The poor blunderers can only give him half a pint of laudanum . . . and run the risk of detection an hour after his death! I think that time is in a circle, and that we retreat as we advance, in spite of our talk of progress.
Miss BRADDON: The Trail of the Serpent.
(I)
THE YEAR 1828 is forever notable in the annals of Scottish crime by reason of the discovery of the long series of atrocities known to us as the West Port murders, perpetrated in Edinburgh by Burke and Hare. De Quincey, in a charmingly macabre essay, has considered murder as a fine art; these exponents reduced it to a thriving trade. The extent and effects of their industry are matters of history, Burke enjoying the further distinction of having added a new word to the English dictionary: the admirable verb to Burke: for an illiterate Irishman no small achievement.
But it is less generally appreciated that the same year witnessed the unmasking of two minor miscreants, who followed by different methods for profit the same dread business of murder. The output of these less famous practitioners—seven similar crimes, for only one of which the partners were indicted—falls far short of the sixteen transactions recorded in the books of Messrs. Burke and Hare. The smaller firm, however, in their modest way also enriched the language by a picturesque phrase: tipping the Doctor, which being interpreted, means, not, giving a physician a gratuity, but the administration to selected subjects, in their drink, of laudanum, with a view to robbery. If the patient failed to recover and identify the operators, so much the worse for him, so much the better for them. Some account of the activities of these forgotten and misguided enthusiasts it is the purpose of the present paper to supply.
The Edinburgh Weekly Chronicle, in commenting on the quality of the criminal harvest of the year, observes:—
As has been frequently remarked, there is something peculiarly horrible, disgusting to the mind, and revolting to the heart, in the nature of some of the crimes which have lately been brought to light. They seem to be the growth, not of famine and misery, but of cunning and hard-heartedness. Friends and strangers have alike suffered at the hands of men, or rather of monsters, whose trade it has been to practise upon their unsuspicious nature, and upon all those easy qualities which tend to render life and society happy and united. With such facts before our eyes, who can believe that he is safe from the snares which it would appear are laid everywhere around us? The very bond of a civilised community has been in a great measure sundered, and every man is compelled to look upon his fellow with distrust and suspicion.
These remarks have reference as well to the case of Burke and Hare as to that of John Stuart and Catherine Wright, the protagonists of the present drama.
(II)
Many of my readers must have had the pleasurable experience of sailing down the Clyde and through the Kyles of Bute to Ardrishaig or Inveraray. Adventurers of yesterday would plough the waters of that noble estuary in one or other of the veteran fleet of the venerable MacBrayne. But ancient and antiquated as were those hardy annuals of the Firth, the modern Clyde passenger steamer, such as the King George V., Duchess of Montrose, and Jeanie Deans, is not in all respects more greatly their superior than did they in their turn surpass in size, speed, and luxury the earlier vessels from which they have been so splendidly evolved. Thus, for example, in the year 1828 with which we are here concerned, the four steam-packets of the Castle Company were deemed the last word in comfort and efficiency. A contemporary advertisement, setting forth their claims to the patronage of the coast-bound traveller, is of interest in comparison with an up-to-date steamer timetable of to-day. For the pleasure of reprinting it I am indebted to the research of Captain Williamson, the historian of the Clyde passenger steamer:—
REGULAR CONVEYANCE
To Inveraray every lawful day, and Arran every Tuesday and Saturday.
AT GLASGOW,
The above Packets will Sail as under—calling at Port-Glasgow, Greenock, Gourock, Dunoon, Rothesay, Tarbert, and Lochgilphead.
One of the above Packets sails from Glasgow to Inveraray, and one sails from Inveraray to Glasgow, every lawful day; and from Glasgow to Arran every Tuesday and Saturday, leaving Arran for Glasgow every Wednesday and Monday; and to and from Rothesay daily.
One of the Packets sails from Rothesay for Greenock every Sunday morning, at half-past eight o’clock, with the Mail; and leaves Greenock for Rothesay same day at eleven o’clock forenoon.
NOTICE.—Families frequenting the Watering Places to which these Vessels ply will be supplied with Tickets on terms as low as any other Vessel going that way, and they will have the liberty of Sailing in any of the four Castles.
Tickets to be had only of Mr. David M‘Donald, Jeweller, No. 134 Trongate.
NOTICE.—Any person putting whisky or other illicit goods on board will be prosecuted.
ESTIMATES WANTED for supplying the above Steam Packets for One Year with the best Hard Coals, commencing on the 1st June next. Those wishing to contract for the same must give in their offers on or before the 25th instant to Alexander Ure, writer, 26 Glassford Street.
A STEWARD WANTED for one of these Vessels. None need apply but those that can be well recommended for sobriety and ability. Certificates to be lodged on or before the 21st instant with
These vaunted vessels were little better than tug-boats. Built of wood; flush-decked, with no shelter for the passengers except the low bulwarks; with huge paddle-wheels, abaft which soared a slender funnel—in the earlier types used also as a mast! the navigating bridge a plank across the paddle-boxes; and instead of the elaborate engine-room telegraph now in use, a rod with a brass knob, whereby the captain could “knock” down his orders to the engineer. In heavy or wet weather the unhappy passengers were confined to the cabin: a submarine black hole, from which the present-day occupant of an easy-chair on the glazed shelter-deck of the modern pleasure-steamer would recoil with horror and disgust.
The Toward Castle, on which we are now about to embark, was built in 1822 by William Denny, founder of the great shipbuilding house at Dumbarton, and was engined by M‘Arthur & Co. of Glasgow. Her dimensions were as follows: length, 101 feet; beam, 16 feet; depth, 9 feet; 79 tons register, with engines of the single-beam type and of 45 horse-power. She plied upon the route known as “Royal” between Glasgow and Loch Fyne, so long associated with the old Columba.
(III)
On 15th December 1828 there boarded the Toward Castle, then on her return run to Glasgow from Inveraray, when she called at Tarbert in Loch Fyne, a blacksmith and his wife, John and Catherine Stuart, and a mother and grand-daughter named M‘Phail. The parties had forgathered at the inn while awaiting the arrival of the steamer, where Mrs. M‘Phail’s luggage was lightened by a gauger of two gallons of whisky which, despite the prohibition of the foregoing advertisement, she proposed to smuggle aboard. The Stuarts sympathised with her in her loss; and as the morning was cold upon the water, they suggested a dram in the cabin. There, as she could not read, Mrs. M‘Phail consulted them as to the denomination of certain guinea notes in her possession. Her hospitable fellow-travellers then pressed her to sample the ship’s beer. “It was very bitter,” she afterwards recalled; “I never tasted such infernal strong beer in my life, and I spat out every drop and wiped my mouth with my apron.” As the old lady could by no means be persuaded to partake further of their precarious bounty, the pair turned their attention to another passenger, a stout merchant from Ulva, Robert Lamont by name, on whose broad bosom the outline of a bulky pocket-book was plainly visible. He was travelling with a cousin, who preferred to remain on deck. Lamont made no difficulty of accepting gratuitous refreshment, but declined to “stand his hand,” deeming the tariff extortionate—“it cost 9d. a bottle”: but so generously did his hosts provide drinks that, as we learn from the steward, they drank the ship dry—“three gills, three bottles of porter, and a dozen of ale: there was no more on board.” One tumbler only was in use, and it was noticed that before Lamont drank, Mrs. Stuart “put the tumbler in below her mantle,” and once, as her husband was about to drink, she “pulled it from his mouth and spilt it over his breast, and he damned her for it.”
When the streamer reached Renfrew Ferry, John Lamont went below to summon his relative, whom he found alone in the dark cabin, insensible, with his empty pocket-book lying on the floor at his feet. John at once informed the captain that his cousin had been robbed; whereupon the Stuarts were “laid hold of” and searched, £19, 7s. in notes and silver, and a black purse, afterwards proved to have been Lamont’s property, being found on them. At 6 p.m. the Toward Castle arrived at the Broomielaw; Stuart and his wife were taken into custody, and two bottles which had contained laudanum were discovered in their possession. A doctor, called to minister to the luckless Lamont, applied the stomach-pump to no effect; the patient never regained consciousness, and died next morning aboard the steamer.
Such is a short statement of the facts, which will enable the reader more easily to appreciate the purport of the evidence led at the trial. I take it from a brief account of the case in an old essay of mine on Scottish poisonings: “Locusta in Scotland.”1 I have been so long accustomed to having my stuff “lifted” without acknowledgment by other writers on crime that I find it refreshing, for a change, thus to pick my own pocket. But I have the uncommon honesty to say so.
(IV)
It was the praiseworthy practice of that day, when newspaper law reports were meagre, to publish on the conclusion of the proceedings separate accounts of famous trials, giving generally the evidence in full, the judge’s charge in brief, and sometimes even the addresses of counsel. To such, in the course of my criminous pilgrimage, I have been often and fruitfully indebted. In the present instance there is an excellent report of the proceedings, the title-page whereof reads as follows:
TRIAL of John Stuart, and Catherine Wright, or Stuart, before The High Court of Justiciary, at Edinburgh, on Tuesday, July 14, 1829, for the Murder and Robbery of Robert Lamont, on board the Toward Castle steam-boat, while on the passage from Tarbert to Glasgow. [Quotation.] EDINBURGH: Printed for Robert Buchanan, No. 26. George Street. . . . MDCCCXXIX.
The preface is dated July 1829, and the report extends to 47 pages. It ran through two editions; and so successful was the publication that there was issued in the same year a “Third Edition, corrected. To which are added, the Defences of Counsel for the Criminals, and an Account of their Execution, &c.” This new edition has been increased to 80 pages, and is that upon which I base my account of the case. It contains a new preface, dated September 1829, which thus explains the occasion of the reprint.
THIRD EDITION.
This Edition has been carefully revised, and it contains the addresses of the Counsel for the pannels, to the Jury.
A variety of unauthenticated and contradictory statements, with regard to the lives and conduct of these criminals, have been published since their execution. On these no reliance can be placed—nor do we consider it conducive to the improvement of public morals, either to trace the steps of profligacy through all the paths and gradations of crime, or to exhibit the foulest victims of the law in their last moments, as invested with the characteristics of saintship and martyrdom. It is indeed, we think, extremely pernicious to represent the language of despair, and perhaps to a certain extent of hypocrisy, in such cases as indications of heartfelt contrition and repentance; and we humbly think a great deal too much publicity is tolerated by public functionaries, to details of the private devotions and last mental agonies of criminals, who have justly forfeited their lives to the laws of their country. We, therefore, abstain from a repetition of the narratives to which we refer; and think it quite sufficient to quote, from a respectable Edinburgh newspaper (The Weekly Journal) a brief account of the public execution of Stuart and his wife.
The publishers shew their good taste and sense of decency thus to break away from the traditional practice of reporting the last hours of the condemned. Criminals well knew what was expected of them in the way of godly conversation and pious sentiments, and their ghostly counsellors played up to them for all they were spiritually worth. From the conversion of Lady Warriston in the Tolbooth, in good King James’s glorious days, to the edifying deportment of Mr. William Burke in the Calton Jail, in 1829, we have full descriptions of these moral transformation scenes, which are not less disingenuous than disgusting.
(V)
On Tuesday, 14th July 1829, the High Court of Justiciary met at ten o’clock for the trial of the Stuarts. Lord Gillies presided, the other judges being Lords Pitmilly, Mackenzie, and Moncreiff. Counsel for the Crown were Sir William Rae of St. Catherine’s, His Majesty’s Advocate, assisted by Robert Dundas and Alexander Wood, Advocates-Depute; James Tytler, W.S., Crown Agent. There appeared for the defence David Milne and William Forbes, advocates, instructed by John Livingston, W.S. The same Crown counsel had conducted the prosecution of Burke and M‘Dougal in the preceding December in that Court.
The huge and cumbersome indictment then in use upon which the pannels were arraigned charged them, at vast length and with due forensic verbosity, with the commission of four crimes: (1) upon 15th December 1828, on board the Toward Castle steamboat, then on her voyage from Inveraray to Glasgow, “and when the said steamboat was on her way between Tarbert or Tarbet in Argyleshire and Glasgow,” wilfully administering to Robert Lamont, then a passenger on the said boat, a quantity of laudanum or other narcotic, noxious, and destructive substance to the Prosecutor unknown, in ale or porter, which they prevailed upon the said Robert to drink, in consequence whereof he died on 16th December, and was thus murdered by them, contrary to the Act 6 Geo. IV. c. 126; (2) administering to Lamont laudanum with intent to murder or disable him or to do him some other grievous bodily harm, and thereafter to steal his property when so murdered or stupefied; (3) stealing a black leather pocket-book, ten bank or bankers’ notes for one pound sterling each, a two pound note of the Leith Bank or Banking Company, and seven bank or bankers’ notes for one guinea each, as also a black silk purse and some silver money, all as more particularly described in the Inventory of Productions; (4) administering to Mrs. M‘Phail and her grand-daughter laudanum, with the like intent. Annexed to the Indictment was a List of Witnesses, thirty-three in number, to be adduced for proving the libel.
The diet being called and both pannels having pleaded Not Guilty, Mr. Milne, as counsel for Stuart, objected to the relevancy of the Indictment on the ground that there was not sufficient specification of the mode in which the poison was administered. For all that appeared, the pannel might have induced the deceased to take the laudanum either as a medicine or as an agreeable stimulant, or even for the purpose of committing suicide. He cited divers decisions whereby libels were held not relevant through similar lack of specification. The Court, without calling on the Crown to reply, repelled the objection. Mr. Forbes then objected to the relevancy on behalf of Wright. The pannels were accused of four different crimes: murder, theft, the common law charge of administering laudanum to any of the lieges to the injury of the person, and the statutory charge of administration with intent to murder or disable. The Prosecutor seemed doubtful whether the medical evidence would bear out the charge of murder; he therefore brought an alternative charge of administration, both under the common law and the statute. It is not said that Lamont suffered injury in his person at all; yet the injury is an inherent ingredient of the crime. Further, the place of Lamont’s death is not mentioned: “It may have been perpetrated in any one of the shires of Argyll, Bute, Dumbarton, Renfrew, or Lanark. . . . Where, then, did Lamont die? Did he die at Tarbert, at Rothesay, at Glasgow, or in England? We obtain no answer to this question from the Indictment.” The place of death was not set forth at all. After hearing Dundas in reply, the Court repelled the objections, found the indictment relevant, and remitted it to the knowledge of an assize. A jury was then impannelled and the Prosecutor adduced his proof.
After formal evidence authenticating the prisoners’ declarations, John Lamont, farmer, Kilcheoun, in the island of Ulva, was called. Deceased was his cousin; he was a merchant, and was on his way to Glasgow. Witness accompanied him on board the Toward Castle at Lochgilphead. After passing the Kyles of Bute, they went below. “We went into a small place beside the steerage, with a table in the middle and a form fixed round it.” The cabin was empty. Presently the prisoners came in and witness went on deck. He heard the bell often ring for the steward. Robert came up and invited him to join the party. “I’ve fallen in with fine company,” said he; “you had better come down and take a share.” Witness did so. It being suggested that he should “stand his hand,” witness declined: “it cost 9d. a bottle.”
Mrs. Stuart sat at the door of the little place, and liquor was given to her. She was always next the door and got the liquor. John Stuart sat between her and Robert Lamont. Mrs. Stuart then went away and brought down Mrs. M‘Phail. There was only one tumbler used for drink. The first tumbler was poured out to Catherine M‘Phail, and when she preed [tasted] the ale she said: “What a bad taste the ale has! I never tasted the like of it.” She then put some into her loof [palm] from the bottle. John Stuart wanted to drink it, but his wife would not let him and spilt the tumbler on his breast. Mrs. Stuart coaxed Robert Lamont to drink, saying: “This is your drink; drink some of it.”
Witness drank a tumbler; the ale tasted all right to him, but he was “not much acquainted with malt liquor.” He felt no ill effects from the draught at that time. He then returned to the deck, leaving the revellers in the cabin. On approaching Glasgow he went below to warn his cousin that he was nearing his journey’s end. He found him alone, insensible, his head hanging down between his knees. The familiar bulge made by his pocket-book in his coat was not visible, “and missing this, I was led to think it was away.” Witness went on deck and told the captain, who was standing at the gangway awaiting the shore boat, that his relative had been robbed. They returned to the cabin. “Then the captain took the candle that was on the table and looked, and found the book on the floor, with the letters all scattered about.” The money was gone. Stuart, his wife, and Mrs. M‘Phail were “laid hold of on this.” Asked by the captain whether he had any money, Stuart replied that he had nearly £20; and on research £19, 7s., mostly in guinea notes, were found upon him. They were in a black silk purse. Having arrived at the Broomielaw about six o’clock, the captain “sent for surgeons.” Robert Lamont died on the steamboat at half-past five next morning. Throughout the night, as he watched by his cousin, witness was very sick and continued ill for some days thereafter. It was not sea-sickness, “being used to the sea.” Cross-examined, he heard them singing drinking songs together. They seemed very happy and well pleased with one another.
Catherine M‘Phail, wife of Michael M‘Phail, hawker in Gorbals, Glasgow, stated that she met the prisoners in a public-house at Tarbert, where she had occasion to change a £1 note before boarding the steamer. She had £16, 10s. 8½d. in notes, silver, and copper. She asked whether it was a pound or a guinea note, as she could not read. The prisoners were in the kitchen; “they were at the fire, sitting taking their gill.” On the steamer Mrs. Stuart expressed sorrow for witness’s loss of whisky: “the gauger had seized two gallons from me”: and invited her to console herself at their expense. There was strong beer on the cabin table. Mrs. Stuart handed her a tumblerful. “I could not drink it, from the bad taste. It was very bitter; I never tasted such infernal strong beer in my life, and I spat out every drop and wiped my mouth with my apron. I put some on my loof [palm] from the bottle and tasted it; the bottle was not so bad as the tumbler.” Mrs. Stuart said; “Drink this, Catherine; damn my soul, you’ll drink every drop!” Witness drank “down to the rim.” Afterwards she became “quite nonsensical” and did not know what happened. She had since been very ill “in her inside.”
Margaret M‘Phail, Catherine’s young grand-daughter, said that she was present in the cabin. She observed that Mrs. Stuart put the tumbler “in below her mantle.” She kept it thus for five or ten minutes, then put it on the table, and poured more ale into it. Witness, being allowed a taste, felt sick in two or three minutes and continued ill.
John King, grocer in Greenock, another passenger, having testified to the finding of the unconscious man and of his pocket-book, and the discovery of the money on the prisoner Stuart, Captain William Stewart, master of the Toward Castle, deponed that the prisoners joined his vessel at Tarbert, paying 3s. each as their fare. At first they pretended they had no money, and said their property had gone by the Eclipse—the Irish boat. He corroborated John Lamont’s account, and said that John identified the black purse as Robert’s. Catherine M‘Corkindale, a passenger, said she overheard the female prisoner say to the other, just before they were taken up, “If anything happen to this man, you’ll be blamed for it.” Whereupon he gave her a “dunch” and she held her tongue. Alexander Stewart, the steward, said that the party consumed eleven bottles of ale and three of porter, as well as three gills of whisky. There was no more on board.
Una Lamont, Robert’s widow, identified her late husband’s pocket-book and purse; also a £2 note, which she recognised from a certain red mark upon it. Catherine Lamont, daughter of the deceased, swore to the black purse, which she herself had made for her father. James Maxwell of Aros, who had paid Lamont three pound notes of the Leith Bank four days before his death, identified the notes produced.
Dr. Joseph Fleming, Anderston, said that on 15th December he was called to the Toward Castle to see Robert Lamont, whom he found insensible. His extremities were quite cold, his pulse imperceptible, his lips swollen and livid. He was said to be intoxicated; so witness applied the stomach-pump. The results—which smelt strongly of laudanum—were placed in a jar and lodged in the Police Office. James Russell, harbour-master at the Broomielaw, and Angus Cameron, police watchman, corroborated as to the delivery of the jar. Alexander M‘Pherson and James Young, police officers, stated that they found upon the male prisoner a large and a small bottle, both of which smelt of laudanum. There was also a smell of whisky in the large bottle.
Dr. James Corkindale, Glasgow, who, along with Dr. Fleming, conducted the post-mortem, proved their joint report.
There were no marks of external violence; neither in the head, chest, or belly could we discover anything different from the ordinary structure or appearance. The stomach contained about a pound of water, somewhat discoloured, and having the smell of spirits, which had been introduced into the stomach after it had been washed out by the use of the pump.
Upon considering this examination in reference to a charge of poisoning by laudanum, we have to state that the total absence of morbid appearances is unfavourable to the supposition that the man died of disease; and it is consistent with our knowledge that poisons of the narcotic or stupefying kind, such as laudanum, are wont to occasion death without producing in any part of the body such changes as are discoverable by dissection.
Cross-examined, death by intoxication might have happened from a person drinking ale, porter, and whisky to excess. The symptoms were equally consistent with death by intoxication. His opinion only amounted to a probability that the man died of laudanum.
Dr. Andrew Ure, Glasgow, proved the chemical report on fluid taken from the stomach, as examined by him and Dr. Corkindale.
We are both satisfied, by frequent trials, that the fluid in the jar had distinctly the peculiar and well-marked smell of laudanum. We subjected the fluid, evidently consisting chiefly of malt liquor, to the operation of various tests, which we know from the science and practice of chemistry are calculated with more or less precision to detect the presence of opium, or its spirituous solution commonly called laudanum. As the ultimate result of these different trials and experiments, carefully and laboriously made, we are led to the opinion that the liquor contained in the jar had a quantity of opium or laudanum mixed with it.
BY THE COURT.—Dr. Ure, you have heard the whole evidence on the trial to-day; what do you conceive to have been the cause of Lamont’s death? Do you believe that he was killed by laudanum?
WITNESS.—I think it amounts to a very high probability. My conviction is that he died of narcotism from porter and strong beer, aggravated by opium.
Cross-examined, vegetable poisons are much more difficult to detect than mineral, particularly as to quantity. He inferred that there must have been a considerable quantity of laudanum mixed with Lamont’s drink to enable its smell to predominate over that of the beer.
Malcolm Logan, prisoner in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh,1 deponed that the male accused told every person who came into jail about his case. He told witness that “he kept in with M‘Phail that he might try to do her on the passage betwixt Tarbert and Glasgow”; but as we know, the old lady was not to be “done.” He saw “something sticking in Lamont’s breast pocket,” and though he (Lamont) denied having any money on him, deemed him worth the “doing.” So Mrs. Stuart put some laudanum into his porter, with the best results. Stuart took his money from the unconscious victim, but “could not get the pocket-book into the same place, being large, so he dropped it.” They were furnished with a bottle of laudanum, which was half full when they set out. “They kept it for tipping anyone the Doctor whom they met, meaning that he gave them a dose of laudanum and set them to sleep.” Cross-examined, witness admitted that he was then serving a sentence of six months’ imprisonment, and was thereafter to be banished for three years. The accused imposed no obligation of secrecy upon witness when he told him his tale.
Archibald Anderson, prisoner in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, to whom the accused had also confided his story of the crime, corroborated. He told witness that he realised £19 and some odd silver by the transaction. Cross-examined, witness had come from jail that day, where he had been for six months His Majesty’s guest. He did not break into a house in Edinburgh two years before, neither was he concerned in the poisoning of a person between Edinburgh and Glasgow about that time.
Gruer M‘Gruer, criminal officer, Glasgow, said he took the male accused from Bridewell to the Council Chambers and back again on 10th March. Witness had some conversation with him. “He enquired if I thought whether the evidence of two persons in confinement with him could be taken, for he had been very foolish in telling them, and if their evidence were good, he was undone.” He mentioned Anderson. Cross-examined, “We got a gill of whisky, and prisoner got half of it. It was both before and after this that prisoner made acknowledgments.” The proof for the Crown was here closed.
Two witnesses only were called for the defence. Dr. Scruton said he kept “an apothecary shop” in Glasgow. He sold a good deal of laudanum, which was used by the working classes as a stimulant. The smallest quantity he sold was a drachm, which contained some sixty drops and cost a penny. Dr. Milner, druggist, High Street, Edinburgh, stated that the practice of taking laudanum as a stimulant was prevalent in that city. He had dozens of customers in a day; in some cases 1½ ounces were taken twice a day for that purpose.
(VI)
The declarations of the prisoners were four in number, each of the accused having been severally twice examined: on 16th and 17th December, and 10th and 11th March respectively.
Catherine Wright declared that she was a native of Glasgow, twenty-one years of age, and the wife of John Stuart, blacksmith, then in custody, whom she had married at Gretna six years before.1 “On Monday was eight days,” they sailed from the Broomielaw in the Eclipse, bound for Belfast. It became so stormy that the steamer had to put in for shelter to Campbeltown, where declarant and her husband went ashore. They were told that the vessel would sail at six o’clock next morning; “and declarant and her husband went to the quay at five, but were informed that the vessel had set off at twelve the night before.” They travelled on foot to Tarbert, where on the following Monday they embarked on the Toward Castle, intending to take their passage again at Glasgow for Belfast. Upon going into the cabin, they saw John Lamont and another man sitting together. In their modesty they proposed to withdraw, but the other man insisted that they should come in. “They went in accordingly and had a gill, and after this, some porter, and then strong ale, which the said two men partook of, the company being as it were one party.” When it was the declarant’s turn to drink she took but half a tumbler, “it not being proper” that she should take more. When they were getting near Glasgow, her husband, who was very drunk, slipped away; “the declarant went in quest of him in case he should fall overboard, and found him lighting his pipe where the engines were working.” They returned to the cabin for further refreshment, and the declarant also became the worse of Lamont’s hospitality, “for she had taken a good deal” as a precaution against sea-sickness. The other man was asleep, and Lamont became alarmed because he could not rouse him. He found his pocket-book lying at the man’s feet. When they embarked at Tarbert she and her husband had between them £20, 4s. Of the two empty bottles found in their possession the one had held whisky, the other laudanum, which her husband kept on account of a liver complaint. Both were empty when they boarded the Toward Castle.
John Stuart declared that he was a native of Ireland, thirty-two years of age, and by trade a blacksmith. He concurred generally with his wife. The last time he was in the cabin he saw John Lamont, and the other man, apparently sick, leaning with his head on his breast. John felt about the floor, and picked up a pocket-book which seemed to have fallen from the other’s pocket. Declarant did not know the man had a pocket-book until he saw it in Lamont’s hand. The money found upon declarant was given to him by his brother in Newcastle three weeks before, “to buy tools and begin to work.” He supported his wife’s account of the bottles. The last time he had bought laudanum was in Newcastle, when he purchased a pennyworth, which he had used for his complaint. Both bottles were empty when he joined the steamer.
Their second declarations related to the black silk purse, which John said was his property, and which Catherine alleged to have been the work of her own fair hands.
(VII)
The Lord Advocate, in addressing the jury in behalf of the Crown, said that the pannels were charged with murder committed in circumstances of the most atrocious and aggravated nature. It was a crime of so dark a description that in former times by the laws of this country it was held to be a species of treason. In everything they ate, in everything they drank, they ran the risk of death by noxious and deleterious ingredients, provided there were found wretches so unprincipled and sordid as to administer them. It was a crime that called for the severest punishment. If accidental circumstances or stronger constitutions preserved the lives of those to whom poison had been given, it was no merit of the criminals: they had done their part, and were as deeply culpable as if death had followed. His Lordship then went over the evidence, and concluded by stating that the country required protection at their hands. Whatever their verdict might be, they and the public must confess that he had done his duty in bringing that prosecution. He asked for a verdict of guilty against both pannels. It is regrettable that the report gives us nothing of the Lord Advocate’s review of the evidence.
Mr. Forbes then addressed the jury for the female accused. The first question they had to determine was, whether the death of Robert Lamont was due to laudanum? He commented on the vagueness of the medical certificates and the defective analysis of the contents of the stomach, and maintained that all the symptoms were identical with those of natural death by intoxication. The prosecutor must either admit that his own witnesses were drunk or that Lamont died of liquor. “Ten bottles of ale, three of porter, and a considerable quantity of whisky are proved by the steward of the vessel to have been consumed in that little cabin! Who drank it?” The women and Lamont said they drank little or nothing; and it was admitted on all hands that the pannels were quite sober. Who, then, but the deceased could have drunk the preponderating share of that heterogeneous mixture? True, a small quantity of laudanum was found in his stomach, but the defence had proved that drug was taken as a stimulant by the lower classes to an appalling extent. Lamont might have been a votary of this disgraceful practice and have taken it himself. In considering the charges against the accused, their cases must be considered separately, for much that was evidence against the male in no degree affected the female. Thus, in considering the culpability of the wife, they must leave out of view the alleged confessions of the husband to Logan and Anderson. “I cannot tell what credit the testimony of these two gentlemen may obtain from you; I cannot tell whether the clanking of the fetters which were struck off before they were brought into your presence may lead you to look upon them with a more favourable eye”; but the production of such witnesses argued in the prosecutor no great opinion of the strength of his case. John Lamont said that Mrs. Stuart drank as much as anyone. With regard to her alleged juggling with the tumbler, counsel observed: “Beware, gentlemen, in your more hilarious moments, of indulging in a fit of absence; beware of leaning back in your chair and placing your glass upon your knee when you are relating some pleasant anecdote. If a man die of intoxication, you will undoubtedly be blamed for it; it will be said that he was poisoned. It will be to no purpose that you protest your innocence by all that is sacred; it will not avail you that you possessed no poison and that none was traced to your possession!” But assuming the guilt of Stuart, how could they take it for granted that his wife was guilty? She may have had her suspicions of the plot, but it would be hard indeed to hold her guilty because she concealed her husband’s wickedness and did not denounce him to the captain of the ship. “Never, gentlemen, have I seen a case break down so hopelessly as in the attempt to prove the theft; and if the theft, which was the apparent object of the poisoning, be enveloped in obscurity, the act of poisoning must be doubtful also.” It was not contended that Mrs. Stuart took the money, and the notes found on Stuart were not properly identified as having belonged to Lamont. Neither notes nor poison were found in her possession. To enable them to find her guilty it must be proved: (1) that she was seen in the possession of poison; (2) that she had an opportunity of administering it; and (3) that the person died with such symptoms as could only be attributed to poison.
I ask for a verdict of Not Proven. The facts seem to demand no other verdict. This woman ought not to be dragged to the scaffold upon such imperfect evidence. She should not, I confess, be returned upon society free from suspicion. She has not passed through this fiery ordeal with her innocence established beyond the shadow of a doubt; but if you convict upon such evidence, you will give much more weight to it than it deserves.
The address of Mr. Milne for Stuart occupies in the report some seventeen closely printed pages. Life is short, and the art of forensic eloquence is long; I have not time to follow the learned counsel throughout his windy paragraphs. Suffice it, that he maintained that Lamont did not die from the effects of laudanum, but if he so died, the deed was done by Catherine Wright, without the knowledge of her husband. He strenuously attacked the evidence as to Stuart’s confession of guilt, and demanded a verdict of acquittal. It is noteworthy that Mr. Milne devotes much more space to abstract legal theories than to the proven facts of the case.
We are on firmer ground when we come to the charge of Lord Gillies. His Lordship observed:—
It would have afforded satisfaction to my mind in this, as in every other case where any doubt exists, to recommend the jury to give the accused the benefit of such doubt. But in the present instance there is no doubt whatever. It is clear that murder has been committed and equally clear that robbery has been committed. It was suggested by the learned counsel for one of the pannels that the deceased might have taken laudanum himself; but is it reasonable to conclude that he would at the same time rob himself?
It was proved by an eminent doctor and by the first practical chemist of the day that this man’s body was quite healthy and that in their belief he died of laudanum. With regard to the robbery, it was proved that the pannel Stuart had no money when he went on board, and that soon afterwards he was possessed of a sum, not only about the amount, but in the same description of notes of which the man had been robbed. A strong circumstance of corroboration was the little black purse. That purse was proved to have belonged to the deceased; his friend saw him with it on the voyage, his daughter recognised it as her own sewing. It was proved to have been dropped by the pannel Stuart. “With respect to the murder, the woman cuts by far the more conspicuous figure. She bought the ale in which the poison was infused. She neither tasted it herself nor, aware of its fatal contents, would she allow her husband to do so.” As to the confession, the evidence of Logan and Anderson, while open to suspicion, gave a clear and distinct narrative of the whole affair; in the main facts, and even in minute circumstance, they were corroborated by the other evidence.
It is plain that murder and robbery have been committed, and suspicion rests on none but the prisoners at the bar. They had the means in their hands, and they had the opportunity and resolution to use them. I am quite confident that your verdict will be one according to justice, and one that will give satisfaction to the country.
Nor was his Lordship’s confidence misplaced; after an absence of five minutes the jury returned a unanimous verdict of Guilty against both pannels upon all the charges. In pronouncing sentence of death, Lord Gillies observed that the crime of which they had been convicted was of a most novel, most dangerous, most subtle, and most daring nature. He ordained the prisoners to be hanged in Edinburgh on 19th August, and their bodies to be given to Dr. Monro, Professor of Anatomy in that University, for dissection. The Court then rose.
(VIII)
Less chivalrous than Burke who, on the acquittal of his paramour M‘Dougal, congratulated her on her freedom, saying: “Nelly, you are out of the scrape!” Stuart, after condemnation, at first ungallantly maintained that his wife had administered the drug without his knowledge, “for she was in the practice of mixing the potion.” But by the operations of his spiritual advisers he was brought to make a clean breast, as well of his last as of his former crimes. It is interesting to learn upon his own authority that Stuart acquired the gentle art of tipping the Doctor in London, where, he states—regrettably for the reputation of that great city—“that a person could there get a lesson in anything, however horrid, for ten shillings,” which seems in the circumstances a reasonable charge.
The Edinburgh Weekly Chronicle records such particulars of his criminous activities as it had been able to collect.
At this moment we could not take upon ourselves to state with any degree of certainty the exact number who fell victims to that system of poisoning by which these individuals supported themselves. Stuart, however, confessed that he was aware of no less than seven human beings having died under the application of his deadly drugs. He also mentioned a great many more, of whose fates he had received no precise information. . . . It is supposed that one of their earliest victims was the individual who was poisoned about a year ago under such mysterious circumstances in a public-house at the west end of Princes Street.
I find, on research, this “Mysterious Occurrence” duly noted in the contemporary Press of 28th February 1828. On the afternoon of Tuesday in that week two men and a woman were seen to alight from the Glasgow coach at the east end of Maitland Street, and immediately sought the hospitality of an adjacent tavern. Two gills of rum and a bottle of porter consumed by them were paid for by one of the men with a pound note, of which he received the change. The party was accommodated in a private room. After some time the landlord, whose attention had been otherwise engaged, entered the room. He found the gentleman with the note insensible, and his companions vanished. On his person was found an empty purse: the change had disappeared with his departed friends. Medical aid was promptly summoned; but the unfortunate man died at midnight without regaining consciousness. It was learned that he had left Bathgate that morning with £18 in his pocket. “The guard of the Glasgow coach which brought the party to Edinburgh states that the man and woman who have acted so extraordinary a part in this distressing occurrence, and who have not yet been heard of, were picked up on the road a little beyond Corstorphine.” Nor were they heard of again until the affair of the Toward Castle.
Their next “subject” was a ferryman at Kirkcudbright, whom they poisoned with laudanum in whisky and robbed of £14. Another was encountered by the pair in Glasgow and induced to go with them into an eating-house in the Bridgegate, where ale and porter were employed as the vehicle of the poison.
Stuart declared that it was his intention to have spared the life of this person, which he could have done by merely giving him a drink of warm milk. This his more sanguine [sic] companion objected to, and urged their immediate departure, to avoid consequences which would have been fatal to them had proper medical evidence been obtained, as in the case of Robert Lamont.
At the time of writing, the Chronicle was investigating the circumstances attending the deaths of the remaining three beneficiaries by Mr. Stuart’s studies in London, and promised to publish the facts as soon as ascertained. “In all these instances,” remarks that journal, “we may state that Wright, whose dispositions proved to be even more blood-thirsty than Stuart’s, either from fear or insensibility, acted the more prominent part, and indeed was the great instrument of her paramour’s designs.” That Catherine Wright played Lady Macbeth to John Stuart’s Thane of Cawdor was the belief of those who came in touch with the evil pair after their condemnation. A small incident, occurring in the Lockup-house on the morning of the execution, supports the view that she was, in the vulgar phrase, the better horse. “While he was contented with taking two pinches of snuff, she smoked her pipe four times,” and this she did “while listening with apparent earnestness to the pious exhortations of the Rev. Mr. Porter.” Stuart’s last message was one of gratitude to his legal advisers, with respect to whose services he said “that he was very sorry the lawyers had so little to work on.” Whether this has reference to the insufficiency of their fees or to the fragility of the defence, does not appear.
The execution was duly carried out on the appointed day at the head of Libberton’s Wynd, whence seven months earlier Burke had departed to his own place. The appeal respectively made by our protagonists to public favour is reflected in the figures of those attending their last appearance. The Burke spectacle drew a crowd of 25,000; the double event, featuring the later performers, only 10,000. After hanging the usual time, their bodies were cut down at nine o’clock and became the property of science, in which form they were at last of some benefit to society.
(IX)
According to the pleasant and salutary custom of the time, there were hawked about the gallows’-foot for a penny, divers villainous ballads, commemorative of the criminals’ misdeeds. Three of these, respectively entitled The Lament of John Stewart [sic] and Catherine Wright, and Lamentation and Lamentations of the same, are preserved in the Signet Library at Edinburgh. The Lament, which is headed by a quaint woodcut of the Toward Castle with a preposterous funnel, gives the following version of the crime.
To the Lamentation is prefixed a woodcut of the Toward Castle, in which that vessel surprisingly figures as a full-rigged ship, under all plain sail! In the text we are furnished with some account of their dealings with the Doctor.
The last line justly defines the attitude of the practitioners: they were not less sanguinary than sanguine. Familiarity with murder had, as in the case of Burke and Hare, bred contempt of consequences, a fact that accounts for the impudent audacity of the crime for which they suffered.
The Lamentations are embellished by a portrait, depicting, it is claimed, “John Stewart, the Murderer.” But unless my memory fails me, I think I have seen the same block do duty for William Burke, with whom in his day the balladmongers were also busy.
The stanzas have about them a rude ring of The Ballad of Reading Gaol, although the fastidious author of that poem would have shuddered at the vileness of the verse.
Footnotes
1 The Clyde Passenger Steamer, by Captain James Williamson, pp. 54-55 (Glasgow, 1904).
1 Glengarry’s Way and Other Studies, p. 83 (Edinburgh, 1922).
1 Mr. Milne objected to this witness that he had been convicted by a jury of a crime inferring infamy, as instructed by an extract conviction now produced. Mr. Dundas replied that a pardon had been obtained for witness, which he (counsel) now laid upon the table. Dundas won the trick; the Court admitted the evidence.
1 The legality of her union with Stuart rests upon her ipsa dixit. She is generally described as his paramour.