The Damnation of John Donellan (26 page)

Those, the prisoner says, were his orders. But Mr Snow is not called. You have had no evidence of any thing that passed between the prisoner and Snow. You are told by the prisoner, in his defence, that Snow advised him instantly to bury the body; and if that were the advice given, why in such a case should not the prisoner call Snow to prove what passed between them, and what information he gave to Snow? Or why did he not communicate to Bucknill the reasons given by Snow?

A lawyer examining the case after the end of the trial, James Stephen, decided that Snow ‘as agent of Sir William Wheler authorised the funeral'; but the issue of whether Donellan did in fact call Snow to the stand but he refused to come, or whether Donellan did not call Snow at all, is not resolved.

Four vital questions were missed in the examination of the ‘Faculty'.

The first was whether Theodosius's venereal infection or his treatment by mercury could have brought about, or contributed
to, his death. Despite Donellan's protestations that Theodosius's illness dated back five years, and in that time he had been treated repeatedly with mercury, the court only considered the boy's
current
infection and treatment. This was partly due to a lack of insistence on the defending counsel's part to pursue closer questioning of Anna Maria; partly their failure to produce the bills of the various apothecaries and surgeons. But in greater part it was a general failure, due to medical ignorance at the time, to ascribe lasting damage to either the illness or its treatment.

The second was the history of apoplexy (strokes) in Theodosius's family. Parsons was asked whether apoplexy could be caused by a ruptured blood vessel, and answered yes; but the fact that Theodosius's father, Edward, had died of this condition at the age of fifty-three was not mentioned until Newnham cross-examined Sir William Wheler later in the day. Even then, the prosecution interrupted, enabling Wheler to point out that Edward had been ‘short and thick set' whereas Theodosius was ‘very thin, and taller than his father'.

It was probably considered that to draw any stronger parallels between father and son would lead nowhere; but if Theodosius's circulatory system had been affected by syphilis and the mercury, then the apoplexy – a circulatory disorder – that caused his father's death becomes more pertinent. No one thought it relevant to take this connection a little further and point out that Theodosius's grandfather had died exceptionally early at only thirty-three; probably because the exact cause of death – whether an apoplexy or not – was unknown. But taking the three deaths together, they do suggest that the Boughton men were prone to either a stroke or early demise; this again casts a shadow over the picture of ‘good health' painted by the prosecution.

The third question concerned the use of laurel in most eighteenth-century homes and kitchens, and the use of laurel water itself, in minute quantities, in apothecaries' medicines. Dried laurel leaves, even of the poisonous cherry laurel, were used in flavouring, as were leaves from its sister tree the bay. Laurel water in medicine was prescribed to stop morning sickness and the spasmodic cough
of whooping cough. It could also be used to produce increased salivation, as noted by Charles Phillips in his
Materia Medica and Therapeutics
of 1879. Why was the apothecary Powell not asked if he had put laurel water into Theodosius's draught either to increase salivation (which was thought to expel venereal infection) or to inhibit the nausea that he had experienced when taking the first dose the previous Saturday? Had Powell inadvertently added too strong a mixture, or confused its strength?

The fourth issue was the very first deposition that had been put before the coroner in September 1780, that of the miller Thomas Hewitt. Hewitt had testified that he had bought one ounce of ‘
Occuli Indicus
Berries' from Samuel Bucknill and delivered them to ‘the deceased, who put them into his pocket'. Why had Bucknill not been questioned about this? Similarly, why was Anna Maria not questioned in greater detail about the pound of arsenic that she knew Theodosius had in his room for trapping rats? How much of the arsenic was left? Had any of it gone missing? Additionally, what had happened to all the other medicines that Theodosius had been taking? There were various bottles on the chimney shelf; he had confessed to Donellan also to using mercurial ointment. Were any of the other quack remedies that Theodosius was so fond of taking subsequently found and analysed?

The prosecution brief did make a note about the poison supplied to Theodosius by Hewitt: ‘It seems Donellan means to prove that the bottle of
coculus indicus
[
sic
] which the miller made for Sir Theodosius to kill fish with is not to be found, and therefore he will presume that Lady Boughton gave that to Sir Theodosius by mistake, whereas we have the bottle to produce.'

This is fascinating stuff. Aside from the bizarre explanation that the mixture was used to ‘kill fish' (why, when Theodosius already had arsenic to put in the dead fish to kill rats?), if the prosecution had Hewitt's bottle, what did that prove exactly? It certainly did not prove, as the brief suggested, that it could not have been used to poison Theodosius; only that the bottle was not disposed of. One wonders, too, where the prosecution had found the bottle. Hewitt had already said that he had not seen it since delivering the
potion to Theodosius. That presumably meant that it was retrieved from Lawford or its grounds. But where exactly? It could certainly have been in Theodosius's bedroom.

Perhaps the prosecution saw the weaknesses in this argument, for Hewitt's bottle was never mentioned nor produced in court.

If Theodosius was poisoned – and it was certainly the prosecution case that he was – then there was a responsibility to account for several other deadly toxins, and not just laurel water, at Lawford Hall.

‘I don't know that the draught was poison …'

John Hunter

IT WAS BY NOW EARLY AFTERNOON
, and the court had been sitting for over six hours.

It was the turn of the servants of Lawford Hall to give their testimony: servants which, according to both Donellan and to local newspapers after the event, had been subjected to immense pressure by the prosecuting team. In addition to Sarah Blundell's supposed deathbed questioning by Mr Balguy, the
Northampton Mercury
of 30 April 1781 reported:

Since the Inquest was taken, several gentlemen in the neighbourhood of Lawford Hall have at different times sent for the witnesses against John Donellan to their respective houses and extorted many things from them which are intended to be adduced at the trial. They even went so far as to threaten them with imprisonment and other punishments and, calling their Clerks, have given them absolute orders to make out commitments if they did not say something against Mr Donellan.

If this is true, the effect on the household servants would have been extreme. Not only would testimony in Donellan's favour undoubtedly mean that they would lose their jobs, but possibly also the jobs of any family members employed by Boughton tenant farmers in the area – a penalty that could be easily imposed by Lady Boughton. The extra threat of imprisonment would have been too much to bear. These were not literate, educated people; they would have had no real idea of the powers of lawyers, but they would certainly have known the power of the tight-knit aristocratic community which owned their servants as effectively as they owned their vast estates. Sarah Blundell's example was very recent proof that, once out of favour, a woman could be thrown out of work and accommodation; and without the ‘good character' of their past employers, any working person's future was indeterminate, if not lost.

William Frost, the coachman, was the first to testify.

He confirmed that there had been an arrangement for Donellan and Anna Maria to ride to Newnham Wells together on the morning of 30 August. He also said that Donellan came out at seven o'clock, and then went back inside to see where Lady Boughton was. Returning, he said, ‘Lady Boughton is not ready yet; I will go to the Wells', and rode away. Frost took Anna Maria's horse back into the stable, and it was only ‘a considerable time' later that she rushed downstairs and told him to fetch Powell, saying that her son was ‘dangerously ill'.

The prosecuting counsel, Digby, left the subject; which is unsurprising, as Frost – whatever pressure he might have been under – had just confirmed the time lapse as portrayed by Donellan. ‘A considerable time' is not the ‘five minutes' described by Anna Maria. Frost then confirmed that he was called into the parlour to confirm these times as ‘evidence'.

Frost was not cross-examined.

The next servant to be called was Samuel Frost.

(Incidentally, there is no record of whether William Frost and
Samuel Frost were related, although it is possible that they were brothers, as they were both referred to as ‘young men'. Similarly, there is no statement of the relationship between Catharine and Francis Amos, the cook–maid and the gardener. However, it is likely that Catharine was Francis's wife, as according to the Newbold parish register a Francis Amos married a Catharine Palmer in February 1781.

To the prosecution, Samuel Frost now testified that he delivered Theodosius's medicine into his hands between five and six o'clock on the evening of 29 August, and that Theodosius took it upstairs. Under cross-examination, Frost said that Donellan joined Anna Maria and Theodosia at seven o'clock in the garden – which ties in with Anna Maria's story. Donellan, however, claimed that he was with Anna Maria all afternoon until Dand and Matthews called at six o'clock. According to Donellan, he was walking to the mill by the time Frost said he saw him in the garden.

The next witness was Mary Lynne, who had been Donellan's own servant.

Mary's answers were strained and nervous:

Q: How long before Sir Theodosius died?

A: I was not there at his death; I had left the place then.

Q: When did you leave it?

A: I cannot justly tell when I did leave it.

Q: Was it a month or six weeks before Sir Theodosius's death?

A: About a month, I believe.

Q: How long had you lived there before you left that place?

A: I cannot justly tell …

Q: Did you live there a twelvemonth, or half a year?

A: No.

Q: Might you have been there three or four months?

A: I might …

Q: Do you know anything about a still?

A: Yes.

Q: Mention what you know about it.

Mary now did something quite remarkable. A nervous country girl, standing in a court of law in a murder trial, subjected to any amount of pressure to reveal that Donellan distilled laurel, she said: ‘I will tell the truth, and nothing else. Mr Donellan distilled roses. I do not know that he distilled anything else.'

The prosecution tried to get her to say that the door to the room was always locked, but she denied this.

Q: Do you know anything of his using this still frequently?

A: Yes, distilling roses …

One can only imagine Donellan's feeling of gratitude to this girl, who went against a popular tide of bad feeling and rumour to defend her former employer.

Francis Amos was the final servant to take the stand.

What Donellan had to say about Francis Amos, the gardener, in his
Defence
is not flattering: ‘the poor fellow … a weak, silly, illiterate man'.

Q: I am asking you if you saw Mr Donellan on the evening after the death of Sir Theodosius Boughton, and whether you had any conversation with him?

A: At night I had.

Q: What did he say to you?

A: He said, ‘Now gardener, you shall live at your ease; and work at your ease; it shall not be as it was in Sir Theo's days. I wanted before to be master, but I have got master now, and shall be master.'

Donellan's
Defence
maintained that Amos simply asked Donellan who would be master now, and he was told that it would be Sir Edward Boughton.

Q: Do you know of Mr Donellan using a still for any purpose?

A: He brought a still for me to clean … it was full of lime …

Q: You, as a gardener, know whether he used to gather things for the purpose of distilling?

A: He might for what I know.

Q: Have you ever got any thing?

A: I have got lavender …

Q: Have you any laurel trees?

A: Yes.

At this point, defence counsel Newnham made what seems like a bizarre interjection. He asked, ‘And celery?' to which Amos answered, ‘Yes.'

Celery was in wide use in the eighteenth century for culinary purposes, but it had originally been a medicinal herb. The
New Herbal
of 1551 describes smallage (the ancestor of modern celery) as ‘promoting epileptic fits'. But it was also used as a cure for impotence. So perhaps this is what Newnham meant by his interruption – that Theodosius, by resorting to using celery when he was ill, had produced his own epileptic fits. If so, it was a very obtuse enquiry, and one that Newnham did not pursue.

Amos was then asked about Donellan telling him to find pigeons: a curious old-wives'-tale remedy recommended dead pigeons at the feet of an invalid. Amos said that Donellan told him that Sir Theodosius was a ‘poor fellow with this damned nasty distemper, the pox' and Amos then added that, when he came back with the birds, Lady Boughton and Theodosia were at the door ‘wringing their hands; they said, “It is too late now, he is dead.”' He confirmed that this happened at a few minutes after eight.

This is perplexing stuff. Taking Anna Maria's testimony and Donellan's
Defence
together, it would appear that Donellan was in the room when Theodosius died; or, at least, neither account says that he left it. Yet the cook-maid testified that she left Theodosius's room before he died, and about a quarter of an hour later Donellan
passed her in the passageway saying that Theodosius had been out very late fishing. Francis Amos says that he came back to the house with the pigeons, but not that Donellan was with him. He met the two women, who told him that Theodosius was dead, but Donellan was not with them.