to look out for another when liberated, and his -imprisonment does not make it more easy, either to procure work or -to perform it efficiently. The ground of imprisonment is dishonesty. -But is not actual dishonesty sufficiently met by the criminal law? -In what sense is the debtor dishonest? Is it meant that he has money -in his pocket and refuses to pay his debts? Is it not rather that he -ought to have had money? It is proved perhaps that he is earning so -much per week, possibly, but how long had he been earning and how long -was he out of employment before that? Has he had sickness? There have -been many instances where a man was in the hospital when the committal -order was made, and was seized and carried off to prison immediately -on discharge. If non-payment of a debt is not a crime, why is he in -prison for it? If it is a crime, why has he not the benefit of a trial -by jury on the ability or inability of paying his debts? And why -should not the Home Office or other appellate tribunal have the power -of revising his sentence? If the debtor has goods that can be seized, -let them be seized; if there is money coming to him, let the creditor -attach it; if it comes within the scope of the bankruptcy law, let -him be adjudicated and examined on oath to every shilling that he has -received or spent. But why, in the name of justice and humanity, treat -him as a criminal, prevent him from earning his bread, and make him -an incumbrance on the State, exposing his wife and daughter to ruin, -degrading him, lowering his self-respect, and subjecting him to the -taint of the prison atmosphere, without satisfactory evidence of his -ability to pay at the time of committal? Several prisoners that I came -in contact with were made criminals because their husbands had left -their families destitute because imprisoned for debt. - - - - -CHAPTER TEN - -My Release - - -I LEARN THE TIME WHEN MY SENTENCE WILL TERMINATE - -After I had been incarcerated for a few years I found out that it was -usual in the case of a life convict who has earned good marks to have -her sentence brought up for consideration after she has served fifteen -years. A life sentence usually means twenty years, and three months is -taken off each year as a reward for good conduct. In February, 1903, I -was definitely informed that my case would follow the ordinary course. -I have been accused of obtaining my release by “trickery,” but these -facts speak for themselves. - -The impression has also been given by the press that great leniency -was shown in my case, and that through the intervention of friends -the Home Office released me before the expiration of my sentence. No -exceptional leniency whatever was shown in my case. It depends upon the -prisoner herself whether she is released at an earlier period or serves -the full term of her sentence. By an unbroken record of good conduct I -reduced my life sentence, which is twenty years, to fifteen years; this -expired on the 25th of July, 1904. - - -THE DAWN OF LIBERTY - -As a giant refreshed by sleep, the prison awakens to life, and the -voices of officers, the clang of doors, the ringing of bells echo -throughout the halls. What does it portend? Is it the arrival of some -distinguished visitor from the Home Office? Then I hear the sound of -approaching footsteps, as they come nearer and nearer and then stop at -my cell door. The governor ushers in three gentlemen--one tall and -dark and handsome, but with a stern face; another short, with a white -beard and blue eyes which looked at me somewhat coldly; of the third I -have no distinct recollection. The tall gentleman conversed pleasantly -for several minutes about my work and myself, then passed out on his -tour of inspection. I did not know at the time who these visitors were, -but learned later that the gentleman who spoke to me was the Secretary -of State, Sir Matthew White-Ridley; one of his companions was Sir -Kenelm Digby, and the other Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise, the chairman of -the Prison Committee, who takes a really humane interest in the welfare -of the convicts. - -One morning, a week later, I was summoned to appear before the -governor. It is an ordeal to be dreaded by any one who has broken the -rules, but I knew I had not, and therefore concluded that I was wanted -in connection with my work. When I entered the office he looked up with -a kindly smile, which was also reflected in the face of the chief -matron. My attention was arrested. I stood silently waiting for him to -speak. After searching among some papers on the table, he picked up -one and read something to the following effect: “The prisoner, P 29, -Florence E. Maybrick, is to be informed that the Secretary of State -has decided to grant her discharge from prison when she has completed -fifteen years of her sentence, conditional upon her conduct.” - -For a moment I failed to grasp the full meaning of these words, but -when I did--how shall I describe the mingled feelings of joy and -thankfulness, of relief and hope, with which I was overwhelmed! I -returned to my cell dazed by the unexpected message for which for so -many long, weary years I had hoped and prayed. - -How anxiously I waited for those last few months to pass! - - -THE RELEASE - -It was Christmas Eve of 1903. I had helped to decorate the chapel with -evergreens, which is the only way in which the greatest festival of -the church’s year is kept in prison. There is no rejoicing allowed -prisoners; no festival meal of roast beef and plum pudding, only the -usual prison diet; and the sad memories of happier days are emphasized -by our bare cells with their maximum of cleanliness and minimum of -comfort. But to me it was the last Christmas in that “house of sorrow,” -and my heart felt the dawning of a brighter day. Only four weeks more -and I would have passed out of its grim gates forever! How I counted -those days, and yet how I shrank from going once more into the world -that had been so cruel, so hostile, so unmerciful, in spite of the fact -that there was no proof that I was the guilty woman they assumed me to -be! But kind friends and loving hearts were waiting to greet me, to -give me refuge and comfort. - -On Saturday, the 23d of January, my mother visited me at Aylesbury -Prison for the last time. How many weary and sad hours we had passed in -that visiting-room! Our hearts were too full for much conversation, and -it was with broken voices that we discussed the arrangements made for -my departure on the following Monday. - -The last Sunday I spent in prison I felt like one in a dream. I could -not realize that to-morrow, the glad to-morrow, would bring with it -freedom and life. In the evening I was sent for to say “Good-by” to -the governor. Besides the chief matron and the one who was to be my -escort to Truro, no one was aware of the day or hour of my departure -from Aylesbury. Not a word had been said to the other prisoners. I -should like to have said farewell to them, also to the officers whom -I had known for fourteen years (for several had come with us from -Woking Prison); but I thought it best to pass into my new life as -quietly as possible. At my earnest request the Home Office consented -to allow my place of destination to be kept a secret. I felt that I -should derive more benefit from the change of my new environment and -association with others, if my identity and place of retreat were not -known to the public. - -[Illustration: - - Copyright by the London Stereoscopic Co. - -RIGHT HON. A. AKERS DOUGLAS, M.P., British Home Secretary at time of -Mrs. Maybrick’s release.] - -On Monday, the 25th of January, I was awakened early, and after -laying aside, for the last time, the garments of shame and disgrace, -I was clothed once more in those that represent civilization and -respectability. I descended to the court below, and, accompanied by the -chief matron and my escort, passed silently through the great gates and -out of the prison. At half-past six a cab drove quietly up, and the -matron and I silently stepped in and were driven away to the Aylesbury -Station. On our arrival in London we proceeded at once to Paddington -Station. The noise and the crowds of people everywhere bewildered me. - - -IN RETREAT AT TRURO - -After an uneventful journey we arrived at Truro at six P.M., and -drove at once to the Home of the Community of the Epiphany, where I -stayed during the remainder of my term of six months. I am told that -some comment has been made on the fact that the Home was a religious -retreat, and that I ought to have been sent to a secular one instead. -I went there entirely of my own desire. On our arrival there I bade a -last farewell to my kind companion--one of the sweetest women it has -been my privilege to meet. The Mother Superior, who had visited me -three months previously at Aylesbury Prison, received me tenderly, and -at once conducted me to my room. How pure and chaste everything looked -after the cold, bare walls of my prison cell! How the restful quiet -soothed my jarred and weakened nerves, and, above all, what comforting -balm the dear Mother Superior and the sweet sisters poured into the -wounds of my riven soul! - -I look back upon the six months spent within those sacred walls as the -most peaceful and the happiest--in the true sense--of my life. The -life there is so calm, so holy, and yet so cheerful, that one becomes -infected, so that the sad thoughts flee away, the drooping hands are -once more uplifted, and the heart strengthened to perform the work that -a loving God may have ordained. - -I passed several hours of each day working in the sewing-room with the -sisters. During my leisure time I read much, and when the weather was -fine delighted in taking long walks within the lovely grounds that -surround the Home. I did not go out in the country, nor attend the -services on Sunday at the Cathedral. - -I left Truro on the 20th of July a free woman--with a ticket-of-leave, -it is true, but as I am exempt from police supervision even in -England, I have no need to consider it in America or elsewhere. - -By the courtesy of the American Ambassador, the Hon. Joseph H. Choate, -I was provided with an escort to accompany me and my companion on our -journey from Truro to Rouen, France. - -The Hon. John Hay, Secretary of State, Washington; the Hon. Joseph H. -Choate, Mr. Henry White, Chargé d’Affaires, and Mr. Carter, Secretary -of Embassy, at London, have always been most earnest in my cause. I -deeply appreciate their untiring efforts in my behalf. - - -I COME TO AMERICA - -After staying with my mother for three weeks, on the advice of my -counselors, Messrs. Hayden & Yarrell, of Washington, District of -Columbia, I decided to return to America with Mr. Samuel V. Hayden and -his charming wife. I longed to be once more with my own people, and it -was only physical weakness and nervous prostration that prevented me -from doing so immediately upon my release. I met these good friends at -Antwerp, Belgium, and sailed from there on the Red Star Line steamship -_Vaderland_ for New York. My name was entered on the passenger list as -Rose Ingraham, that I might secure more quiet and privacy; but when -we were a few days out the fact of my identity became known, and with -few exceptions the greatest courtesy, consideration, and delicacy were -shown in the demeanor of the passengers toward me. If any of these -should read these lines I would herewith express to them my grateful -thanks and appreciation; while toward the captain and officers of the -_Vaderland_ I feel especially indebted for their unwearied courtesy and -consideration. - -When I first caught sight of the Statue of Liberty, I, perhaps more -than any one on board, realized the full meaning of what it typifies, -and I felt my heart stirred to its depths at the memory of what all my -countrymen and countrywomen had done for me during the dark days of my -past, to prove that they still carried me in their hearts, though the -great ocean rolled between, and that I had not been robbed of the high -privilege of being an American citizen. - -We arrived at New York on the 23d of August. It was a “red-letter” day. -Once more, after many years of suffering and when I had long despaired -of ever seeing the beloved faces of my friends again, my feet once -again pressed the sacred soil of my native land. - - -MY LOST YEARS - -A time will come when the world will acknowledge that the verdict which -was passed upon me is absolutely untenable. But what then? Who shall -give back the years I have spent within prison walls; the friends by -whom I am forgotten; the children to whom I am dead;[4] the sunshine; -the winds of heaven; my woman’s life, and all I have lost by this -terrible injustice? Time may heal the deepest wounds when the balm of -love and sympathy is poured into them. It is well; for if mental wounds -proved as fatal as those of the body, the prison death-roll would -indeed be a long one. - -FOOTNOTE: - -[4] The innocents--my children--one a baby of three years, the other a -boy of seven, I had left behind in the world. They had been taught to -believe that their mother was guilty, and, like their father, was to -them dead. They have grown up to years of understanding under another -name. I know nothing about them. When the pathos of all this touches -the reader’s heart he will realize the tragedy of my case. - -During the early years of my imprisonment I received my children’s -photographs once a year; also several friendly letters from Mr. -Thomas Maybrick, with information about them. But as time passed on, -these ceased altogether. When I could endure the silence no longer I -instructed Mr. R. S. Cleaver, of Liverpool--who had been the solicitor -in my case, and to whose unwavering faith and kindness I owe a debt I -can never hope to repay--to write to Mr. Michael Maybrick to forward -fresh photographs of my boy and girl. To this request Mr. Thomas -Maybrick replied that Mr. Michael Maybrick refused to permit it. When -the matter was further urged Mr. Michael Maybrick himself wrote to the -governor to inform me that my son, who had been made acquainted with -the history of the case, did not wish either his own or his sister’s -photograph to be sent to me. - - - - -PART TWO - -ANALYSIS OF THE MAYBRICK CASE - - - - -Introduction - - -PETITIONS FOR A REPRIEVE - -The jury’s verdict of guilty was rendered on August 7, 1889. The -evidence at the trial, as well as the learned judge’s “summing up,” was -reported almost verbatim in the English press. The result was that, -not only in Liverpool, but in almost every city, town, and village -of the United Kingdom, men and women of every class and grade of -society arrived at the conclusion that the verdict was erroneous--as -not founded upon evidence, but upon the biased and misleading summing -up of the case by the mentally incompetent judge. Within a few days -my lawyers, the Messrs. Cleaver, of Liverpool, who had notified the -press that they would supply forms of petition, were inundated with -applications. For the first two days they issued one thousand a day, -and I have been informed that no less than five thousand petitions for -a reprieve, representing nearly half a million signatures, were sent to -the Home Secretary within the following ten days. In response to these, -the Home Office issued to the press the following decision: - - “After the fullest consideration, and after taking the best medical - and legal advice that could be obtained, the Home Secretary advised - Her Majesty to respite the capital punishment of Florence Elizabeth - Maybrick and to commute the punishment to penal servitude for life; - inasmuch as, although the evidence leads to the conclusion that the - prisoner administered and attempted to administer arsenic to her - husband with intent to murder him, yet it does not wholly exclude - a reasonable doubt _whether his death was in fact caused by the - administration of arsenic_.” - - -ILLOGICAL POSITION OF HOME SECRETARY - -Thus it will be seen that the Home Secretary, Mr. Matthews, ignored -the important statement of the judge at the trial, when, in giving -emphasis to his remarks, he told the jury that: “It is _essential_ to -this charge _that the man died of arsenic_. This question must be the -foundation of a judgment unfavorable to the prisoner, that he died -of arsenic.” Then Mr. Matthews, on reviewing the evidence given at -the trial, finding it impossible to justify the verdict, because the -evidence “does not wholly exclude a reasonable doubt whether his [James -Maybrick’s] death was in fact caused by the administration of arsenic,” -which question was to be the foundation of a judgment unfavorable to -me, instead of giving his prisoner the benefit of the reasonable -doubt, took it upon himself to apply the spirit of the law and of the -constitution, by making use of a wrongful conviction for one offense -charged in order to punish me for a different offense for which I had -never been tried, but with which he, without any public trial, charged -me, viz., “administering and attempting to administer arsenic” to my -husband. - - -NEW EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE IGNORED - -These charges, made by Mr. Matthews in 1889, have never been defined; -nor has any statement been submitted to me or my legal advisers of -the evidence relied on to prove them; nor have I been afforded an -opportunity of being heard by counsel in answer to them, nor of -pleading anything in reply to them. Had a second trial been granted -me, I should have seen the evidence upon which the new charges were -made against me, and in open court I could have confronted the -witnesses. But Mr. Matthews sentenced me to penal servitude for life -(without giving me a chance to defend myself against the charges) -which involved nine months’ solitary confinement in my case--in -itself a most excessive punishment for the untried and, consequently, -unproven charges. He sent me to suffer fourteen and one-half years -on suspicion--a suspicion not warranted by any evidence given at the -trial. The new evidence, which has been obtained since my conviction, -is admitted by all fair-minded persons to be of such a nature that it -would satisfy any intelligent jury that I was not only wrongfully found -guilty of murder, but was most wrongfully treated by Mr. Matthews. -It completely exonerates me from the charge of murder as well as -“administering and attempting to administer arsenic.” Since this -evidence was published, no one has attempted to justify the conviction -or the sentence passed upon me. - -Had the jury, instead of finding a verdict of “guilty” of murder, -returned a verdict in the same terms as the finding of Mr. Matthews, -the judge must have entered it as “not guilty” and discharged me. - - -LORD RUSSELL’S LETTER - -Well might the Lord Chief Justice Russell of Killowen write me, as he -did on the 27th of June, 1895, telling me that he had never relaxed his -efforts to urge my release, and saying: - - ROYAL COURT, 27th June, 1895. - - MRS. MAYBRICK, - - DEAR MADAM: I have been absent on circuit; hence my delay in answering - your letter. - - I beg to assure you that I have never relaxed my efforts where any - suitable opportunity offered to urge that your release ought to be - granted. I feel as strongly as I have felt from the first that you - ought never to have been convicted, and this opinion I have very - clearly expressed to Mr. Asquith, but I am sorry to say hitherto - without effect. - - Rest assured that I shall renew my representations to the incoming - Home Secretary, whoever he may be, as soon as the Government is formed - and the Home Secretary is in a position to deal with such matters. - - I am, - Faithfully, - RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN. - -This also seems to be the opinion of the leading counsel for the -prosecution, Mr. Addison, Q.C., M.P. (now Judge Addison, of the -Southwark County Courts), who is reported to have said, after the -summing up, that “the jury could not, especially in view of the medical -evidence, find a verdict of guilty.” This statement will be found in -Sir Charles Russell’s protest to Mr. Matthews. - - -EFFORTS FOR RELEASE - -The public are not probably fully aware how much intensity of feeling -and earnest work has been expended on my case during the fourteen and -one-half years of my imprisonment. The Home Office knows. Men in high -positions in both political parties in England have often united in -demanding a new trial. The almost invariable reply has been that the -best means to effect my release was to obtain new facts or evidence, -and submit these to the Home Secretary for his consideration. Those -well-meaning advisers seemed to forget that the half million of -petitioners for my reprieve or free pardon in England--not to count -those in America--were not moved thereto by new facts or evidence, -but by the absence of facts or evidence sufficient to prove that the -alleged crime had been committed by any one, or that either guilt or -complicity in that crime, if crime it were, attached to me. Surely it -is not the business of the public nor of individual citizens to prove -the innocence of any unhappy person whom process of law selects for -punishment, while it _is_ the business of every citizen to see that the -courts incontestably prove the guilt of any person accused of a crime -before sentence is passed, in the following manner: - -1. It must be proved that a crime has been committed. - -2. It must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person -is the one who committed it. - - -EVEN NEW EVIDENCE SUPERFLUOUS - -Neither condition has yet been fulfilled in my case. The evidence on -which a half million petitioners said and say I was unjustly condemned -is sufficient in itself. While it is true if a new trial had been -granted me I could have produced new evidence that overwhelmingly -demonstrated my innocence, it is also true that more facts or new -evidence were not requisite to enable justice to be done. - - -THE DOCTORS’ DOUBT - -The doctors who gave evidence in favor of death by arsenical poisoning -all stated that they would not have felt certain on the subject if -the one-tenth of a grain of arsenic had not been found in the body. -Therefore, since the presence of that arsenic could be otherwise -accounted for, I was entitled to an acquittal even on the evidence -of the Crown medical witnesses. Moreover, the symptom on which two -or three doctors for the prosecution laid most stress--continuous -vomiting--was referred by the third to morphia administered by himself. -All three were examined before any evidence of Mr. Maybrick’s habit -of arsenic taking was given. Had they believed him to be an arsenic -eater, they might have arrived at a different conclusion. The doctors -for the defense, who declared that Mr. Maybrick’s symptoms were not -those of arsenical poisoning, were men of far more experience as -regards poisons than the Crown medical witnesses. The quantity of -arsenic found in the body was, in their opinion, quite consistent with -administration in medicinal doses, and might have been introduced a -considerable time before. - -The proved administration of poison with intent to kill is punishable -by penal servitude, but not necessarily for life--sometimes for only -three years; but the charge must be proved in open court to be a -felonious attempt by some means actually used to effectuate the intent, -and it remains with the prosecution to produce the necessary evidence -that the means used were sufficient for the accomplishment of the -effect. - -The medical evidence proved that the quantity of arsenic--one-tenth -of a grain--found in Mr. Maybrick’s body was not sufficient to have -produced death. - - -PUBLIC SURPRISE AT VERDICT - -_The Times_ of August 8, 1889, declared that, of the hundreds of -thousands of persons who followed the case with eager interest and -attention, not one in three was prepared for the verdict. The large -majority had believed that, in the presence of such contradictory -evidence, the jury would give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt and -bring in a verdict as much like the Scotch “not proven” as is permitted -by English law. - - -CHARACTER OF JURY - -There was strong prejudice against me, due to the numerous false and -sensational reports circulated by the press during the interval between -the arrest and the trial. The jury belonged to a class of men who were -not competent to weigh technical evidence,[5] and no doubt attached -great weight to the opinions of the local physicians, one of whom was -somewhat of a celebrity. But the main element in the conviction was -Justice Stephen, whose mind, undoubtedly owing to incipient insanity -(he died insane a year later), was incapable of dealing with so -intricate a case. - - -THE “MAD JUDGE” - -The Liverpool _Daily Post_, as I am told, had been hostile rather than -favorable toward me, but, on the death of Lord Chief Justice Russell, -that journal, in articles of August 13 and 14, 1900, showed that it -fully appreciated the unfairness of my trial, for it stated that no -human being ought to be handed over to be tried by a “mad judge.” The -following is taken from _The Post_ of August 13, 1900: - - “The death of the Lord Chief Justice may have recalled to the minds - of some Liverpool folk a sad and sordid tragedy enacted among them - eleven years ago, in which he was a principal performer. To those - who were there, a vivid recollection still persists of that bright - July morning when a thronged court, hushed in expectancy, awaited - the beginning of the Maybrick trial. In fancy one still hears the - distant fanfare of the trumpets as the judges with quaint pageantry - passed down the hall, and still with the mind’s eye sees the stately - crimson-clad figure of the great mad judge as he sat down to try his - last case. A tragedy, indeed, was played upon the bench no less than - in the dock. - - “Few who looked upon the strong, square head can have suspected that - the light of reason was burning very low within; yet as the days of - the trial dragged by--days that must have been as terrible to the - judge as to the prisoner--men began to nod at him, to wonder, and to - whisper. Nothing more painful was ever seen in court than the proud - old man’s desperate struggle to control his failing faculties. But the - struggle was unavailing. It was clear that the growing volume of facts - was unassorted, undigested in his mind; that his judgment swayed - backward and forward in the conflict of testimony; that his memory - failed to grip the most salient features of the case for many minutes - together. It was shocking to think that a human life depended upon the - direction of this wreck of what was once a great judge.” - - -JUSTICE STEPHEN’S BIASED CHARGE - -The charge of Mr. Justice Stephen to the jury positively teemed with -misstatements as to the evidence given during the trial. I quote a -statement from the same journal in its issue of August 17, 1900: - - “I should be very sorry to think that the same number of errors as to - the matters of fact given in the evidence had ever been made in any - judge’s charge. It simply swarms with them, and as the jury at the end - of a long trial is likely to prefer the judge’s résumé to their own - recollection, I doubt if the verdict in the Maybrick case was founded - on the evidence at all. And if I am right in thinking that the jurors - founded their verdict on the judge’s recapitulation of the evidence - rather than on the evidence itself, I do not see how any counsel could - have saved the prisoner.” - -That the jury “did not hear the whole of the evidence very distinctly” -is admitted by one of them in the Liverpool _Daily Post_ of August 10, -1889. Consequently they were likely to be unduly influenced by the -judge’s charge. There is no evidence that the jury detected the judge’s -misstatements, as a more intelligent jury certainly would have done. -Their minds were “taken captive” by the charge of Justice Stephen, and -they were as “clay in the hands of the potter.” - - -LORD RUSSELL’S MEMORANDUM QUASHED - -The Lord Chief Justice sent the Home Secretary a memorandum consisting -of twenty folios, in which he stated the strong opinion that “Mrs. -Maybrick ought to be released at once.” The Lord Chief Justice also -requested that the contents of his memorandum be made public. Yet when -asked in the House of Commons to lay the document on the table of the -House in order that it might be accessible to the members, the Home -Secretary emphatically declined. The London _Daily Mail_, in a leader -on this incident, said: - - “The only conceivable reasons for declining to give publicity to the - letter, which was actually intended for publication, are apparently - official red tape and the fear of giving new life to the agitation - in favor of Mrs. Maybrick’s release. This result will be almost as - effectually achieved by surrounding the case with further mystery and - leaving upon the public mind the grave suspicion that justice may not - have been done.” - - -REPEATED PROTESTS OF LORD RUSSELL - -The following extracts are taken from the “Life of Lord Russell of -Killowen” by R. Barry O’Brien. - - “In November, 1895, he [Lord Russell] wrote to Sir Matthew - White-Ridley (page 260), conveying his strong and emphatic opinion - that Florence Maybrick ought never to have been convicted; that her - continued imprisonment is an injustice which ought promptly to be - ended, and added: ‘I have never wavered in this opinion. After her - conviction I wrote and had printed a memorandum, which I presume - is preserved at the Home Office. Lest it should not be, I herewith - transmit a copy.’ - - “As is known, what happened was that Mr. Matthews, after consultation - with the present Lord Chancellor, Lord Salisbury, and Mr. Justice - Stephen, and after seeing Dr. Stephenson, the principal Crown witness, - and also the late Dr. Tidy, respited the capital sentence on the - expressed ground that there was sufficient doubt whether death had - been caused by arsenical poisoning to justify the respite. - - “It will be seen (1) that such a doubt existed as to the commission - of the offense for which Florence Maybrick was tried as rendered it - improper, in the opinion of the Home Secretary and his advisers, that - the capital sentence should be carried out; and (2) that for more - than six years Florence Maybrick has been suffering imprisonment on - the assumption of Mr. Matthews that she committed an offense for which - she was never tried by the constitutional authority and of which she - has never been adjudged guilty.” - -From page 261: “This is in itself a most serious state of things. It -is manifestly unjust that Florence Maybrick should suffer for a crime -in regard to which she has never been called upon to answer before any -lawful tribunal. - -“Is it not obvious that if the attempt to murder had been the offense -for which she was arraigned, the course of the defense would have been -different? I speak as her counsel of what I know. Read the report -of the defense, and you will see that I devoted my whole strength -to and massed the evidence upon the point that the prosecution had -misconceived the facts, that the foundation on which the whole case -rested was rotten, for that, in fact, there was no murder; that, on the -contrary, the deceased had died from natural causes. - -“It is true that incidental reference was made to certain alleged -acts of Florence Maybrick, but the references were incidental only; -the stress of my argument being, in fact, that _no murder had been -committed, because the evidence did not warrant the conclusion that the -deceased had died from arsenical poisoning_. On the other hand, had -the Crown counsel suggested the case of attempt to murder by poison, -it would have been the duty of counsel to address himself directly and -mainly to the alleged circumstances which, it was argued, pointed to -guilty intent. That these alleged circumstances were capable in part -of being explained, in part of being minimized, and in part of being -attacked as unreliably vouched, can not, I think, be doubted by any one -who has with a critical eye scanned the evidence. I do not deny that my -feelings are engaged in this case. It is impossible that they should -not be, but I have honestly tried to judge the case, and I now say that -_if I was called upon to advise in my character of head of the Criminal -Judicature of this country, I should advise you that Florence Maybrick -ought to be allowed to go free_.” - -From page 262: “I think it my duty to renew my protest against the -continued imprisonment of Florence Maybrick. I consider the history of -the case reflects discredit on the administration of the criminal law. -I think my protest ought to be attended to at last. The prisoner has -already undergone punishment for a period four times as long, or more, -as the minimum punishment fixed by law for the commission of the crime, -of which she has never been convicted or for which she has never been -tried, but for which she has been adjudged guilty by your predecessor -in the office of Home Secretary.” - - -THE AMERICAN OFFICIAL PETITION - -The following is quoted from the American Official Petition sent to the -Rt. Hon. Henry Matthews, Q.C., M.P., Her Majesty’s principal secretary -for the Home Department: - - “As Florence Elizabeth Maybrick is an American woman, without father, - brother, husband, or kin in England, except two infant children, - enduring penal servitude for life in Woking Prison; - - “As the conduct of her trial resulted in a profound impression of a - miscarriage of justice, in an earnest protest against the verdict, and - the execution of the sentence of death, and its commutation to penal - servitude for life on the ground of reasonable doubt whether a murder - had been committed; - - “As a careful legal scrutiny of the evidence given at the trial - by eminent solicitors, barristers, queen’s counsel, and members - of Parliament, and the production of facts not in evidence at the - trial have resulted in a final decision of counsel that the case - is one proper for the grave consideration of a criminal appellate - tribunal--if such a tribunal existed; - - “Therefore, we earnestly ask that the Rt. Hon. Henry Matthews, - Q.C., M.P., Her Majesty’s principal secretary of state for the Home - Department, will advise Her Majesty to order the pardon and release of - the prisoner, who has now suffered an imprisonment of three years. - - “LEVI P. MORTON, Vice-President of the United States, President of - the Senate. - - “CHARLES T. CRISP, Speaker of the House of Representatives. - - “CHARLES FOSTER, Secretary of the Treasury. - - “JAMES G. BLAINE, Secretary of State. - - “S. B. ELKINS, Secretary of War. - - “W. H. MILLER, Attorney-General. - - “JOHN WANAMAKER, Postmaster-General. - - “B. T. TRACY, Secretary of the Navy. - - “JOHN B. NOBLE, Secretary of the Interior. - - “G. M. RUSK, Secretary of Agriculture. - - “J., CARDINAL GIBBONS. - - “J. M. SCOFIELD, Major-General Commanding the Army. - - “A. W. TRULY, Brigadier-General-in-Chief, Signal Office. - - “THOMAS LINCOLN CASEY, Brigadier-General-in-Chief of Engineers. - - “JOSEPH CABELL BRECKENRIDGE, Brigadier-General, Infantry-General. - - “J. O. KELTON, Brigadier-General, Adjutant-General. - - “WILLIAM SMITH, Paymaster-General. - - “H. M. BATCHELDER, General-Quartermaster-General. - - “B. DUBARRY, General and Commanding General Infantry. - - “O. SUTHERLAND, General Infantry General. - - “D. W. FLAGLER, Chief of Ordnance. - - “J. NORMAN LISBER, Acting Judge-Advocate-General. - - “THOMAS EWING, Brevet-Major-General, U. S. A., and many others.” - - -SECRETARY BLAINE’S LETTER TO MINISTER LINCOLN - -I will conclude by quoting the letter of Secretary Blaine to Mr. Robert -Lincoln, then Minister to the Court of St. James. It will be seen that -Mr. Blaine was of opinion that I had lost my citizenship. Since this -letter was written it has been decided by the Supreme Court of the -United States that a woman married to a foreigner, on the death of her -husband can, on application, be reinstated to citizenship. - -[Illustration: HON. JAMES G. BLAINE, American Secretary of State, -1889-1892.] - - “DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, - “March 7, 1892. - - “MY DEAR MR. LINCOLN: As Mrs. Maybrick lost her American citizenship - by her English marriage, and as I fear she does not resume it by her - widowhood, I can not instruct you officially as to the course you - should pursue toward her. - - “But her American and Southern birth, her connection with many - families of the highest respectability and even of prominence in the - country’s service, have attracted much attention to her fate. - - “I have no other interest in her than an interest which you and - I share in common with all our countrymen--the desire to help an - American woman in distress. That she may have been influenced by the - foolish ambition of too many American girls for a foreign marriage, - and have descended from her own rank to that of her husband’s family, - which seems to have been somewhat vulgar, must be forgiven to her - youth, since she was only eighteen at the time of her marriage. - - “There is a wide and widening belief in this country that she is - legally innocent and illegally imprisoned. The official charge of the - judge that murder must be proved and the official announcement of the - Home Secretary that the evidence leaves a ‘reasonable doubt’ of murder - are the premises of but one conclusion--the discharge of the prisoner. - - “The fact that she was never indicted or tried by a jury of her peers - on a specific count of felonious attempt to administer arsenic, yet - is condemned to penal servitude for life on the Home Secretary’s - statement that she evidently made such an attempt, can never be - reconciled to the English principle that an accused person shall be - tried by a jury of his peers. Lawyers here are among the strongest - believers in the illegality of her imprisonment. Indeed, the sense of - injustice is developing and deepening into horror. - - “Officially I could only instruct you on behalf of a multitude of - American citizens to investigate her case. Personally I beg to - express to you my deep interest in it, and pray you, if possible, to - communicate with Messrs. Lumley and Sir Charles Russell as to any - method of American cooperation which may seem to them desirable. - - “Messrs. Lumley have made a very able brief, which I am sure would - interest you, and which seems to me unanswerable. Sir Charles Russell, - whose reputation you know, is her counsel. Consult with them what best - can be done, from an American point of view, to secure Mrs. Maybrick’s - release. And if you shall have read Lumley’s brief, I am sure that - conviction will lead you to personal activity in her behalf. - - “You can communicate with me in strict confidence, as from one - American citizen to another, for the relief of an American woman - helplessly enduring a great wrong. - - “Believe me, etc., - “JAMES G. BLAINE.” - -And yet it required the time from March 7, 1892, until July 20, 1904, -to attain my liberation; and then it was accomplished by time limit and -by no act of grace or concession on the part of the English Government. - - -HENRY W. LUCY ON LORD RUSSELL - -_The Strand Magazine_, London, in its November number, 1900, published -an article by Henry W. Lucy, Esq., who, speaking of the late Lord Chief -Justice Russell, says: - - “The most remarkable episode in Charles Russell’s career at the bar - undoubtedly was his defense of Mrs. Maybrick. - - “I happened to find myself in the same hotel with him at Liverpool - on the morning of the day set down for the opening of the trial. At - breakfast he spoke in confident terms of his client’s innocence and of - the surety of her acquittal. He did not take into account the passing - mood of the judge who tried the case, and so found himself out of his - reckoning; but the verdict of the jury, still less the summing-up of - Fitz-James Stephen, did not shake his conviction. Sir Charles Russell - was of all men least likely to be misled by appearances or deliberate - deception; having probed the case to the bottom, having turned his - piercing eyes on the woman in the dock, having talked to her in - private and studied her in public, he was convinced of her innocence. - - “Lord Landoff was a lawyer of high position at the English bar when, - as Mr. Henry Matthews, he came into the Home Office. - - “The verdict of the jury was ‘guilty,’ and her sentence was death, - which was a real surprise, as was afterward learned, even to the - judge, Sir Fitz-James Stephen. If Mr. Matthews believed her guilty, - he should not have commuted her sentence upon the ground that he - assigned. If she was guilty she well deserved death on the scaffold. - The evidence, however, satisfied Mr. Matthews that there was - reasonable doubt that the death of Mr. Maybrick was due to arsenic. - In this view, as is well known, he was sustained by Justice Stephen. - If such a doubt really came into Mr. Matthews’s mind, as was made the - ground of the commutation of the sentence, _under English law that - doubt entitled the accused to acquittal_. - - “Why he lacked the courage of his convictions can only be surmised. At - all events he did not dare to take the responsibility of allowing her - to be executed. - - “The intercession of the American Government through Mr. Blaine, - Secretary of State, was urgent, strong, and most intense. It is - incredible that Mr. Matthews desired any loophole to release her. The - case was full of them. - - “Sir Matthew White-Ridley was not a lawyer, and there is no - probability that he ever read the evidence in the case, which was - voluminous. He could not have read the papers in three days if he had - attempted it. He simply followed his predecessor’s line and was not - able to take up the case on its merits.” - - -LORD RUSSELL’S CONVICTION OF MRS. MAYBRICK’S INNOCENCE - -This statement of Mr. Lucy is of great value as an answer to the -assault made on Lord Russell’s memory after his death, on his firm -belief in my innocence. - -Lord Hugh Cecil wrote to a constituent: - - “I believe I am right in stating that he (Lord Russell) never said - that he believed Mrs. Maybrick to be innocent.” - -When this was shown Lord Russell by Mr. A. W. McDougall, Esq., the -Chief Justice exclaimed: - - “Does Lord Hugh Cecil suppose that I would abandon all the traditions - of the Bar and put forward publicly as an argument in such a case my - personal belief in this, that, or the other thing? Does he suppose - that I would have made all the efforts I have been making to obtain - her freedom if I believed her to be guilty?” - - -EXPLANATION OF ATTITUDE OF HOME SECRETARIES - -“Personal Rights,” of November 15, in commenting on the statement of -Mr. Lucy in _The Strand Magazine_, says: - - “We do not share the belief that Sir Fitz-James Stephen was insane in - any plenary sense at the time of the trial; but we are convinced that - he was not fully sane. His charge to the jury, the report of which - is reproduced in full in Mr. Levy’s book, is grotesquely inaccurate; - and if the jury took it to be a compendium of the evidence--as they - probably did--the result of their deliberation is fully accounted - for. Indeed, if the facts were such as the judge stated, the verdict - could hardly be impugned. How different they were may be seen by any - one who compares the evidence with the judge’s charge, in the book - already referred to. To take a single instance: the judge stated that, - according to the evidence of Alice Yapp, at the commencement of Mr. - Maybrick’s illness, he was very sick and in great pain immediately - after some medicine was given to him by his wife. Alice Yapp swore - nothing of the kind. She saw neither any administration of medicine - nor any sickness. We could give other instances of gross inaccuracy, - generally leading to the conclusion of the prisoner’s guilt; but, for - our present purpose, the above incident will suffice. - - “If this was the character of the judge’s charge to the jury, what - confidence can be placed in his notes? Still upon those notes was - probably based the conclusions of successive Home Secretaries or of - the officials employed by them. When Mr. Lucy holds up his hands in - astonishment at the marvelous consensus of opinion of various Home - Secretaries, he seems to us to manifest remarkable blindness--for one - so long behind the Speaker’s chair--as to the vicarious nature of - that opinion. It is more than possible that the conclusions of Mr. - Matthews, Mr. Asquith, and Sir Matthew White-Ridley were all drawn - for them by the same gentleman, or, at least, that the same gentleman - helped these various Home Secretaries to come to the same conclusion. - - “We hope that Mr. Ritchie, the new Home Secretary, will judge this - matter for himself. Let him read the salient portions, at least, of - Mr. Levy’s book, and, per contra, the article of X. Y. Z. in _The - Contemporary Review_ of September last. If he likes to make the - inquiry, he will find that X. Y. Z. is one of his new permanent - staff, and that the doctrines put forward in the article are the - embodiment of Home Office practise. This is a matter which does not - concern the Maybrick case alone. Scarcely a month passes without some - new manifestation of injustice brought about by adherence to the - traditions of the department over which Mr. Ritchie now presides. If - he will seek out this hydra and slay it, he will leave for himself - an immortal name among Secretaries of State, and--what he will hold - of more importance--he will cut off a permanent source of injustice, - give releasement and joy to the innocent pining in prison, and breathe - a new life into a department which is sadly in need of a renovating - spirit.” - -[Illustration: HON. ROBERT T. LINCOLN, American Ambassador to Court of -St. James, 1889-1893.] - - -UPHOLDING THE JUSTICIARY - -In the same number of this journal is an article from “Lex,” a -well-known writer in English journals, which we reproduce: - - “SIR: May I call attention to the two articles in the Liverpool - _Post_ of August 13 and 14, in which the utter incompetence of the - judge at the Maybrick trial is strongly asserted? The writer is - distinctly hostile to the prisoner, and writes without any intention - of raising the question whether the trial was not null and void; but - as the English system consists of trial by judge and jury, the total - incompetence of either element should clearly vitiate it. Moreover, - Mr. Ruggles-Brise, on the occasion of a visit to America in 1897, - stated that the reason of the steadfast refusal of _the Home Secretary - to release the prisoner was his desire to uphold the wholesome - authority of the English justiciary_. That authority can not be - regarded as wholesome if the judge was insane. Lord Russell, who was - present throughout the trial, was of different opinion from that of - the judge. He was undoubtedly sane. If Sir J. F. Stephen was insane, - the public will, I think, be of opinion that the sane judge should - have had the most influence with the executive.” - - -NEED OF COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL - -Lord Esher, in _The Times_ of August 17, 1889, strongly advocated -a court of criminal appeal, and _The Times_, in an article of the -same date, supported the views expressed by Lord Esher and by Lord -Fitzgerald, as follows: - - “A court of appeal, as Lord Esher sketches it, would not be open - to the objections which can be fairly urged against our present - informal method of procedure. The Home Secretary, as a quasi court - of appeal, is, as Lord Fitzgerald remarks, not a judge and has not - the power of a judge.... The judgment pronounced by a strong court - of criminal appeal, such as Lord Esher’s letter suggests, would do - more to satisfy the public mind than the best efforts of the Home - Secretary could possibly do. The reform which Lord Esher advocates has - been long called for, and Lord Fitzgerald did well to press it on the - Government.... What the public feel is that they would rather have the - fallibility of trained judges than the fallibility of an individual - sitting without any of the apparatus with which a court of law is - enabled to detect truth from falsehood, and perhaps unconsciously - confusing the prerogative of mercy with justice.” - -FOOTNOTE: - -[5] The jury was composed of three plumbers, two farmers, one milliner, -one wood-turner, one provision dealer, one grocer, one ironmonger, one -house-painter, and one baker. - - - - -THE BRIEF OF MESSRS. LUMLEY & LUMLEY - - -This brief of Messrs. Lumley & Lumley, characterized in the preceding -letter of Secretary Blaine as “very able” and “unanswerable,” is -too long for reproduction in these pages in its entirety, and hence -only the main points are given. The document was prepared at the -instance of Lord Russell of Killowen for submission to himself and -three other Queen’s Counsel, with a view of obtaining a new trial. It -may interest the reader to know that the money required to make this -searching analysis by Messrs. Lumley & Lumley was raised by a popular -subscription in America, through the good offices of the New York -_World_. The eminent Queen’s counsel, after a full consideration of the -analysis of the case, submitted the following opinion: - - -OPINION--RE F. E. MAYBRICK - -“Having carefully considered the facts stated in the elaborate case -submitted to us by Messrs. Lumley & Lumley, and the law applicable to -the matter, we are clearly of opinion that there is no mode by which -in this case a new trial or a ‘_venire de novo_’ can be obtained, nor -can the prisoner be brought up on a ‘habeas corpus,’ with the view to -retrying the issue of her innocence or guilt. - -“We say this notwithstanding the case of Regina _vs._ Scarfe (17 Q. B., -238, 5; Cox, C. C., 243; 2 Den., C. C., 281). - -“We are of opinion that in English criminal procedure there is no -possibility of procuring a rehearing in the case of felony where -a verdict has been found by a properly constituted jury upon an -indictment which is correct in form. This rule is, in our opinion, -absolute, unless circumstances have transpired, and have been entered -upon the record, which, when there appearing, would invalidate the -tribunal and reduce the trial to a nullity by reason of its not having -been before a properly constituted tribunal. None of the matters -proposed to be proved go to this length. - -“We think it right to add that there are many matters stated in the -case, not merely with reference to the evidence at and the incidents -of the trial, but suggesting new facts, which would be _matters proper -for the grave consideration of a Court of Criminal Appeal_, if such a -tribunal existed in this country. - - (Signed) “CHARLES RUSSELL, Q.C. - “I. FLETCHER MOULTON, Q.C. - “HARRY BOOKIN POLAND, Q.C. - “REGINALD SMITH, Q.C. - - “LINCOLN’S INN, 12th April, 1892.” - - * * * * * - -This opinion was based upon the following points, presented by Messrs. -Lumley & Lumley: - - -JUSTICE STEPHEN’S MISDIRECTIONS - -The _misdirections_ which are selected for consideration may be -conveniently classed, among others, under these headings: - -1. As to the facts disclosed in the evidence of the procuring and -possession of arsenic by Mrs. Maybrick and of her administering it. - -2. As to the cause of death. - -A perusal of the summing-up from beginning to end impresses the mind -with the feeling that, whenever Mr. Justice Stephen approached any fact -offered by the defense which threw light upon _the possession_ and _an -alleged_ administration of arsenic by Mrs. Maybrick, he drew the minds -of the jury away from it; he played, in fact, the part of the peewit, -which swoops and screams in another part of the field on purpose to -hide where its nest is, and to draw the attention of the passers-by -from the right spot. - -Mr. Justice Stephen pointed out to the jury in his summing-up: “You -must begin the whole subject of poison with this, which is a remarkable -fact in the case and which it seems to me tells favorably rather than -otherwise for the prisoner. You must take notice of it and consider -what inference you draw from it. In the whole case, from first to -last, there is _no evidence_ at all of her having _bought_ any poison, -or definitely having had anything to do with procuring any, with the -exception of fly-papers. But there is evidence of a considerable -quantity having been found in various things, which were kept some here -and some there--kept principally, as I gather, in the inner room.[6] -... There is evidence about a considerable quantity of poison in this -house, and more particularly about one or two receptacles which were in -the inner room, Mr. Maybrick’s dressing-room, as it has been pointed -out.” - - -MISDIRECTION AS TO MR. MAYBRICK’S SYMPTOMS - -From the testimony it appears that on the 27th of April James -Maybrick, before starting to the Wirrall Races, was sick. There is -no actual evidence of vomiting, but he is described as sick, and as -feeling a numbness in his legs while walking downstairs, which was an -old-standing complaint of his of many years. Both he himself and Mrs. -Maybrick told the servants that this was due to a double dose of some -London medicine. He got wet through at the races and dined in his wet -clothes at a friend’s (Mr. Hobson), on the other side of the Mersey, -and did not return home till after the servants had retired to bed; -but the next morning, Sunday, the 28th of April, he was taken ill, and -Mrs. Maybrick sent a servant off hurriedly for Dr. Humphreys, who had -not attended her husband before, but who was the doctor living nearest -the house, and in the mean time got some mustard and water, telling him -to take it, as it would remove the brandy at all events. Dr. Humphreys -attended James Maybrick on the 28th, but was not told by him that he -had vomited the day before. - -Mr. Justice Stephen, when referring to this, said: “The Wirrall Races -were followed by symptoms which were described to be arsenical.” It is -submitted that this was a _misdirection_, the symptom there referred -to being sickness, and there was no evidence of vomiting on any of the -days immediately succeeding the Wirrall Races. But on the 28th of April -the mustard and water was given him by Mrs. Maybrick for the purpose of -_producing_ sickness and removing the brandy, and if he had been sick -it would have been attributable to _mustard and water_, not to arsenic. - -On the other hand, the medical evidence showed that gastro-enteritis -might have been set up either by improper food or drink, or an excess -of either; or, again, by such a wetting through as deceased got at the -Wirrall Races. On the 8th of May Alice Yapp communicated to Mrs. Briggs -and Mrs. Hughes her suspicions that James Maybrick’s illness was due to -Mrs. Maybrick poisoning him with _fly-papers_. - - -MISDIRECTION AS TO MRS. MAYBRICK’S ACCESS TO POISONS - -The purchase and soaking of fly-papers is the only direct evidence of -the possession of arsenic in any form by Mrs. Maybrick, but the judge -told the jury, and it is submitted it is a _gross misdirection_, that -Mrs. Maybrick “_undoubtedly had access to considerable quantities of -arsenic in other forms_,” inasmuch as the _only evidence as to such -access_ was that after the death of James Maybrick these two women, -Mrs. Briggs and Alice Yapp, who exhibited the most unfriendly feeling -toward her, said they had found in the house certain stores of arsenic. - -It is submitted for the serious consideration of counsel that the -circumstances under which these two women produced these stores of -arsenic are so suspicious as to justify the suggestion that that -arsenic was not there before his death, and that Mrs. Maybrick never -did have any access to it or knowledge of it at all. There was no -evidence as to where or by whom this arsenic was obtained, nor was -there any evidence that the police had made any effort to discover -where, when, or by whom that arsenic was procured. - -[NOTE.--How and when this arsenic may have been procured by Mr. -Maybrick himself will appear further on as a part of the new evidence.] - -The places in which arsenic was found were open and accessible to every -one in the house, and no person gave any evidence that he or she had -ever seen it in the house before these two women found it after death. - -As regards the black powder (arsenic mixed with charcoal) and the -two solutions of arsenic produced by Mrs. Briggs and Alice Yapp, Mr. -Davies, the analyst, gave evidence that, when analyzing the contents of -the various bottles, he had searched diligently and microscopically for -any traces, and could find no trace of charcoal having been introduced -into any of them. So this circumstantial evidence may be eliminated. - -As regards white arsenic, also produced by these women, it must -be observed that not only was it not shown that Mrs. Maybrick had -purchased any, but it is submitted that the judge _ought to have -pointed out to the jury_, as the fact is, that it would have been -almost impossible for her or any woman to have obtained any white -arsenic at all. No shopkeeper dare sell it to any one except to a -medical man, and even then under the stringent restrictions of the Sale -of Poison Act. - -At the trial a wholesale druggist (Thompson, of Liverpool) gave -evidence that James Maybrick constantly visited his cousin, who had -been in his employment at his stores, where he could have obtained -white arsenic from him without any difficulty; and it will be observed -that it was found in his hatbox. - -It is a remarkable thing in this connection that, while Edwin Maybrick -called the police in on Sunday night, and gave them the black -solutions and white solutions which Mrs. Briggs had found on the Sunday -morning, he did not give them the black powder which Alice Yapp had -found on the-night before; and, in fact, that Michael Maybrick did not -give it to the police until Tuesday, the 14th. - -It is also a remarkable fact that, although these black solutions and -that white solution of arsenic and that solid arsenic which Mrs. Briggs -had found, were not handed by the police to the analyst until several -days afterward, and were therefore _not known to be arsenic by anybody, -yet Mrs. Briggs was able to inform Mrs. Maybrick on Tuesday, the 14th, -as was testified to, that these bottles contained arsenic_. - -It is submitted that Mrs. Briggs could not have known that without some -other means of knowledge than looking at them. - -The importance of this _misdirection_ of the judge as to the question -of possession of arsenic by Mrs. Maybrick can not be overstated. It -was _conclusively_ shown that no decoction of fly-papers or of the -black powder was the source of the arsenic with which certain articles -found in the house and office were said to be infected, because the -analyst said he had searched for the fibers of the papers and for the -charcoal, _and could not find any traces of either_. If Mrs. Maybrick -knew of the pure arsenic, why should she have bought the fly-papers, -either for a cosmetic purpose or murder, and what should she have -wanted with “poison for cats?” - - -MISDIRECTION AS TO “TRACES” OF ARSENIC - -Out of the list submitted by the police, therefore, the only two things -which could have been the source of the arsenic were the bottle of -saturated solution, No. 10 in the Police List, and the bottle of solid -arsenic, No. 11 in the Police List. - -It may be observed that if all the arsenic or “traces” of the same, -with which various things were said to be infected, were collected -together, it would not constitute a fatal dose, the smallest fatal dose -recorded being two grains, and this in the case of a woman, and surely -not in the case of a person addicted to large doses of arsenic. - -At the inquest Mr. Davies defined what he meant by the word “trace.” He -said: - -“It means something under 1/100 part of a grain. It does not mean -something which I could not weigh, but something which I could _not_ -guarantee to be absolutely free from other things; but anything under -1/100 part of a grain I should not consider satisfactory. If I said -_distinct traces_, I should say it meant something between 1/100 and -1/1000 part of a grain, while a _minute trace_ is less than 1/1000 part -of a grain.” - -In reference to Reinsch’s test which Mr. Davies used in these -experiments, this passage occurs in Taylor’s “Medical Jurisprudence,” -vol. i., p. 268: “The mere presence of a gray deposit on pure copper -affords _no absolute proof_ of the presence of arsenic. Bismuth, -antimony, and mercury all yield deposits with Reinsch’s test. The gray -deposit of bismuth may easily be taken for arsenic.” And again: “The -errors into which the faulty methods of applying Reinsch’s test lead -have led its reliability to be much discredited, and, although in -skilful hands the results are trustworthy, it would be perhaps unsafe -to rely upon it in an important criminal investigation.” - -It is submitted that the evidence relating to the articles which Mr. -Davies said were infected with arsenic only to the extent of _an -unweighable trace_ could not and ought not to be regarded as proof -that any arsenic at all was there, or as being anything more _than -a suspicion_ upon this analyst’s mind that what he saw was arsenic, -and that it was a _misdirection_ on the part of Mr. Justice Stephen -to treat a mere expression of opinion of that kind as proof of the -presence of arsenic. - - -MISDIRECTION AS TO ARSENIC IN SOLUTION - -It will be observed that the only things of which James Maybrick could -have partaken [but did not], in which arsenic in a weighable form was -present, were the bottle of Valentine’s meat juice and the pot of -glycerin, and that the arsenic found in them was found in a state of -solution. - -As regards the half grain of arsenic found in the _meat juice_, -scientific evidence will be forthcoming that it is a physical -impossibility for any person to dissolve half a grain of solid arsenic -in 411 grains of Valentine’s meat juice, which is all the liquid that -was in the bottle when it was handed to Mr. Davies. - -Mr. Davies, moreover, found that (although he used very loose and -unscientific language in his evidence) the specific gravity of the meat -juice was considerably reduced, thereby showing that the half grain -of arsenic found in it had been introduced in the form of _arsenic in -solution_. - -It will now be observed that the _only arsenic in solution_ which was -_available_, among the stores of arsenic found in the house, was the -_bottle No. 10_ in the police list, and it is submitted that bottle No. -11 (solid arsenic) must, like the black solutions, _be eliminated_ from -any store of arsenic which Mrs. Maybrick, whether she had access to it -or not, could have employed for the purpose of infecting any of the -things found in the house to be infected. - -Mr. Davies described the bottle No. 10 as a saturated solution of white -arsenic, and he stated that it had been dissolved with water, some of -the crystals remaining at the bottom undissolved. - -At the inquest he stated, in reply to a question by the coroner: -“The bottle No. 10, which was also in the box, contained a saturated -solution of arsenic and solid arsenic at the bottom. There was no label -on it. It contained, solid and liquid, perhaps two grains--a grain at -all events.” - -_So it is evident that there was not a fatal dose even in the stores -which Mrs. Maybrick could have used had she had access to it._ - -As regards this bottle, Mr. Justice Stephen told the jury: “A saturated -solution is a solution which has taken up as much arsenic as it can, -the water becoming saturated with arsenic; the remainder of the arsenic -is found at the bottom. In this case there was a saturated solution of -arsenic in the water and a small portion of arsenic at the bottom. With -regard to that these questions arise: What was it for? Who is wanting -such a quantity of strong solution of arsenic? Who has put it there and -how is it to be used? These are the questions, in the solution of which -I can not help you. There is nothing definite about it to connect Mr. -Maybrick with it certainly.[7] If he was in the habit of arsenic eating -he would not keep it saturated in water in quantities he could not -possibly use.” - -Mr. Davies found that this bottle “contained in solid and liquid -perhaps two grains--a grain at all events.” Now arsenic can be -dissolved in water by two processes. In cold water by shaking it -constantly for several hours (and the strongest solution that can -be obtained by the cold-water process is a one-per-cent. solution, -which is no stronger than the ordinary Fowler’s solution as sold in -the shops). That is called a “saturated solution” by the cold-water -process. A solution of three or even four per cent. can be obtained -with boiling water, but only when the water is kept on the constant -boil for several hours; and that is also called a “saturated solution,” -so that the phrase “saturated solution” may mean either a weak solution -of one per cent., such as is gained by the cold-water process, or a -stronger solution of three per cent. by the boiling-water process, and -Mr. Justice Stephen _misdirected_ the jury as to the meaning of the -phrase “saturated solution.” He should have told them that a “saturated -solution” of arsenic is one which has by any particular process taken -up as much arsenic and _retained it in solution_ as is possible by -that particular process, and that it might consequently be either a -weak or a stronger solution, according as it has been dissolved by the -cold-water or boiling-water process, by shaking for hours or boiling -for hours. - -The questions put to the jury by Mr. Justice Stephen upon the -interpretation of the phrase “saturated solution” which he gave, -namely, “How is it to be used?” “Who is wanting such a quantity of -_strong_ solution of arsenic?” are _misdirections_. - - -MR. CLAYTON’S EXPERIMENTS - -Counsel are referred to experiments made with solutions of arsenic by -Mr. E. Godwin Clayton, of the firm of Hassall & Clayton. From these it -will be seen that by the experiment there marked B, where the arsenic -was shaken at intervals of twenty minutes for six hours, the result -shows that it would require 186½ grains of water to carry half a grain -of arsenic. And that by experiment C, which is the strongest possible -solution by the cold-water process, namely, one-per-cent. strength -(equal to Fowler’s solution), it would require 50 grains of water to -carry half a grain, but to obtain this the arsenic has to be shaken -with cold water _at frequent intervals for four days_. - -Mr. Godwin Clayton, in his report as to these experiments, remarks: -“I think, however, that as few people outside a chemical laboratory -would have the patience or opportunity to make a solution by shaking -it at short intervals during four days, the solution obtained in -experiment B--namely, an arsenical strength of 0.268 per cent.--might -be described in a popular sense, though not with strict scientific -accuracy, as ‘saturated solution of arsenic.’” But then if that be so, -that is only about a quarter of the strength of Fowler’s solution! -The evidence of Mr. Davies as to the specific gravity of the meat -juice being considerably reduced ought, it is submitted, _not_ to have -been received as scientific evidence, and it was a _misdirection_ to -treat it as such, because without the slightest difficulty, as will be -seen by a reference to Mr. Godwin Clayton’s experiments, Mr. Davies’s -evidence ought to have been scientifically exact, because he could have -shown that (for example) if a solution of the strength of experiment -B had been used, the 411 grains of liquid would have contained 186½ -of solution of arsenic and 244½ grains of meat juice; and, further, -that the specific gravity of the meat juice would, in that case, have -been lowered from 1.2143 to 1.1263; and it was, therefore, not only -possible, but the duty of Mr. Davies, as an expert, to have shown, by -comparing the specific gravity of the bottle No. 10 and the specific -gravity of Valentine’s meat juice, that the “arsenic in solution” which -had been introduced into it had been introduced into it out of that -particular bottle, No. 10. - -Then, again, it will be seen from these experiments of Mr. Godwin -Clayton that if the solution in bottle No. 10 had been a strong -hot-water solution of three per cent., the specific gravity would not -have been considerably reduced, because the meat juice would in that -case have contained only 15½ grains of arsenical solution. To have -obtained such a solution, the “arsenic powder” must have been boiled -with distilled water for four hours; and it is submitted that it would -have been _impossible_, in the first place, for Mrs. Maybrick, or -any person outside a laboratory, to have adopted such a process of -dissolving arsenic without the knowledge of the servants or anybody -else; and, further, that even if she could have done this, she could -not have possibly weighed out exactly half a grain of it, which is -what Mr. Davies found; and it is suggested that the only way in which -that half grain of arsenic could possibly have been measured into -that bottle, must have been by introducing Fowler’s solution, _and -no Fowler’s solution was found in the house_--and in no way was it -suggested that Mrs. Maybrick had any access to any, though others in -that house may have been able to procure such a medicinal dose of it. - - -MISDIRECTION AS TO ARSENIC IN GLYCERIN - -As regards the glycerin, Inspector Baxendale said he found this -bottle in the lavatory on the 18th of May. There was no evidence that -this bottle had ever been in Mrs. Maybrick’s hands, and there was no -evidence that any part of it had been used by James Maybrick. There was -evidence that it was a freshly opened bottle. Scientific evidence will -be forthcoming that it is _an absolute impossibility_ for any person -to distribute arsenic evenly through a pound of glycerin. - -It is suggested that there is no possible means by which that glycerin -could have been administered with a felonious intent to James Maybrick; -the mere moistening the lips with small quantities of it could not have -operated in that way. - -Scientific evidence will be forthcoming that glycerin, when kept in -glass bottles, generally does contain arsenic, which it extracts from -the glass of the bottle. - -In 1888 Jahns drew attention to arsenic being present in -glycerin--_Chemische Zeitung_. - -In 1889 Vulpius also drew attention to it--_Apotheker Zeitung_. - -Siebold (see _Pharmaceutical Journal_, 5th October, 1889) said, at -the Pharmaceutical Conference, on the 11th September, 1889, that his -experiments were made with toilet and pharmaceutical glycerin, and that -the majority showed presence of arsenious acid, varying from 1 grain -in 4,000 to 1 grain in 5,000. - -It may be pointed out that this is _a larger quantity_ than Mr. Davies -found, which was only “about 1/10 of a grain in 1,000 grains.” - -The evidence relating to the administration of glycerin was that of -Nurse Gore and Nurse Callery, and was to the effect that on Thursday -night they refreshed James Maybrick’s mouth with _glycerin and borax -mixed in a saucer_ that was on the table in the sick-room, and that -Mrs. Maybrick had brought the glycerin that was used either from the -medicine cupboard in her room or from the washstand drawer. - -The attention of counsel is called to the fact that this saucer of -mixed glycerin and borax which was actually used _was not produced_ -at the trial, but Justice Stephen, when summing up to the jury, said: -“Then you get the _blue_ bottle which contained Price’s glycerin. Here -is the bottle, which there is no evidence to show that Mrs. Maybrick -had even seen or touched; a considerable portion is still left. That -glycerin was found in the lavatory outside, and if the bottle were -filled and the same proportion of arsenic added, there would be -two-thirds of a grain of arsenic in it. You have heard already that -his mouth was moistened with glycerin and borax apparently the night -before he died. If that be so, and the glycerin be really poison, it is -certainly a very shocking result to arrive at.” Sir Charles Russell: “I -think the evidence of Nurse Gore is that the bottle that was used the -night before was taken, not from the lavatory, but from the cupboard -of the washstand.” His Lordship: “It does not follow that that was the -same bottle. One does not know the history of that bottle or where it -went to. It may or may not have been the glycerin which was used for -the purpose I have mentioned, namely, for moistening the lips. But it -does appear in the case that a bottle was found in the lavatory, and -that it contained a grain of arsenic, and that his mouth was moistened -with glycerin and borax during the night in question; but the identity -between that bottle and the bottle which contained the glycerin is not -established and not proved.” - -It is submitted that the above was an _unfair and inflammatory -suggestion_, and amounts to a gross MISDIRECTION, especially after -all the evidence about the condition of deceased’s tongue and his -complaining of a sensation as of a hair in his throat. - -This concludes the whole of the evidence to any articles containing -arsenic which were found in the house, in which the arsenic was present -in anything except as _unweighable “traces.”_ - - -MISDIRECTION AS TO EVIDENCE OF PHYSICIANS - -Justice Stephen further summed up: “The witness (Dr. Stevenson) stated: -‘I should say more arsenic was administered on the 3d of May.’” It -will be seen, by a reference to Dr. Stevenson’s evidence, that Dr. -Stevenson _did not_ say this. - -[Illustration: - - Copyright, 1904, by Pach Bros., New York. - -HON. JOHN HAY, American Secretary of State, 1898--] - -Dr. Humphreys was the only medical man in attendance at that time. The -only symptoms on Friday, the 3d, were that he had “vomited twice.” At -the inquest Dr. Humphreys said as to this: - -Q. “Did he say anything about his lunch on the previous day, Thursday, -the 2d?” - -A. “Yes; he said some inferior sherry had been put into it, and that it -had made him as bad as ever again.” - -And that also appears in Dr. Stevenson’s evidence at the trial: - -“He told the doctor he had not been well since the previous day, when I -learn he had his lunch at the office.” - -It can not be suggested that the fact that the man vomited twice -on Friday night was attributable to any arsenic taken at midday on -Thursday, for Dr. Stevenson testified that the vomiting, which is a -symptom of arsenic, usually follows the administration in about _half -an hour_. - -Dr. Carter, who was not called in to the patient until Tuesday, May -7th, in his evidence, however, suggested that: - -“I judge that the fatal dose must have been given on Friday, the 3d, -but a dose might have been given after that. When he was so violently -ill on the Friday, I thought it would be from the effects of the -fatal dose, but there might have been subsequent doses”; and in -cross-examination he explained that he had made this suggestion about -the fatal dose because: “I was _told_ he was unable to retain anything -on his stomach for several days.” - -It is submitted that the judge, when summing up, MISDIRECTED the jury -by ignoring entirely the evidence and substituting for it this reckless -suggestion of Dr. Carter’s. - - -MISDIRECTION AS TO TIMES WHEN ARSENIC MAY HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED - -The only occasions on which it was possible to suggest any act of -administration of arsenic were the medicine on the 27th of April and -the food at the office on May 1st and May 2d; and the judge told the -jury: - -“The argument that the prisoner administered the arsenic is an argument -depending upon the combination of a great variety of circumstances of -suspicion. The theory is that there was poisoning by successive doses, -and it is rather suggested that there may have been several doses. But -I do not know that there was any effort made to point out the precise -times at which doses may have been administered.” - -Under such circumstances it is submitted that the statement of the -judge as to the medicine on the 27th of April, and as to the food at -office, and as to the statement that “Friday (3d May) was the day on -which began the symptoms of what may be called the fatal dose,” _are -misdirections of vital importance to this case_, and such as to entitle -Mrs. Maybrick to have the verdict set aside and have a new trial -ordered. - - -MISDIRECTION AS TO MRS. MAYBRICK’S CHANGING MEDICINE BOTTLES - -As regards the question of attempts to administer arsenic, the -occasions upon which such conduct was imputed are changing medicine -from one bottle into another and the Valentine’s meat juice. As regards -the changing the bottle, there were two occasions when evidence was -given as to Mrs. Maybrick’s doing this. The first was on the 7th of -May, when Alice Yapp said that some of the medicines were kept on -a table near the bedroom door and some in the bedroom, and that on -Tuesday, 7th of May, she saw Mrs. Maybrick on the landing near the -bedroom door, and what was she doing? She was apparently pouring -something out of one bottle into another. They were medicine bottles. - -That is the whole evidence as to the incident, and as all the bottles -in the house were analyzed, and none found to contain _even a trace of -arsenic_ except the Clay and Abraham’s bottle--which James Maybrick was -not taking at that time--the judge could not properly direct the jury -to regard it as a matter of suspicion; _but he did do so_. He referred -to this incident thus: - -“On the 28th April (the day after the Wirrall Races) Mrs. Maybrick sent -for Dr. Humphreys, and afterward she was seen pouring medicine from one -bottle into another.” - -It is submitted that this was _a serious misdirection_. - -The other occasion was on Friday, the 10th of May, when Michael -Maybrick, seeing Mrs. Maybrick changing a medicine from one bottle -to another in the bedroom, took the bottles away and had the -prescription made up again, saying: “Florrie, how dare you tamper -with the medicine?” Mrs. Maybrick explained that she was only putting -the medicine into a larger bottle because there was so much sediment. -Nurse Callery was present and there was no concealment about what she -was doing, and the bullying conduct of Michael was absolutely without -any sort of justification. _These bottles were analyzed and found to be -harmless._ - -Mr. Justice Stephen turned this incident, which occurred on the -afternoon before death, and after she had been prevented from attending -on her husband, against Mrs. Maybrick, thus--quoting Michael’s -evidence: “In the bedroom I found Mrs. Maybrick pouring from one -bottle into another and changing the labels, and I said, ‘Florrie, how -dare you tamper with the medicine?’” And Justice Stephen continued: -“Verily, this was a strange--I don’t say strange considering the -circumstances--but dreadfully unwelcome remark to make to a lady in -her own house, when she was in attendance on her husband, and something -which showed the state of feeling in his mind, and must have attracted -her attention.” It is submitted that this was a _misdirection_. - - -MISDIRECTION AS TO ADMINISTRATION WITH INTENT TO KILL - -There was also an attempt by the prosecution to suggest an attempt to -administer medicine, arising out of an occasion when James Maybrick -said to her, “You have given me the wrong medicine again,” from which -it appears that on the Friday, the day before death, Mrs. Maybrick -was not giving him anything at all, but was trying to get him to take -some medicine from Nurse Callery, who was endeavoring to induce him to -take it. This was one of the medicines ordered by Dr. Humphreys, _and -was found free from arsenic_. The judge did not refer to this in his -summing-up, but reference to it is introduced here because it exhausts -the whole evidence, with the exception of the Valentine’s meat juice -incident, as to any suggestions or even of any occasions of attempt to -administer, while Mr. Matthews advised the Queen that “the evidence -leads clearly to the conclusion that the prisoner administered and -attempted to administer arsenic to her husband with intent to murder,” -which formed his ground for consigning this woman to penal servitude -for life. _No evidence, either of any act of administration or of any -act of attempt to administer either with or without felonious attempt, -was given at the trial, which possibly could have led any person to -any such conclusion_, with the single exception of the Valentine’s -meat juice; and as none of that was administered after it had been in -Mrs. Maybrick’s hands, the utmost that could be said of it (assuming -that she did put any arsenic into it) is that it was an _attempt_ to -administer, either feloniously or otherwise. It is submitted that the -judge _misdirected_ the jury as to this incident, in that he did not -tell them that the mere evidence of an attempt to administer arsenic -was not sufficient--that they must be satisfied that the attempt to -administer was with a _mens rea_ and with an intent to murder. - - -EXCLUSION OF PRISONER’S TESTIMONY - -Mrs. Maybrick voluntarily told her solicitors, Mr. Arnold and Mr. -Richard Cleaver, directly she was arrested and even before the inquest, -that she had, at her husband’s urgent request, put a powder into a -bottle of Valentine’s meat juice, but that she did not know, until -Mrs. Briggs informed her that arsenic had been found in a bottle of -meat juice, that the powder she had put in was assumably arsenic. [At -the trial both Mr. Richard and Mr. Arnold Cleaver, her solicitors, -offered to give evidence to this effect, but Justice Stephen refused to -admit it.] She also tried to tell Mrs. Briggs the same thing, but the -policeman stopped the conversation; and she also told it to her mother -on her arrival. Mrs. Maybrick made no attempt at concealment about -having put this powder in, although no one had seen her do it, and her -solicitors, instead of relying as a line of defense on showing there -was no “mens rea” in what she had done, kept back her account of what -she had done. At the trial, however, after all the evidence for the -prosecution had been concluded without a single witness speaking of her -having put anything into anything, she _insisted_ on telling the jury, -as she had told her solicitors, that she did put a powder into a bottle -of meat juice, in accordance with an urgent request of her husband’s, -but that she did not know it was arsenic. If she did not know, there -was no “mens rea.” Upon that evidence, and upon certain suspicious -circumstances connected with her conduct in taking the meat juice into -the dressing-room and replacing it in the bedroom, the judge, as it is -submitted, _misdirected_ the jury in the following passage: - -“Mr. Michael Maybrick says: ‘Nothing was given to my brother out of -that.’ That is to say, nothing was given to him out of the bottle -of Valentine’s meat juice, which undoubtedly had arsenic in it. -Its presence was detected, but of that bottle which was poisoned -he certainly had none. He had a small taste of it _before it was -poisoned_, given him by Nurse Gore.” - -It is submitted that the words “before it was poisoned” is _a gross -misdirection_. - - -MISDIRECTION AS TO IDENTITY OF MEAT-JUICE BOTTLE - -It may be convenient here to interpose the following remarks on -the subject of the identity of the bottle. Counsel will observe -that the judge referred to the evidence at the inquest and at the -magisterial inquiry, which, it is suggested, enables a reference to -any discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses on the three -occasions--inquest, magisterial inquiry, and trial. - -The identity of the half-used bottle, which was found to contain “half -a grain of arsenic in solution,” with the bottle which Mrs. Maybrick -took into the dressing-room, was not proved. It was assumed alike by -the prosecution and the defense, and by Mrs. Maybrick herself, _but it -was not proved_. It was proved that there was another half-used bottle, -of which James Maybrick had partaken on Monday, 6th of May, when Dr. -Humphreys said: - -“Some of the Valentine’s meat juice had been taken, but it did not -agree with the deceased and made him vomit. Witness did not remember -him vomiting in his presence, but he complained of it. Witness told -deceased to stop the Valentine’s meat juice, and said he was not -surprised at it making Mr. Maybrick sick, as it made many people sick.” - -There was, therefore, another half-used bottle. The attention of -counsel is strongly directed to the question of the identity of this -half-used bottle. - -Besides the one in which the arsenic was detected, there was another -half-used bottle produced at the trial, which was found by Mrs. Briggs -after death in one of James Maybrick’s hatboxes in the dressing-room, -together with the black solutions and white solutions of arsenic, and -this bottle was found free of arsenic. - -As to the bottle which Mrs. Maybrick had in her hands on the night of -the 9th-10th of May, and which she took into the dressing-room, and -as to which she volunteered the statement that she had put a powder -in, as to which evidence was given by Nurse Gore, was thus voluntarily -corroborated by Mrs. Maybrick in her statement to the jury. From -this it appears that Nurse Gore, on her arrival for duty on Thursday -night, opened a fresh bottle of meat juice, which had been given to -her the night before by Edwin Maybrick, and gave the patient one -or two spoonfuls, and then placed it on the table, from which she -shortly afterward saw Mrs. Maybrick remove it and take it into the -dressing-room, the door of which was not shut, and then return with -it into the bedroom and replace it on the table. Nurse Gore thought -she did this in a stealthy way. It must be remembered that Nurse Gore -was naturally suspicious, as is shown by the fact that on two previous -occasions she suggested suspicions with regard to changes in medicines -by Mrs. Maybrick, which on analysis were proved to be free from -arsenic. When the patient, a short time afterward, awoke, Mrs. Maybrick -came into the bedroom again and _removed_ the bottle from the table and -placed it on the washstand, where there were only the ordinary jugs and -basins, and there left it. Nurse Gore’s usual suspicions were aroused -and she gave the patient none of it, nor did Mrs. Maybrick ask her to -give him any. When Nurse Gore was relieved by Nurse Callery the next -morning (Friday, the 10th), at 11 o’clock, she called her attention -to it and asked her to take _a sample of it_, which Callery did, and -put it into an ordinary medicine bottle, which Nurse Gore gave her for -the purpose. Nurse Gore left the bottle on the washstand where Mrs. -Maybrick had placed it. Nurse Gore did not mention the circumstance -to Dr. Humphreys when he came to see the patient at 8:30 A.M., nor to -Michael Maybrick, whose attention she directed to a bottle of brandy -instead, which on analysis was found harmless; and she then went into -Liverpool and saw the matron, and on her return to the house at 2 -o’clock told Callery to throw away the sample in accordance with the -matron’s orders, which Callery did. The bottle in which that sample -was taken was not specially identified, though it must have remained -on the premises. It ought to have been produced, because, if arsenic -was detected in the sample, the bottle of Valentine’s meat juice would -have been identified by that means, and it would have been shown that -the arsenic was in the meat juice which Mrs. Maybrick had taken into -the dressing-room. On the other hand, as all the bottles which were in -the house were analyzed and found free of arsenic, there is negative -evidence that there was no arsenic in the sample taken. - - -MISDIRECTION IN EXCLUDING CORROBORATION OF PRISONER’S STATEMENT - -Now the serious, most serious, consideration of counsel is asked for -in comparing the evidence of these three witnesses--Gore, Callery, and -Michael Maybrick--as given at the coroner’s inquest, as it appears in -the coroner’s depositions, at the magisterial inquiry, as it appears -in the magistrates’ depositions, and as given at the trial. It will be -seen that there are great discrepancies as to the place in the room -from which Michael Maybrick took the half-used bottle in which Mr. -Davies, the analyst, subsequently detected one-tenth of a grain of -arsenic in solution. It is suggested that Mr. Michael’s evidence at the -inquest is the true account of where he got the bottle, and that his -evidence at the trial is _cooked_, to suit the evidence of Gore, _and -that the identity of the bottle is not established_. The statement, -which in her statement to the jury Mrs. Maybrick said she was prevented -by the policeman from making to Mrs. Briggs, the moment that person -told her about arsenic being found in the meat juice, was communicated -by Mrs. Maybrick at once to her solicitors, Mr. Arnold and Richard -Cleaver; and it is submitted that it was a _misdirection_ of the judge -to exclude their evidence in corroboration of such a material and -important fact in her favor, _and a misdirection in refusing to allow -corroboration in that way_ of what was in evidence, and did corroborate -it--thereby constituting a matter which the jury should have had before -them, as having a bearing on her statement. - - -MISDIRECTIONS TO JURY TO DRAW ILLEGAL INFERENCES - -The judge referred to the Valentine’s meat-juice incident, the most -vital point in the trial, in the following extraordinary manner at the -end of his summing-up: - -“I may say this, however: supposing you find a man dying of arsenic, -_and it is proved_ that a person put arsenic in his plate, and if he -gives an explanation which you do not consider satisfactory--that is -a very strong question to be considered--how far it goes, what its -logical value is, I am not prepared to say--I could not say, and unless -I had to write my verdict I should not say how I should deal with the -verdict; but being no juryman, but only a judge, I can only say this, -it is a matter for your serious consideration.” - -It is submitted that this was a _gross misdirection_ and _a cruel -taunt_ to _drive the jury into finding a verdict_ against the prisoner -upon that ground, _and it is submitted that so monstrously unfair an -utterance can not be found in the reports of any summing-up by any -judge in any criminal case_. See also another _misdirection_ where -the judge read the examination of Nurse Gore and omitted reference to -the sample, but said of the bottle, “In point of fact, _it remained -where it was_ until taken away by Mr. Michael Maybrick,” when it is -in evidence that Nurse Callery had taken a sample of it during the -eighteen hours it remained on the washstand, and that others beside -Mrs. Maybrick had access to it. - -It is submitted that, apart from the question of the identity of the -bottle, there was no evidence, except Mrs. Maybrick’s statement, that -she had put anything into the bottle, which justified Mr. Justice -Stephen in using the words, “He had a small taste of it _before_ it was -poisoned,” inasmuch as, except Mrs. Maybrick’s own voluntary statement -that she had put a powder into a bottle of meat juice, there was -nothing to show that the arsenic, detected by Mr. Davies in the bottle -he analyzed, had not been in the bottle when Edwin Maybrick gave it to -Nurse Gore and which she opened when she gave the patient “one or two -spoonfuls.” - -Another _misdirection_ in reference to the meat-juice incident will be -found in the summing-up in the words: - -“It has a sort of very remote bearing upon the statement which she made -on Monday.” - -Instead of “a sort of very remote bearing,” it was a _matter of the -greatest importance_ that it should be shown that _at the very instant_ -she heard that arsenic had been found in some meat juice, before even -the inquest, _and before any arsenic had been found in the body_, she -should have attempted to tell Mrs. Briggs that she had put a powder -into some meat juice, but did not know what it was; and, in connection -with this, the attention of counsel is called to the fact that Mr. -Justice Stephen _refused to allow evidence showing that she had made -this statement from the very first_. - - -MISDIRECTIONS REGARDING THE MEDICAL TESTIMONY - -As to the cause of James Maybrick’s death, there was a most remarkable -conflict of medical opinion. It was not until the post-mortem -examination, held on Monday, the 13th of May, by Drs. Carter and -Humphreys (the medical men who had attended the deceased during his -illness), and Dr. Barron, that the cause of death was ascertained, and -it was then found to be exhaustion, caused by gastro-enteritis or acute -inflammation of the stomach and intestines, which, in their opinion, -had been set up by an irritant poison, but might have been set up by -his getting wet through. - -These doctors agreed that by the phrase “irritant poison” they meant -any unwholesome food or drink. - -Up to the time of death the doctors, Messrs. Humphreys and Carter, -had supposed and treated the patient for dyspepsia, notwithstanding -that suggestions had been made to them by Michael Maybrick that the -patient was being poisoned; and they said in their evidence that _but -for the discovery of arsenic on the premises, they would have given a -certificate of death from natural causes_. - -At the post-mortem examination they selected such portions of the body -for analysis as they considered necessary, including, among other -things, the stomach and its contents; and the analyst employed by the -police (Mr. Davies) _found no arsenic in the stomach or its contents_, -and was unable to discover any weighable traces of arsenic in any other -portions of the body. - -About three weeks afterward the body was, by order of the Home -Secretary, exhumed, and fresh portions of it were taken for analysis, -some of which were examined by Mr. Davies and other parts by Dr. -Stevenson, one of the Crown analysts. - -In those portions taken at the exhumation, the total result of the -search for arsenic in the body was that Mr. Davies actually found -unweighable arsenic, 2/100 of a grain, in the liver, and Dr. Stevenson -76/1000 of a grain in the liver and 15/1000 in the intestines, making, -when all added together, the total amount as found by Mr. Davies and -Dr. Stevenson about one-tenth of a grain, made up of minute fractional -portions of one-hundredths and one-thousandths. - -It was shown in evidence that the smallest fatal dose of arsenic ever -recorded was two grains, which was in the case of a woman, and who -presumably was not an arsenic-eater. - -It was shown in evidence that in the year 1888 Mrs. Maybrick had asked -Dr. Hopper (who was at that time, and had been for many years, their -regular medical attendant) to speak to Mr. Maybrick and prevent him -taking certain medicines, which were doing him harm; that early in -March she made the same appeal to Dr. Humphreys, suggesting at the time -that Mr. Maybrick was taking a _white powder_, which she thought was -strychnin. - -At the magisterial inquiry Dr. Humphreys stated that Mrs. Maybrick had, -on the occasion of his being called in to the patient on the 28th of -April, also spoken to him about her husband taking this white powder, -and that in consequence of this he asked Mr. Maybrick about taking -strychnin and nux vomica. - -Counsel will find proof, in the evidence given at the trial by Dr. -Hopper, Mr. Heaton, Nicholas Bateson, Esq., Capt. Richard Thompson, -Thomas Stansell, and Sir James Poole, ex-Mayor of Liverpool, as to the -arsenic habit of James Maybrick and his opportunities for obtaining -the drug. [To which must now be added the statutory declaration of -Valentine Charles Blake, son of the late Sir Valentine Blake, M.P., -that he, about two months prior to Mr. Maybrick’s death, had procured -him 150 grains of arsenic.] It may be stated here that from the -appearance of the little bottles in which the white arsenic was found, -they had been in use for a long time and were such as would be found -as sample bottles in the offices of business houses to which it is -unlikely Mrs. Maybrick would have access. - -It is submitted that the discovery of such a tiny quantity of arsenic -in the body of a man addicted to such extraordinary habits might -reasonably be accounted for by those habits. - - -CONFLICT OF MEDICAL OPINION - -The conflict of medical opinion which was exhibited on this trial -arose upon the point as to whether arsenic had been the cause of the -gastro-enteritis, of which it was admitted that the man died. - -There was _no_ conflict of medical opinion on the facts that the -quantity found in the body _was insufficient to cause death_, nor that -gastro-enteritis might be set up by a vast variety of things besides -arsenic--in fact, by any impure food or by excessive alcohol or by -getting wet through. It was shown in evidence that Mr. Maybrick got -wet through at the Wirrall Races on the 27th of April, and that he -afterward went in his wet clothes to dinner at a friend’s on the other -side of the Mersey. - -The conflict of medical opinion amounted to this, that the Crown -called Drs. Carter and Humphreys, who both admitted that _they had -never previously attended a case of arsenical poisoning, nor had ever -before attended a post-mortem examination of a person whose death had -been attributed to arsenic_--in short, that they had had no experience -whatever. The Crown also called Dr. Stevenson (who had not attended -the deceased, but had conducted the analysis of parts of the body) as -an expert in poisoning, and he said, as to the symptoms during life: -“_There is no distinctive diagnostic symptom of arsenical poisoning._ -The diagnostic thing is finding the arsenic.” - -The Crown also had Dr. Barron, who had attended the post-mortem, and -who expressed himself unable to say that arsenic was the cause of the -gastro-enteritis. - -These witnesses, it may be observed, gave their evidence both as to -the symptoms during life and as to the appearances at the post-mortem -_before_ the medical evidence for the defense had been called. - -The witnesses called for the defense had none of them attended the -deceased, but were called as experts in poisoning, viz., Dr. Tidy, a -Crown analyst, Dr. Macnamara, and Professor Paul, who all gave positive -evidence that neither the symptoms during life nor the appearance after -death were such as _could be attributed to arsenical poisoning_; that, -in fact, they pointed _away from_, instead of toward, arsenic being the -cause of death. - -The evidence of these witnesses was summarized very fairly by Mr. -Justice Stephen. - -In the face of such a conflict of medical opinion, it is submitted that -Mr. Justice Stephen should have refused to allow the jury to return any -verdict of guilty at all. - - -MISDIRECTIONS AS TO CAUSE OF DEATH - -On the first day of his summing-up, however, Mr. Justice Stephen told -the jury as to the law under which they were to return their verdict: -“You have been told that if you are not satisfied in your minds about -poisoning--if you think he died from some other disease--then the case -is not made out against the prisoner. It is a necessary step--it is -_essential_ to this charge--that the man _died of poison_, and the -poison suggested is arsenic. This is the question you have to consider, -and it must be the foundation of a judgment unfavorable to the prisoner -that he died of arsenic.” - -It is submitted that Mr. Justice Stephen _misdirected_ the jury when -he told them to satisfy their minds whether he died from any other -disease, inasmuch as the only question before the jury was whether _the -cause of death was arsenic_. - -“The question for you is by what the illness was caused. Was it caused -by arsenic or by some other means?” - -It is submitted that that is a _misdirection_. It might have been put -to a coroner’s jury, but it was not a question which should have been -put to a jury at a criminal trial. - -It is submitted that he _misdirected_ the jury in not also telling them -that it was _essential_ to a verdict unfavorable to the prisoner that -the arsenic of which he died _had been administered by her_, and also -in not telling the jury that it was essential to a verdict unfavorable -to the prisoner that, if she had administered any, she had done it with -intent to destroy life. - - -MISDIRECTION TO IGNORE MEDICAL TESTIMONY - -Mr. Justice Stephen then proceeded: “Now, let us see what the doctors -say. Some say death was caused by arsenic, and others that it was not -by arsenic--that he died of gastro-enteritis”; and he spoke of the -medical evidence in a way which amounted to a direction to the jury -that they were to treat it as _tainted with subtle partisanship_, and -as evidence to which it was not necessary for them to attach _serious -importance_. He, in fact, stated, and in so doing _misdirected_ the -jury, that though it was essential to a verdict unfavorable to the -prisoner that he died of arsenic, that question was one which they, -the jury, could come to _their own opinion about, without taking into -consideration the opinion of the medical experts, who had positively -stated that arsenic was not the cause of death_. In other words, he -directed the jury that, as the medical experts could not agree that -the cause of death was arsenical poisoning, it was for them to decide -that question from their own “_knowledge of human nature_.” - -On the second day of the summing-up the judge told the jury (and -it is submitted that it contains _gross misdirections_): “You must -consider the case as _a mere medical case_, in which you are to decide -whether the man did or did not die of arsenic according to the medical -evidence. You must not consider it as _a mere chemical case_, in which -you decide whether the man died from arsenic which was discovered as -the result of a chemical analysis. You must decide it as _a great, -high, and important case_, involving in itself not only medical and -chemical questions, but embodying in itself _a most highly important -moral question_--and by that term, moral question, I do not mean a -question of what is right and wrong in a moral point of view, but -questions in which human nature enters and in which _you must rely on -your knowledge of human nature_ in determining the resolution you -arrive at. - -“You have, in the first place, to consider--far be it from me to -exclude or try to get others to exclude from their own minds what I -must feel myself vividly conscious of--the evidence in this matter. I -think every human being in this case must feel vividly conscious of -what you have to consider, but I had almost better say you ought not to -consider, for fear you might consider it too much, the horrible nature -of the inquiry in which you are engaged. I feel that it is a dreadful -thing that you are deliberately considering whether you are to convict -that woman of really as horribly dreadful a crime as ever any poor -wretch who stood in the dock was accused of. If she is guilty--I am -saying if my object is rather to heighten your feeling of the solemnity -of the circumstances, and in no way to prevent you from feeling as you -do feel, and as you ought to feel. I could say a good many other things -about the awful nature of the charge, but I do not think it will be -necessary to do any one thing. Your own hearts must tell you what it -is for a person _to go on administering poison_ to a helpless, sick -man, upon whom she has already inflicted a dreadful injury--an injury -fatal to married life; the person who could do such a thing as that -must be destitute of the least trace of human feeling.” And further on: -“We have to consider this not in an unfeeling spirit--far from it--but -in the spirit of people resolved to solve _by intellectual means an -intellectual problem of great difficulty_.” - -[Illustration: - - Copyright by G. G. Rockwood, New York. - -HON. JOSEPH H. CHOATE, American Ambassador at the Court of St. James, -1899--] - -Mr. Justice Stephen, in short, instead of putting to the jury for -separate answers each of the following three questions: - -1. Did this man die of arsenic? - -2. Did Mrs. Maybrick administer that arsenic? - -3. Did she do it feloniously? - -invited them to return a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty” upon a -direction of law, wherein he told them that they were to decide it as -_an intellectual problem_, on the question which, it is submitted, can -be formulated thus: - -“Might this man have died of arsenic notwithstanding the opinion of -the medical experts that he did _not_ die of arsenic?” And the jury -answered “Yes.” - -It is submitted that this was _a gross misdirection_. - -It may be interesting and applicable to quote from a paper read by -Sir Fitzjames Stephen himself at the Science Association in 1884: -“It is not to be denied that, so long as great ignorance exists on -matters of physical and medical science in all classes, physicians will -occasionally have to submit to the mortification of seeing not only the -jury, but the bar and bench itself, receive with scornful incredulity -or with self-satisfied ignorance evidence which ought to be received -with respect and attention.” How prophetic this was as exemplified by -his own attitude in this trial need not be pointed out. - - -MISRECEPTION OF EVIDENCE - -Under the head of Misreception of Evidence may be classed the -observations of the judge, where, apparently in order to prevent -the jury from being influenced _in favor of the prisoner_, owing to -the small quantity of arsenic found in the body of the deceased, he -mentioned _an instance of a dog_ being poisoned, in the body of which, -though it had taken a large number of grains of arsenic, no arsenic was -found after its death. The judge, in other words, turned himself into a -witness for the prosecution. The unfairness to the prisoner of such a -course is obvious. Had the judge been an ordinary witness he might have -been cross-examined to show, _e.g._, that arsenic _passes away from the -body of a dog much more quickly than from that of a man_, or that the -circumstances as to time and quantity taken were such as to prove that -there was no analogy between the two cases. As the matter stands, the -judge’s recollection of an experiment _on a dog_, which had been made -many years before, was meant to rebut a proposition much relied on by -the defense, viz., that the small quantity of arsenic found in the body -of the deceased was consistent with the view that he was _in the habit -of taking arsenic_, rather than with the case for the Crown that he had -been intentionally poisoned. - - -CRUEL MISSTATEMENT BY THE CORONER - -The inquest was formally opened by taking the evidence of the -identification of the deceased by his brother, Michael Maybrick, and -then adjourned for a fortnight, the coroner announcing that there had -been a post-mortem examination by Dr. Humphreys, and that the result -of that examination was that poison was found in the stomach of the -deceased in such quantities as to justify further examination; that -the stomach of the deceased, and its contents, would meanwhile be -chemically analyzed, and on the result of that analysis would depend -the question whether or not criminal proceedings against some person -would follow. Now the announcement that “poison had been found in the -stomach of the deceased” was _contrary to fact_, and in consequence -of this _cruel misstatement_ the proceedings caused an immense amount -of popular excitement and prejudice against the accused, who, being -too ill to be removed, remained at Battlecrease House, in charge of -the police, till the following Saturday morning, the 18th May, when a -sort of court inquiry was opened in Mrs. Maybrick’s bedroom by Colonel -Bidwell, one of the county magistrates. - - -MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION - -The evidence of Dr. Arthur Richard Hopper, who had been Mr. and Mrs. -Maybrick’s medical adviser for about seven years, was taken. He had not -attended Mr. Maybrick during his last illness, but spoke about Mrs. -Maybrick having asked him the year before to check her husband from -taking _dangerous drugs_, and that Mr. Maybrick had admitted to him -that he used to dose himself with anything his friends recommended, and -_that he was used to the taking of arsenic_. - -Dr. Richard Humphreys spoke as to the symptoms of the illness and -his prescriptions, and that he had not suspected poisoning until it -was suggested to him and his colleague, Dr. Carter, and that he had -_himself administered arsenic_ to the deceased, in the form of Fowler’s -solution, on the Sunday or Monday before death, and that he refused -_a certificate of death only because arsenic had been found on the -premises_. - -Dr. William Carter spoke of being called the Tuesday before death, and -he agreed with Dr. Humphreys that an irritant poison, most probably -arsenic, was the cause of death. - -Dr. Alexander Barron gave evidence to the effect that he was unable to -ascertain _any particular poison_. - -Mr. Edward Davies, the analyst, was called, and gave evidence to the -effect that he had found _no weighable arsenic_ in the portions of the -body selected at the post-mortem, but that he had subsequently _found -one fiftieth of a grain of arsenic_ in a part of the liver, nothing -in the _stomach or its contents, but traces, not weighable_, in the -intestines, and that he had found arsenic in some of the bottles and -things found in the house after death and in the Valentine’s meat juice. - -The first issue which the jury at the trial had to determine was -whether it was proved beyond _reasonable_ doubt that the deceased died -from arsenical poisoning. - -Mr. Justice Stephen, in his summing-up, put this issue to the jury in -the following words: - -“It is _essential_ to this charge that the man _died_ of arsenic. -This question must be the foundation of a verdict unfavorable to the -prisoner, that he _died of arsenic_.” - -It must be assumed that this was a question exclusively for medical -experts, notwithstanding which the judge, in summing up, told the jury: - -“You must not consider this _as a mere medical case_, in which you are -to decide whether the man _did_ or _did not die of arsenic poisoning -according to the medical evidence_. You must _not consider it as a mere -chemical case_, in which you decide whether the man _died from arsenic -which was discovered as the result of a chemical analysis_. You must -decide it as a _great and highly important case_, involving in itself -not only medical and chemical questions, but involving in itself a most -highly important _moral question_.” - - -MAYBRICK DIED A NATURAL DEATH - -Dr. Humphreys gave it as his opinion that the appearances at the -post-mortem were _consistent with congestion_ of the stomach not -_necessarily caused by an irritant poison_, and that the symptoms -during life were also consistent with congestion not caused by an -irritant poison, but with acute inflammation of the stomach and -intestines, produced by any cause whatever, and which would produce -similar pathological results. He thought death was caused by some -irritant poison, most likely arsenic, but he _would not like to -swear that it was_. Dr. Humphreys’ evidence, therefore, amounted -to this, that the deceased died from gastro-enteritis, a natural -disease, attributable to a variety of causes, and that, apart from the -suggestions already referred to, he would have certified accordingly. - -Dr. Humphreys’ evidence was confirmed by that of Dr. Carter, who -stated he came to the same conclusion as Dr. Humphreys, “but in a -more positive manner.” Dr. Carter had assisted at the post-mortem -examination, besides being in close attendance on the deceased for the -five days preceding his death, which he attributed to taking some -irritant wine or decomposed meat, or to some grave error of diet; and -when pressed as to whether he had any reason to suppose the article -taken was poison, he explained that he did, but that by poison he meant -something that was bad--it might be tinned meat, which the deceased had -partaken of at the race dinner, or wine, or something which had set -up gastritis. This witness’s account of the post-mortem was that they -_found no arsenic_, but merely evidence of an irritant poison in the -stomach and intestines, probably arsenic. Dr. Carter’s evidence was -therefore _against poisoning by arsenic_ being conclusively accepted as -the cause of death, _although subsequently he said he had no doubt it -was arsenic_. - -Dr. Barron’s evidence as to the cause of death was that he considered -from the post-mortem appearances that death was due to inflammation of -the stomach and bowels, due to some irritant poison, but that he was -unable to point to the particular poison, apart from what he heard; -and, pressed as to what he meant by poison, the witness stated that -poison might be bad tinned meat, bad fish, mussels, or generally bad -food of any kind, or alcohol taken in excess. - - -THE CHIEF WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION - -Dr. Stevenson expressed his opinion that the deceased died from -arsenic poisoning, giving as his reasons that the main symptoms were -those attributable to an irritant poison, and that they more closely -resembled those of arsenic than of any other irritant of which he -knew. He stated that he had known a great number of cases of poisoning -by arsenic in every shape, and that he acted officially for the Home -Office and Treasury in such cases. Dr. Stevenson was the witness of the -prosecution, and gave his evidence _before_ he had heard the evidence -for the defense. - -Dr. Stevenson also stated that the general symptoms of arsenic -poisoning appeared _within half an hour_ of taking some article of -food or medicine, and were nausea, with a sinking sensation of the -stomach; vomiting, which, unlike that produced by any ordinary article -of food or drink that disagrees, afforded as a rule no relief and -often came on again; that there was most commonly pain in the stomach, -diarrhea; after a time the region of the stomach becomes tender under -pressure, the patient becomes restless, often bathed in perspiration; -the throat is complained of; pain in the throat, extending down to the -stomach; the tongue becomes very foul in appearance and furred. There -is not a bad smell as in the ordinary dyspeptic tongue, a rapid and -feeble pulse, thirst, great straining at stool, vomits and evacuations -frequently stained with blood. Of fourteen symptoms of arsenic -poisoning named by Dr. Stevenson, Mr. Maybrick exhibited _only one_, -according to the testimony of Dr. Stevenson. With the exception of the -foul tongue with malodorous breath, none of these symptoms coincided -with those given by Drs. Humphreys and Carter, who were in attendance -on the patient, while Dr. Stevenson _never saw him_. - - -MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR DEFENSE - -Then came the evidence for the defense, rebutting the presumption -that death was caused by arsenic. First in order being Dr. Tidy, the -examiner for forensic medicine at the London Hospital, and also, like -Dr. Stevenson, employed as an analyst by the Home Office. This witness -stated that, within a few years, close upon _forty cases of arsenical -poisoning_ had come before him, which enabled him to indicate the -recurring and distinctive indications formed in such cases. - -Dr. Tidy describes the symptoms of arsenic poisoning as purging and -vomiting in a very excessive degree; a burning pain in the abdomen, -more marked in the pit of the stomach, and increased considerably by -pressure, usually associated with pain in the calves of the legs; then, -after a certain interval, suffusion of the eyes--the eyes fill with -tears; great irritability about the eyelids; frequent intolerance of -light. - -Dr. Tidy added that there were three symptoms, such as cramps, -tenesmus, straining, more or less present, but the prominent symptoms -were those he had mentioned, especially the sickness, violent, -incessant sickness, and that poisoning by arsenic was extremely simple -to detect. Further, that he (Dr. Tidy) had known cases where one or -more of the four symptoms mentioned had been absent, but he had never -known a case in which all four symptoms were absent; and stated that he -had followed every detail of the Maybrick case so far as he could, and -had read all the depositions before the coroner and magistrate, and the -account of the vomiting did not agree with his description of excessive -and persistent vomiting, and was certainly not that kind of vomiting -that takes place in a typical case of arsenical poisoning. - -Dr. Tidy further stated that, taking the whole of the symptoms, -they undoubtedly were _not_ those of arsenical poisoning, nor did -they point to such, but were perfectly consistent with death from -gastro-enteritis, not caused by arsenical poisoning at all; and -that, had he been called upon to advise, he should have said it was -undoubtedly not arsenical poisoning, and that his view had been -very much strengthened, to use his own words, by the result of the -post-mortem, which distinctly pointed _away_ from arsenic. - -Then there was the evidence, in the same direction, of Dr. Macnamara, -the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, and its representative -on the General Medical Council of the Kingdom, which is summed up in -the general question put to him and his answer: - -Question: Now, bringing your best judgment to bear on the matter--you -having been present at the whole of this trial and heard the -evidence--in your opinion, was this death from arsenical poisoning? - -Answer: _Certainly not_. - -In cross-examination Dr. Macnamara stated that, to the best of his -judgment, Mr. Maybrick died of gastro-enteritis, not connected with -arsenical poisoning, and which might have been caused by the wetting at -the Wirrall races. - -Dr. Paul, professor of medical jurisprudence at University College, -Liverpool, and pathologist at the Royal Infirmary, stated he had made -and assisted at something like three or four thousand post-mortem -examinations, and that the symptoms in the present case agreed with -cases of _gastro-enteritis pure and simple_; that the finding of -the arsenic in the body, in the quantity mentioned in the evidence, -was quite consistent with the case of a man who had taken arsenic -medicinally, but _who had left it off for some time, even for several -months_. - - -A TOXICOLOGICAL STUDY - -So positive were Dr. Tidy and Dr. Macnamara of their position as to the -effect of arsenic on the human system, that they subsequently published -“A Toxicological Study of the Maybrick Case,” thus challenging medical -critics the world over to refute them. From this study the following, -in tabular form, is taken, in order to contrast the symptoms from which -Mr. Maybrick suffered with those which, it will be generally admitted, -are the usual symptoms of arsenical poisoning: - - ARSENICAL POISONING MR. MAYBRICK’S CASE - - Countenance tells of severe | Not so described. - suffering. | - | - Very great depression an early | Not present until toward - symptom. | the end. - | - Fire-burning pain in stomach. | Not present. - | - Pain in stomach increased on | Pressure produced no - pressure. | pain. - | - Violent and uncontrollable vomiting | “Hawking rather than vomiting;” - independent of ingesta. | irritability of stomach - | increased by ingesta. - | - Vomiting not relieved by such | Vomiting controlled by - treatment as was used in Mr. | treatment. - Maybrick’s case. | - | - During vomiting burning heat and | Not present. - constriction felt in throat. | - | - Blood frequently present in | Not present. - vomited and purged matter. | - | - Intensely painful cramps in | Not present. - calves of the legs. | - | - Pain in urinating. | Not present. - | - Purging and tenesmus an early | Not present until twelfth day - symptom. | of illness, and then once - | only. - | - Great intolerance of light. | Not present. - | - Eyes suffused and smarting. | Not present. - | - Eyeballs inflamed and reddened. | Not present. - | - Eyelids intensely itchy. | Not present. - | - Rapid and painful respiration | Not present. - an early symptom. | - | - Pulse small, frequent, irregular, | Not so described until - and imperceptible from the | approach of death. - outset. | - | - Arsenic easily detected in urine | Not detected, _although looked - and fæces. | for_. - | - Tongue fiery red in its entirety, | Tongue not red; “simply filthy.” - or fiery red at tip and margins | - and foul toward base. | - | - Early and remarkable reduction | Temperature normal up to day - of temperature generally. | preceding death. - -“Maybrick’s symptoms are as unlike poisoning by arsenic _as it is -possible for a case of dyspepsia to be. Everything distinctive of -arsenic is absent._ The urine contained no arsenic. The symptoms are -not even consistent with arsenical poisoning. - -“Regarding the treatment adopted by the medical men, and more -especially Dr. Carter’s action with regard to the meat juice, we -are justified in assuming that the doctors themselves, even _after_ -a certain suggestion had been made to them, did not come to the -conclusion that the illness of Maybrick was the result of arsenic. - -“It is noteworthy (1) that none was found in the stomach; (2) that -Maybrick was in the habit of taking drugs, and among them arsenic. - -“Thus two conclusions are forced upon us: - -“(1) That the arsenic found in Maybrick’s body may have been taken in -merely medicinal doses, and that probably it was so taken. - -“(2) That the arsenic may have been taken a considerable time before -either his death or illness, and that probably it was so taken. - -“Our toxicological studies have led us to the three following -conclusions: - -“(1) That the symptoms from which Maybrick suffered are consistent with -any form of acute dyspepsia, but that they point _away_ from, rather -than toward, arsenic as the cause of such dyspeptic condition. - -“(2) That the post-mortem appearances are indicative of inflammation, -but that they emphatically point away from arsenic as the cause of -death. - -“(3) That the analysis fails to find more than _one-twentieth_ part of -a fatal dose of arsenic, and that the quantity so found _is perfectly -consistent with its medicinal ingestion_.” - - -THE MEDICAL WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION - -Such was the complete evidence of the cause of death. The quantity -of arsenic found in the body was _one-tenth_ of a grain, and upon -this evidence rests the first issue the jury had to consider, namely, -whether it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died -from arsenical poisoning. - -As to the value of the medical testimony on both sides, Dr. Humphreys -_admitted that he never attended a case of arsenical poisoning in -his life_, nor of any irritant poison, and that he would have given -a certificate of death from natural causes had he not been told of -arsenic found in the meat juice. - -Dr. Carter laid _no claim to any previous experience of poisoning by -arsenic_, and was unable to say from the post-mortem examination that -arsenic was the cause of death, which he could only attribute to an -irritant of some kind, and he admitted that it was the evidence of Mr. -Davies, as to the finding of arsenic in the body, which led him to the -conclusion that arsenical poisoning had taken place. - -Dr. Barron did not see the patient, but assisted at the post-mortem -examination, and stated that, judging by the appearances and apart from -what he had heard, he was unable to identify arsenic as the particular -poison which had set up the inflammation. - -Now, assuming for a moment that this issue as to the cause of death -rested entirely upon the uncontradicted testimony of these three -doctors called for the prosecution, Humphreys, Carter, and Barron, the -jury would not have been justified in coming to the conclusion that -there was _no reasonable doubt_ that arsenic poisoning was the cause -of death. The doctors themselves had admitted that they were unable to -arrive at that conclusion, apart from the evidence that arsenic was -found in the body. _The idea of arsenical poisoning never occurred to -them from the symptoms, until the use of arsenic was first suggested._ - -_The doctors could not say that_ death resulted from arsenic poisoning, -_and yet the jury have actually found that it did_, in the face of the -opinions of three eminent medical experts, who say it did not. - -Even if these doctors had never been called at all for the defense, the -jury were yet not justified in taking the evidence of Drs. Humphreys, -Carter, and Barron, in the terms which they themselves never intended -to pledge themselves to, namely, to exclude _a reasonable doubt_ that -death was due to arsenic. - -Let us consider the position of the medical men called for the defense: -Drs. Tidy, Macnamara, and Paul _are the highest authorities on medical -and chemical jurisprudence in Great Britain_. No sort of hesitation or -doubt attached to the opinions of any of them, and their experience of -post-mortem examinations was referred to, as including in the practise -of Dr. Tidy, the Crown analyst, some forty cases of arsenic poisoning -alone. Dr. Macnamara indorsed the opinion of Dr. Tidy. In addition to -that, there was on the same side the evidence of Dr. Paul, professor of -medical jurisprudence and toxicology at University College, Liverpool, -with an experience of three or four thousand post-mortem examinations. -It is impossible to conjecture _by what process of reasoning_ the jury -could have come to the conclusion, upon the evidence before them, that -it _was beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Maybrick_ had met his death -by arsenical poisoning. - -_This volume of evidence before the jury pointed not only to a doubt as -to the cause of death, but to a reasonable_ conclusion that it was _not -due to arsenical poisoning. It is inconceivable that the jury should -have_ found as they did, _except under the mandatory direction of the -judge, which left them apparently no alternative but to substitute -his opinions and judgment for_ their own, so that on that _issue the -finding was not so much the finding of the jury, to which the prisoner -was by law entitled, but the finding of_ the judge, _of whom the jury, -abrogating their own functions, became the mere mouthpieces_. - - -THE ADMINISTRATION OF ARSENIC - -The consideration of the facts as given in evidence also covers the -second issue which the jury had to determine, namely, whether, if -arsenic poisoning was the cause of death, it was the prisoner who -administered it with criminal intent. The evidence on this point was -most inconclusive. - -_No one saw the prisoner administer arsenic to her husband._ - -She had no opportunity of giving her husband anything since one or -two o’clock on Wednesday afternoon (8th of May), after which she was -closely watched by the nurses. _It was not shown that any food or drink -administered to the deceased by the prisoner contained arsenic._ It -was not shown that the prisoner _had placed arsenic in any food or -drink intended for her husband’s use_. Nor, in fact, was any found, -although searched for, in any food or medicine of which Mr. Maybrick -partook during his illness, _except the arsenic in Fowler’s solution, -prescribed and administered by Dr. Humphreys himself_. - - -THE FLY-PAPER EPISODE - -The episode of the fly-papers may be considered as one of the most -important factors in the whole case. It supplies, so to speak, the -only link between Mrs. Maybrick and arsenic, which, it is well known, -forms their chief ingredient. It was proved she had purchased the -fly-papers without any attempt at concealment, and, while soaking, they -were exposed to everybody’s view, quite openly, in a room accessible -to every inmate of the house. It was not suggested that Mrs. Maybrick -bought the other large quantity of arsenic, between seventy and eighty -grains, found in the house after death, _and no one came forward to -speak to any such purchase_. It was found in the most unlikely places -for Mrs. Maybrick to have selected, if she had intended to use it, -and the evidence against her on this point is of _a particularly -vague and indefinite character_. [Justice Stephen, commenting on the -quantity of arsenic found on the premises, himself observed that it -was a remarkable fact in the case, and which, it appeared to him, told -most favorably than otherwise for the prisoner, as in the whole case, -from first to last, there was no evidence at all that she had bought -any poison, or had anything to do with the procuring of any, with the -exception of those fly-papers.] The accusation rests entirely _on -suspicion, insinuation, and circumstantial suggestions; not one tittle -of evidence was adduced in support of it_, and yet the jury came to the -conclusion, without allowing of any doubt in the matter, _that it was -her hand which administered the poison_. - - -HOW MRS. MAYBRICK ACCOUNTS FOR THE FLY-PAPERS - -On this question the prisoner made a statement. She accounted for the -soaking of the fly-papers upon grounds which were not only probable, -but were corroborated by other incidents. That she was in the habit -of using arsenic as a face wash is shown by the prescription in 1878, -before her marriage, and of which the chemist made an entry in his -books, which came to light, after the trial, under the following -circumstances: - -Among the few articles which Mr. Maybrick’s brothers allowed to be -taken from the house, they being the legatees of the deceased, was a -Bible which had belonged to Mrs. Maybrick’s father, and which, with -some other relics, came into the hands of Mrs. Maybrick’s mother, the -Baroness von Roques, who, months afterward, happening to turn over -the leaves of the Bible, came across a small piece of printed paper, -evidently mislaid there, being a New York chemist’s label, with a New -York doctor’s prescription written on the back, for an arsenical face -wash “for external use, to be applied with a sponge twice a day.” - -This prescription contained Fowler’s solution of arsenic, chlorate of -potash, rose-water, and rectified spirits; and was again made up, on -the 17th of July, 1878, by a French chemist, Mr. L. Brouant, 81 Avenue -D’Eylau, Paris. It corroborates Mrs. Maybrick’s statement at the trial -that the fly-papers were being soaked for the purpose alleged by her. -If Mrs. Maybrick had obtained or purchased the seventy or eighty grains -of arsenic found in the house after the death, it is inconceivable that -she should have openly manufactured more arsenic with the fly-papers. -At the time she prepared the statement she had reason to believe that -the prescription had been lost. She knew, therefore, it would be -impossible for her to corroborate her story about the face wash, and -she could have omitted that incident altogether, and contented herself -by saying that she learned the preparation while at school in Germany. - -[In further explanation I desire to state that during my girlhood, as -well as subsequently, I suffered occasionally, due to gastric causes, -from an irritation of the skin. One of my schoolmates, observing -that it troubled me a good deal, offered me a face lotion of her own -preparation, explaining that it was much more difficult to obtain -an arsenical ingredient abroad than in America, and to avoid any -consequent annoyance she extracted the necessary small quantity of -arsenic by the soaking of fly-papers. I had never had occasion to do -so myself, as I had a prescription from Dr. Bay; but when I discovered -that I had mislaid or lost this, I recalled the method of my friend, -being, however, wholly ignorant of what quantity might be required. The -reason why I wanted a cosmetic at this time was that I was going to a -fancy dress ball with my husband’s brother, and that my face was at -that time in an uncomfortable state of irritation.--F. E. M.] - - -ADMINISTRATION OF ARSENIC NOT PROVED - -Dealing with the question, did Mrs. Maybrick administer the arsenic, -there is absolutely no evidence _that she did. It was not for the -prisoner to prove her innocence._ She was seen neither to administer -the arsenic nor to put it in the food or drink taken by the deceased, -and this issue was found against her in the absence of any evidence in -support. - - -INTENT TO MURDER NOT PROVED - -Mrs. Maybrick’s statement also bears strongly upon the question of -administering with intent to murder. It is equally inconceivable that -a guilty woman would have said anything about the white powder in the -meat juice. She had nothing to gain by making such a statement, which -could only land her in the sea of difficulties without any possible -benefit, and here again the probabilities are entirely in her favor. It -is beyond a doubt that Mr. Maybrick was in the habit, or had at some -time or other been in the habit, of drugging himself with all sorts of -medicines, including arsenic, and assumably he had obtained relief from -it, or he would not have continued the practise. - -Mr. Justice Stephen, in his summing-up, animadverted in very strong -terms on the testimony of arsenic being used for cosmetic purposes, -although expert chemists had certified to large use of arsenic for such -a purpose. An immense degree of speculation must have entered the minds -of the jury before they could find as they did, and bridge the gulf -between the soaking of the fly-papers and the death of Mr. Maybrick, -for it is quite evident that the soaking of the fly-papers was the one -connection between the arsenic and the prisoner upon which all the -subsequent events turned; and, if that be so, the importance is seen at -once of the statement she made regarding that incident, and conclusive -evidence as to which was subsequently found in the providentially -recovered prescription. - -[Illustration: SAMUEL V. HAYDEN, Of Hayden & Yarrell, American counsel -of Mrs. Maybrick.] - - -ABSENCE OF CONCEALMENT BY PRISONER - -Another remarkable circumstance is the absence of any attempt at -concealment on the prisoner’s part. The fly-papers were purchased -openly from chemists who knew the Maybricks well, and they were left -soaking in such a manner as at once to refute any suggestion of -secrecy; and her voluntary statement about the white powder which she -placed in the meat juice, as to which there was absolutely no evidence -to connect her with its presence there, seems inconsistent with the -theory the prosecution attempted to build upon _a number of assumptions -of which the accuracy was not proved_. - -The question of the prisoner’s guilt was not capable of being reduced -to any issue upon which the prosecution could bring to bear direct -evidence; the most they were capable of doing was to show that the -prisoner had _opportunities_ of administering poison, which she _shared -with every individual in the house_; further, that she had arsenic -in her possession (and this was an _open secret_, as we have already -explained with reference to the fly-papers); and, lastly, that she -had the possibility of extracting arsenic in sufficient quantities -to cause death, which was, however, extremely doubtful; and then the -prosecution tried to complete this indirect evidence by proving that -Mr. Maybrick died from arsenic poisoning, _which they signally failed -to do_. The strong point of the prosecution, as they alleged, was that -a bottle of Valentine’s meat juice had been seen in her hands on the -night of Thursday, the 9th of May, and she replaced it in the bedroom, -where it was afterward found by Michael Maybrick, and analyzed by Mr. -Davis, who found half a grain of “arsenic in solution”; but there was -_no direct proof_, such as is absolutely necessary to a conviction in a -criminal case, _of the identity of the bottle_ seen in Mrs. Maybrick’s -hands and that given to the analyst, and there was evidence that it had -remained in the bedroom _within reach of anybody, Mr. Maybrick himself -included_, for eighteen hours, and did not until the next day reach -the hands of the analyst. These bottles are all alike in appearance, -of similar turnip-like shape as the bovril bottles now sold, and it -is clear there was more than one, because Dr. Humphreys says in his -evidence that on visiting his patient on the 6th of May he found some -of the Valentine’s meat extract had made Mr. Maybrick sick, which he -was not surprised at, as it often made people sick; while Nurse Gore, -speaking of the bottle seen in the hands of Mrs. Maybrick, said it was -a _fresh, unused bottle_, which she had herself opened only an hour -before. - -No evidence was given of what became of the opened bottle, and the -presence of the arsenic having already been accounted for, and the fact -recorded that the meat juice was not given to Mr. Maybrick, there is -nothing to add to what has already been said, except that the account -exactly dovetails with the prisoner’s own voluntary statement. - -Can any one, closely following the evidence throughout, fail to be -impressed with the _inconsistency of Mrs. Maybrick’s conduct in -relation to her husband’s illness with a desire to murder him?_ In -all recorded cases of poisoning, the utmost precautions to screen the -victim from observation have been observed. In the present instance it -would seem as if just the reverse object had been aimed at. We find -the prisoner _first giving the alarm about the attack_ of illness; -first sending for the doctors, brothers, and friends; first suggesting -that something taken by her husband, some drug or medicine, was at the -bottom of the mischief. We find the very first thing she does is to -administer a mustard emetic--the last thing one would have expected if -there had been a desire to poison him. If the prisoner _had wished to -put everybody in the house, and the doctors themselves, on the scent of -poison, she could not have acted differently_. - -[See also “Mrs. Maybrick’s Own Analysis of the Meat-Juice Incident,” -page 366.] - - -SOME IMPORTANT DEDUCTIONS FROM MEDICAL TESTIMONY - -From Dr. Humphreys’ testimony it appears that, after the days when -he was away from the patient, and when Mrs. Maybrick had undisturbed -access to her husband, _no symptoms whatever of arsenical poisoning -appeared_. If, then, arsenic was administered by Mrs. Maybrick under -the doctors’ eyes, without their detecting it, _what value can attach -to the testimony of the medical attendants_ as to the cause of death, -apart from the post-mortem examination, by which they practically admit -_they allowed their judgment to be governed_? - -Does not the only alternative present itself that Drs. Humphreys -and Carter are driven to the admission: “That the deceased died of -arsenical poisoning we deduce, not from the _symptoms during life_, but -from the fact that _arsenic was found in the body after death_”? - - -SYMPTOMS DUE TO POISONOUS DRUGS - -From the medical testimony it appears that the following list of -_poisonous drugs_ was prescribed and administered to Mr. Maybrick -shortly before his death: - - April 28, 1899, diluted prussic acid; April 29, Papaine’s iridin; - May 3, morphia suppository; May 4, ipecacuanha; May 5, prussic acid; - May 6, Fowler’s solution of arsenic; May 7, jaborandi tincture and - antipyrin; May 10, sulfonal, cocain, and phosphoric acid. - - Also, during the same period, the following were prescribed: bismuth, - double doses; nitro-glycerin; cascara; nitro-hydrochloric acid - (composed of nux vomica, strychnin, and brucine); Plummer’s pills - (containing antimony and calomel); bromide of potassium; tincture of - hyoscyamus; tincture of henbane; chlorin. - -Now it will be observed that up to May 6, when Fowler’s solution of -arsenic was administered, no symptom whatever had been observed _at -all compatible with the effects of arsenic_. - -The sickness produced by the morphia continued after the taking of -arsenic, and down the unfortunate man’s throat prussic acid, papaine, -iridin, morphia, ipecacuanha, and arsenic, some of the most powerful -drugs known to the pharmacopœia, had found their way by the advice of -Dr. Humphreys, in less than a week, while he was told to eat nothing, -and allay his thirst with a damp cloth; and the charge of poisoning -is made against the prisoner because he is suggested to have had an -irritant poison in his stomach, and minute traces of arsenic in some -other organs, within five days afterward. - - -DEATH FROM NATURAL CAUSES - -The whole history of the case, from its medical aspect, is consistent -with the small quantity of arsenic found in the body being part of -that prescribed by Dr. Humphreys, or the remains of that taken by the -deceased himself, _there being no particle of evidence to show that he -discontinued the habit of drugging himself almost up to the day of his -death_. This is also in accord with the evidence of Dr. Carter, who -attended at a later period, and, taken as a whole, the evidence of both -of these doctors, as well as their treatment of the deceased, points to -_death from natural causes_. - - -PROSECUTION’S DEDUCTIONS FROM POST-MORTEM ANALYSIS MISLEADING - -The evidence of the prosecution in connection with the analysis was -thoroughly _unreliable and misleading_. Dr. Stevenson’s difficulty was -that, while two grains of arsenic was the smallest quantity capable -of killing, the analyst had found only one-tenth of a grain, or the -twentieth part of the smallest fatal dose, and, in substance, Dr. -Stevenson proceeds to argue as follows: - -(_a_) I found 0.015 grain of arsenic in 8 ounces of intestines. -(There is no record as to what part of the intestines he examined.) I -have weighed the intestines of some other person (not Mr. Maybrick), -and find their entire weight to be so much. If, then, 8 ounces of -Mr. Maybrick’s intestines yield 0.015 grain, the entire intestines -(calculated from the weight of some one else’s intestines), had I -analyzed them, would have yielded one-eleventh of a grain. - -(_b_) Dr. Stevenson then proceeds to argue: “I found 0.026 grain of -arsenic in 4 ounces of liver. The entire liver weighed 48 ounces, -_therefore the entire liver contained 0.32 grain of arsenic_.” - -(_c_) Dr. Stevenson argues further: “The intestines and liver, -therefore, may be taken to contain together four-tenths of a grain of -arsenic, and, having found four-tenths of a grain, I _assume_ that the -body at the time of death _probably contained a fatal dose of arsenic_.” - -Such was the deduction Dr. Stevenson arrived at, _necessitating the -assumption that arsenic was equally distributed in the intestines and -liver_, whereas it is within the _personal knowledge of eminent men_ -(such as Drs. Tidy and Macnamara) that arsenic may be found after death -_in one portion of the intestines, and not a trace of it in any other -part_. That in arsenical poisoning the arsenic may be found in the -rectum and in the duodenum, and in no other part, is beyond dispute, -and the _fallacy of Dr. Stevenson’s process must be self-evident_. - -The witnesses for the prosecution themselves supply the proof of the -unequal distribution of the arsenic in the liver. - -Mr. Davies calculates the quantity in the whole liver as 0.130 grain. - -Dr. Stevenson, in his first experiment, puts it at 0.312 grain, and in -his second experiment at 0.278 grain; in other words, Dr. Stevenson -finds _double in one experiment_ and considerably _more than double in -another experiment, the quantity found by Mr. Davies, and it is upon -this glaring miscalculation and discrepancy that the case for the -prosecution was made_ to rest, and Mrs. Maybrick was convicted. - -But with all this miscalculation the approximate amount of arsenic _can -only be swelled up to four-tenths of a grain, less than one-fourth of a -fatal dose_, and it was demonstrated that every other part of the body, -urine, bile, stomach, contents of stomach, heart, lungs, spleen, fluid -from mouth, and even bones, _were all found to be free from arsenic_. - - -RECAPITULATION OF LEGAL POINTS - -The legal points of the case may thus conveniently be recapitulated -under the following short heads: - -There _was no conclusive_ evidence that Mr. Maybrick died from other -than natural causes (the word “conclusive” being used in the sense of -_free from doubt_). - -There was no conclusive evidence that he died from arsenical poisoning. - -There was no evidence that the prisoner administered or attempted to -administer arsenic to him. - -There was no evidence that the prisoner, if she did administer or -attempt to administer arsenic, did so with intent to murder. - -The judge, while engaged in his summing-up, placed himself in a -position where his mind was open to the influence of public discussion -and prejudice, to which was probably attributable the evident change in -his summing-up between the first and second days; and he also _assumed -facts against the prisoner which were not proved_. - -The jury were _allowed to separate_ and frequent places of public -resort and entertainment during such summing-up. - -The verdict was _against the weight of evidence_. - -The jury _did not give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt_ suggested -by the disagreement of expert witnesses on a material issue in the -case. - -The Home Secretary should have remitted the entire sentence by reason -of his being satisfied that there existed a _reasonable doubt of her -guilt_, which, had it been taken into consideration at the time, would -have entitled _her to an acquittal_. - -The indictment contained no specific account of felonious -administration of poison, and consequently the jury found the prisoner -guilty of an offense _for which she was never tried_. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[6] Mr. Maybrick’s dressing-room. - -[7] Later evidence showed that Mr. Maybrick secured as much as 150 -grains from one person, only about two months before his death. - - - - -Mrs. Maybrick’s Own Analysis - -OF THE MEAT-JUICE INCIDENT - - - I said in my statement to the Court, regarding this meat juice, - that: “On Thursday night, the 9th, after Nurse Gore had given my - husband beef juice, I went and sat on the bed by the side of him. He - complained to me of feeling very sick, very weak, and very depressed, - and again implored me to give him a powder, which he had referred to - early in the evening and which I had then declined to give him. I was - overwrought, terribly anxious, miserably unhappy, and his evident - distress utterly unnerved me. He told me the powder would not harm - him, and that I could put it in his food. I then consented. My lord, - I had not one true or honest friend in the house. I had no one to - consult and no one to advise me. I was deposed from my position as - mistress in my own house and from the position of attending on my - own husband, notwithstanding that he was so ill. Notwithstanding the - evidence of nurses and servants, I may say that he wished to have me - with him. [This desire was corroborated by the testimony of Nurse - Callery.] He missed me whenever I was not with him. Whenever I went - out of the room he asked for me, and for four days before he died I - was not allowed to give him even a piece of ice without its being - taken from my hand. When I found the powder I took it into the inner - room, and in pushing through the door I upset the bottle, and, in - order to make up the quantity of fluid spilled, I added a considerable - quantity of water. On returning to the room I found my husband asleep, - and I placed the bottle on the table by the window. When he awoke he - had a choking sensation in his throat and vomiting. After that he - appeared a little better. As he did not ask for the powder again, and - as I was not anxious to give it to him, I removed the bottle from the - small table, where it would attract his attention, to the top of the - washstand, where he could not see it. There I left it until I believe - Mr. Michael Maybrick took possession of it. Until a few minutes before - Mr. Bryning made the terrible charge against me, no one in that - house had informed me of the fact that a death certificate had been - refused, or that a post-mortem examination had taken place, or that - there was any reason to suppose that my husband died from other than - natural causes. It was only when Mrs. Briggs alluded to the presence - of arsenic in the meat juice that I was made aware of the [supposed] - nature of the powder my husband had asked me to give him. I then - attempted to make an explanation to Mrs. Briggs, such as I am now - making to your lordship, when a policeman interrupted the conversation - and put a stop to it.” - -Some time after my conviction there was found among my effects a -prescription for a face wash containing arsenic (the existence of -which Justice Stephen in his summing up flouted as an invention of -mine to cover an intent to poison). This, together with the fact that -on analysis no trace of “fiber” was discovered in the body or in any -of the things containing poison found in the house, should remove the -“fly-paper incident” from all serious consideration in its bearing on -the case (although it was the source of all “suspicions” before death). - -[Illustration: LEONIDAS D. YARRELL, Of Hayden & Yarrell, American -counsel of Mrs. Maybrick.] - -There remain only as “circumstantial evidence of guilt” what has come -to be known as the “motive,” and the Valentine’s meat-juice incident. -The “motive,” however regarded, was surely no incentive to murder, -as inasmuch if I wanted to be free there was sufficient evidence in -my possession (in the nature of infidelity and cruelty) to secure -a divorce, and it was with regard to steps in that direction that -I had already taken that I made confession to my husband after our -reconciliation, and to which I referred as to the “wrong” I had done -him, because of the publicity and ruin to his business it involved. The -“motive,” which was introduced into the case in the form of a letter -written by me on the 8th of May, in which I said that my husband -was “sick unto death,” was made much of by the prosecution, and it -led Justice Stephen to say, in his summing-up, “that I could not have -known that my husband was dying (except I knew something others did -not suspect), inasmuch as the doctors, from the diagnosis, did not -consider the case at all serious.” The justice either did not or would -not understand (though it was testified to) that the phrase, “sick -unto death,” is an American colloquialism, especially of the South, -and commonly employed with reference to any illness at all serious. -Aside from the fact that all in attendance (save and except the doctors -per their medical testimony) did regard it as serious--a witness for -the prosecution, Mrs. Briggs, testified that she regarded him on that -day as “dangerously ill,” and Mr. Michael Maybrick said that when he -saw his brother on the evening of the same day “he was shocked by his -appearance”--I may say here that the phrase “sick unto death,” in -connection with other causes for apprehension, was prompted by the fact -that my husband had told me that very morning that “he thought he was -going to die”; and that this was his feeling is conclusively shown by -the evidence of Dr. Humphreys at the inquest, when he testified that he -had remarked to Mr. Michael Maybrick on this same Wednesday, the 8th -of May: “I am not satisfied with your brother, and I will tell you why -[not because the symptoms seemed serious to him, it will be observed]. -_Your brother tells me he is going to die._” - -That I regarded the case as really serious is surely further supported -by the fact that, notwithstanding the easy-going attitude of Dr. -Humphreys, I had persisted in urging a consultation, which accordingly -took place on the 7th. As to what the attending physicians _knew_ or -_did not know_ about the medical aspects of the case, I confidently -refer the reader to their own remarkable testimony. - -There then remains for serious consideration only what is known as the -“Valentine meat-juice incident.” Of this I know no more now than is -included in my statement at the trial--namely, that at my husband’s -urgent, piteous request I placed a powder (which by his direction I -took from a pocket in his vest, hanging in the adjoining room, which -room until his sickness had been his private bedroom, he having been -removed to mine as being larger and more airy) in a bottle of meat -juice, no part of the contents of which were given him, and hence at -the very most there could only have legally arisen from this act a -charge of “intent to poison.” - -I do not assume that I can solve a problem that has puzzled so many -able minds, but I trust I shall make clear that the prosecution can not -acquit itself of the inference of “cooking” up a case against me with -reference to this meat-juice incident: - -1. At the inquest, only a few days after the occurrence, Nurse Gore -testified, “I could and did see _clearly_ what Mrs. Maybrick did -with the bottle,” though she failed to tell what she saw; and it -is remarkable she was not further questioned on this point. At the -magisterial inquiry and trial, _per contra_, she testified that “she -[I] pushed the door to conceal (note the animus) her [my] movements”; -but on cross-examination she so far corrected herself as to say: “Mrs. -Maybrick did _not_ shut the dressing-room door.” - -2. When I returned with the bottle to the sick-room, she testified that -I placed it on the table in a “_surreptitious manner_,” though this -action, according to her own testimony, happened while “she [I] raised -her right hand and replaced the bottle on the table, while she [I] was -talking to me [her].” - -If one wanted to do such an act “surreptitiously,” would one choose the -moment of all others when by conversation one is calling attention to -oneself? Do not the two things involve a direct contradiction? - -3. It is in evidence that an hour after I had placed the bottle on a -little table in the window, I returned to the room and removed it from -the table to the washstand (where it remained during most of the next -day), lest the sight of it should renew Mr. Maybrick’s desire for it, -as he had just awakened. Note how this bottle is juggled with by the -witnesses for the prosecution. - -Michael Maybrick, at the inquest, in answer to the question, “Where did -you find the Valentine’s meat juice?” replied: “I found it on a _little -table mixed up_ with _several other bottles_.” Note the particularity -of this bottle being _mixed up with several other bottles_. Obviously -he at this time, only a few days after the event, had a clear picture -of the situation in his mind. In corroboration of this testimony that -the bottle _he took_ was on the table and _not on the washstand_, there -is the testimony of Nurse Callery, who at the inquest stated: “My -attention was called by her [Nurse Gore] to a bottle of Valentine’s -meat juice, which was on _a table_ in Mr. Maybrick’s room. I took a -sample. I don’t know what became of the bottle of meat juice. I saw -Mr. Michael Maybrick in the room before going off duty at 4.50 P.M. on -Friday, but did not see him take the meat juice away.” - -Nurse Gore gave her testimony at the inquest _after_ the two others, -and deposed that Mr. Michael Maybrick took the bottle from the -_washstand_ where I had placed it, thus contradicting Michael Maybrick, -and in a way also Nurse Callery, who testified that Nurse Gore called -her attention to a bottle on the _small table_. Obviously this -difference introduces _two_ bottles; but this would never answer the -prosecution, and accordingly Mr. Michael Maybrick at the trial dropped -_the table_ sworn to at the inquest and fell in line with Nurse Gore -in so far as to say: “It was standing on the _washstand_, and it -was _among some other bottles_.” Note that, while he substitutes the -_washstand_ for the _table_, he still clings to the _bottles_--a most -important circumstance--as it was indubitably shown that there were on -the _washstand_ only the “ordinary basins and jugs” (water pitchers). -Obviously Mr. Michael Maybrick had not fully comprehended the purpose -of the prosecution in “harmonizing” the testimony with that of Nurse -Gore; the “bottles” were too clearly in his mind to be dropped without -a distinct effort, and he naturally introduced them again; and, to fit -in with the Nurse Gore and the amended Mr. Michael Maybrick evidence, -Nurse Callery also changed front at the trial, and the _table_ of her -inquest testimony is also turned into a washstand. It is in evidence -that as late as the 6th of May my husband took meat juice out of a -bottle then in the room, the contents of which, however, did not -agree with him, and upon the _order of Dr. Humphreys_ its giving was -discontinued, he adding that he was “not surprised,” as it was known -not to agree with some people. - -Although this was the doctor’s order, Mr. Edwin Maybrick took it upon -himself to procure a fresh bottle, and, distinctly against the same -order, Nurse Gore set about to administer its contents. Subsequently -a bottle of meat juice, half full, was found in a small wooden box -with other bottles (one of them containing arsenic in solution) in my -husband’s hat-box. - -Nevertheless, though we are here undeniably dealing with _three_ -meat-juice bottles, only two were accounted for at the trial. What -became of the third bottle? And which of the _three_ was missing? Now, -furthermore, it is in evidence that Nurse Callery handled one of these -bottles (between the time that I placed one on the washstand and the -time when Mr. Michael Maybrick, more than twelve hours later, took one -either from the _table_ or the _washstand_ for analysis), for she took -a sample of it, which she afterward threw away. - -As all Valentine’s meat-juice bottles look alike, Mr. Michael Maybrick -showed sufficient caution to say he could not identify the bottle shown -him; but Nurse Gore, to whom every act of mine, however innocent, was -fraught with “surreptitiousness” and “suspicion,” balked at no such -scruples, but boldly testified that the bottle produced in court was -the identical one that Mr. Michael Maybrick “took from the washstand,” -even though at the inquest, when his memory was freshest, he testified -that he took it from the _table_. - -It should be remembered that my statement to the court was to the -effect that I put a powder (its nature unknown to me) in the meat-juice -bottle I had in my hands. Yet no bottle containing a powder, or in -which a powder had been dissolved, appeared in evidence. According to -the analyst, the bottle submitted to him contained arsenic that had -been put in in a state of solution. Now it resolves itself to this: -either I uttered a falsehood about the powder and really introduced a -solution, or another bottle was substituted for the one I had for two -minutes in my possession. - -The contention of the prosecution was that I “invented” the powder, -precisely as it was contended I “invented” the face-wash prescription -which was found after the trial. If I “invented” the powder, how -did I come by the solution? If I had had arsenic in solution in my -possession, would I have gone to the trouble of making a solution -for a face wash by the clumsy method of soaking fly-papers? Is not -the proposition quite absurd on its face--that I should openly call -attention to a method of arsenic extraction with the object of murder, -when I already had the means at my command? - -Finally, let it be borne in mind, as stated by Justice Stephen himself -as a remarkable fact, that no arsenic was traced to my procurement -or found in my personal belongings (save and except the innocuous -fly-papers), and I may add that no arsenic was traced to any one -connected with the case, except to my husband. - -I say it is absolutely clear that the bottle of Valentine’s meat -juice which Mr. Michael Maybrick took possession of and handed to Dr. -Carter is not the same bottle which Nurse Gore saw me place on the -washstand. There should be no flaw in the identity of the bottle which -was handed to the analyst and the one which was in my hands, and I -think the reader will say that it is impossible to conceive a greater -_flaw in any evidence of identity_ than shown by these witnesses of the -prosecution at the inquest, when their minds were freshest as to their -respective parts in this incident, and at the trial. - -Those of my readers who follow the analysis of the testimony as -presented by Messrs. Lumley & Lumley can hardly have failed to be -impressed by the fact that I was surrounded by unscrupulous enemies, -by people who not only had extraordinary knowledge as to where to look -for deposits of arsenic, but also remarkable intuitions that arsenic -had been administered before any evidence of the presence of poison had -been analytically proven. - -In the above I have not aimed to make an analysis of the testimony, -such as, for example, on the evidence now available, Lord Russell could -have made; I have simply endeavored to satisfy my readers that I have -substantial grounds for asserting my innocence before the world. - - FLORENCE ELIZABETH MAYBRICK. - - - - -MEMORIALS FOR RESPITE OF SENTENCE - - -FROM THE PHYSICIANS OF LIVERPOOL - -In a memorial for respite of sentence of Mrs. Maybrick, which was -signed by leading medical practitioners of Liverpool, the petitioners -say in part: - - “3. It was admitted by the medical testimony on behalf of the - prosecution that the symptoms during life and the post-mortem - appearances were in themselves insufficient to justify the conclusion - that death was caused by arsenic, and that it was only the discovery - of traces of that poison in certain parts of the viscera which - eventually led to that conclusion. - - “4. The arsenic so found in the viscera was less in quantity than - _that found in any previous case of arsenical poisoning in which - arsenic has been found at all_. - - “5. There was indisputable evidence on the part of the defense that - the deceased had been in the habit of taking arsenic, both medicinally - and otherwise, for many years, and that the small quantity found in - the viscera was inconsistent with the theory of a fatal dose at any - time or times during the period covered by the illness of the deceased. - - “6. Lastly, your memorialists agree with the evidence given by Dr. - Tidy, Dr. Macnamara, and Mr. Paul on behalf of the defense, that the - medical evidence on behalf of the prosecution _had entirely failed to - prove that the death was due to arsenical poisoning at all_.” - - -FROM THE BARS OF LIVERPOOL AND LONDON - -Leading members of the Bars of Liverpool and London signed a memorial -praying a reprieve of Mrs. Maybrick’s sentence “on the ground ... of -the great conflict of medical testimony as to the cause of death” of -Mr. Maybrick. - - -FROM CITIZENS OF LIVERPOOL - -A petition for reprieve of Mrs. Maybrick’s sentence was signed by many -and influential citizens of Liverpool. Among the reasons urged were: - -3. Lack of direct evidence of administration of arsenic. - -4. The weak case against prisoner on general facts unduly prejudiced by -evidence of motive. - -5. Preponderance of medical testimony that death was ascribable to -natural causes. - - [I feel a deep respect for the noble avowal given in the petition - of the medical practitioners of Liverpool, who must have felt the - honor of their profession at stake, and that their individual dignity - and humanity were concerned. The feeling among the Bar on receipt - of the verdict was an almost universal, if not a quite unanimous, - one of surprise. I have already mentioned (in Part One), the change - of attitude of the citizens of Liverpool toward me, as the trial - progressed, from hostility to belief in my innocence.--F. E. M.] - - - - -NEW EVIDENCE - - -ARSENIC SOLD TO MAYBRICK BY DRUGGIST - -Mr. Edwin Garnett Heaton, a retired chemist (druggist), formerly -carried on business at 14 Exchange Street East, Liverpool, for -seventeen years; he retired from business in 1888. He testified at the -trial: - - “Mr. Maybrick called frequently at my shop for about ten years or - more, off and on. He used to get the tonic called ‘pick-me-up.’ - He would come to the shop, get it, and drink it up. He gave me - a prescription which altered it, which I put up with _liquor - arsenicalis_. He brought the prescription for the first few times; - I used afterward to give it him at once, when he came into the shop - and gave his order. I prepared the ‘pick-me-up’ and added the stuff. - At the beginning of giving it to him, a certain quantity of _liquor - arsenicalis_ was given, and as it continued it was gradually increased - from first to last, so at the last it was 75 per cent. greater in - quantity than it was originally. He used to get it from two to five - times a day, and each containing 75 per cent. increase.” - -This testimony of Mr. Heaton’s was challenged by the prosecution, and -considerably nullified by the fact that he did not know Mr. Maybrick, -his customer, by name, but identified him by a photograph. To show -how inexorably one fatality after another was woven into the web of -my tragic case, it is in order to state that Mr. Heaton’s connection -with Mr. Maybrick could and would undoubtedly have been perfectly -established but for what in the circumstances can be characterized only -as a criminal blunder on the part of the police. In the printed police -list of the score or more medicine bottles found locked in the private -desk of Mr. Maybrick at his office was one entered as follows: “Spirit -of salvolatile, Edwin G. Easton, Exchange Street East, Liverpool.” -This misprint of Easton for Heaton escaped the attention of everybody -at the trial, and thus prevented the defense from identifying most -circumstantially Mr. Maybrick with Mr. Heaton’s customer who had the -arsenic habit. - - -ARSENIC SUPPLIED TO MAYBRICK BY MANUFACTURING CHEMIST - -About ten years ago Mr. Valentine Charles Blake, of Victoria -Embankment, son of a well-known baronet and Member of Parliament, -made a voluntary statutory declaration [corroborated on oath in every -possible essential by William Bryer Nation, of No. 7 Lion Street, a -manufacturing chemist and patentee], that Mr. Maybrick, about two -months before his death, procured through him (Mr. Blake), from -Mr. Nation’s supplies, as much as 150 grains of arsenic in various -forms. Mr. Nation, assisted by Mr. Blake, had made certain chemical -experiments in preparing ramie, the fiber of rhea grass, to serve as a -substitute for cotton. Among other ingredients used was arsenic, some -in pure form (white arsenic), some mixed with soot, and some mixed with -charcoal. In January, 1889, the process was perfected, and some time -during the same month Mr. Nation sent Mr. Blake to see Mr. Maybrick, to -get his assistance in placing the product on the market. Mr. Maybrick -was interested in the proposition and inquired closely into the nature -of the process, what ingredients were used, etc. The deponent told him -that, among other materials, arsenic was employed. - -Then, to quote the exact words of the deposition, Mr. Blake went on to -say: - - “14. The said Mr. Maybrick shortly afterward, during discussion at the - same interview, asked me whether I had heard that many inhabitants of - Styria, in Austria, habitually took arsenic internally and throve upon - it. I said that I had heard so. He then spoke to me of De Quincey, - the author of ‘Confessions of an Opium-Eater,’ and asked me had I - read the work. I said, ‘Yes,’ and that I wondered De Quincey could - have taken such a quantity as 900 drops of laudanum in a day. The - said James Maybrick said, ‘One man’s poison is another man’s meat, - and there is a so-called poison which is like meat and liquor to me - whenever I feel weak and depressed. It makes me stronger in mind and - in body at once,’ or words to that effect. I ventured to ask him what - it was. He answered, ‘I don’t tell everybody, and wouldn’t tell you, - only you mentioned arsenic. It is arsenic. I take it when I can get - it, but the doctors won’t put any into my medicine except now and then - a trifle, that only tantalizes me,’ or words to that effect. After - a pause, during which I said nothing, the said James Maybrick said: - ‘Since you use arsenic, can you let me have some? I find a difficulty - in getting it here.’ I answered that I had some by me, and that, since - I had only used it for experiments which were now perfected, I had - no further use for it, and he (Maybrick) was welcome to all I had - left. He then asked me what it was worth, and offered to pay for it in - advance. I replied that I had no license to sell drugs, and suggested - that we should make it a _quid pro quo_. Mr. Maybrick was to do his - best with the ramie grass product, and I was to make him a present of - the arsenic I had. - - “15. It was finally agreed that when I came to Liverpool again, as - arranged I should bring with me and hand him the arsenic aforesaid. - - “16. _In February, 1889_, I again called at the office of the said - James Maybrick, in Liverpool, and, as promised, I handed him all the - arsenic I had at my command, amounting to about 150 grains, some of - the ‘white’ and some of the two kinds of ‘black’ arsenic, in three - separate paper packets. I told him to be careful, as he had ‘almost - enough to poison a regiment.’ When we separated the said James - Maybrick took away the said arsenic with him, saying he was going home - to his house at Aigburth, to which he invited me. Having a train to - catch, I declined the invitation, promising to accept it on my next - visit to Liverpool, but before that occurred I read of his death. - - “17. After the wife of the said James Maybrick had been accused of - his alleged murder, I wrote to Mr. Cleaver, her then solicitor, of - Liverpool, to the effect that I could give some evidence which might - be of use to his client, and I posted such letter but received no - reply. - - “18. At this time I was intensely anxious as to the fate of my only - son, Valentine Blake, who had in the previous year sailed on board - the ship _Melanasia_ from South Shields for Valparaiso, which ship - was then very long overdue and unheard of. I eventually learned, as - a result of a Board of Trade inquiry, that the said ship must have - foundered with all hands, my only son included. At the time I wrote - as aforesaid to Mr. Cleaver, my entire attention was engrossed in - endeavoring to get news as to the ship which never came home, and I - felt little interest in any other subject. Receiving no reply to my - said letter to Mr. Cleaver, I took no further steps in the matter - until, seeing recently in a newspaper that Mr. Jonathan E. Harris, of - 95 Leadenhall Street, in the city of London, was now acting for Mrs. - James Maybrick and her mother, the Baroness de Roques, I called at the - offices of the said Mr. Harris and made to him a statement.” - - -DEPOSITIONS AS TO MR. MAYBRICK’S ARSENIC HABIT - -On August 10, Henry Bliss, former proprietor of Sefton Club and -Chambers, Liverpool, made a sworn deposition, in which he said: - - “Mr. Maybrick lived in the chambers on and off several months, and was - in the habit of dosing himself. On one occasion he asked me to leave - a prescription at a well-known Liverpool chemist’s to be made up by - the time he left ‘Change. The chemist remarked: ‘He ought to be very - careful and not take an overdose of it.’” - -On March 31, 1891, Franklin George Bancroft, artist and writer, of -Columbia, S. C., made a sworn deposition, in which he said: - - “1. Between the years 1874 and 1876 I was personally acquainted - with James Maybrick, late of Battlecrease House, Aigburth, near - Liverpool, merchant, deceased, who was then living in Norfolk, Va. - I was frequently in his company, and from time to time I have _seen - him take from his vest pocket a case resembling a cigarette case, - which contained a packet of white powders_, and place the contents of - one such powder on several occasions into the glass of wine (usually - Chablis, claret, or champagne) he was at the time drinking, and - swallow the same. - - “2. Seeing him take this powder, I did, on one occasion, ask him what - it was, and the said James Maybrick replied, ‘Longevity and fair - complexion, my boy!’ and he subsequently informed me that the said - white powders were composed of _arsenic_ among other ingredients.” - - -JUSTICE STEPHEN’S RETIREMENT - -There are also facts in relation to the judge who tried the case which, -had they been anticipated at the time of the trial, could not have -failed to have had some weight, directly or indirectly, on the minds -of the jury; that is to say, his retirement from the Bench not long -afterward, in April, 1891, when, to quote his own words in addressing -the Bar, of whom he was taking leave, “he had been made acquainted with -the fact that he was regarded by some as no longer physically capable -of discharging his duties”; and it will be no matter of surprise, to -those who have read critically the summing-up of Mr. Justice Stephen on -this trial, to notice the entire change from a favorable bias between -his address to the jury on the first days of the trial to the violent -hostility shown at its conclusion. - -This change of front can be in a manner accounted for, as it had been -suggested to the prisoner’s friends, by a conversation on the case -between Mr. Justice Stephen and another member of the Bench, Mr. -Justice Grantham, at a social meeting of an entirely private character. - -A mental malady was developed in the judge so soon after the trial -that it was properly said to have been caused _by his brooding over -it_, and this condition increased so rapidly and markedly that his -_resignation was demanded_. It is but reasonable to suppose that the -judge’s mental incapacity reached farther back than its discovery, and -that the illogical and unjust summing-up was connected with the mental -overthrow of the otherwise able judge. And it may be here added that -Justice Stephen himself, in the second edition of the “General Views of -the Criminal Law of England, 1890,” says, at page 173, that out of 979 -cases tried before him, from January, 1885, to September, 1889, “the -case of Mrs. Maybrick was the only case in which there could be any -doubt about the facts.” - - - - - * * * * * - - -Transcriber’s Note - -Minor punctuation errors (i.e. missing periods) have been corrected. -Variations in hyphenation (i.e. hatbox and hat-box) present in the -original text have been retained. - -In the illustration caption, Miss Mary A. Dodge was incorrectly -referred to as “Miss Mary F. Dodge.” This has been corrected. - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of My Fifteen Lost Years, by -Florence Elizabeth Maybrick - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MY FIFTEEN LOST YEARS *** - -***** This file should be named 55773-0.txt or 55773-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/5/7/7/55773/ - -Produced by Cindy Horton and The Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |