I am not going to follow the example of my learned friend, but I am
merely going to outline the defence as briefly as possible. I am
going to say at once that we are not out to attempt to dispute in any
way that the prisoner desired the death of Edwin Drood or that he
intended to murder him, nor that he planned to murder him, nor that
he actually attempted to murder him, nor indeed, my Lord, that at one
time, and for some time, he did believe that he had actually murdered
him. What we do say, however, is that no murder took place. For any
murder there must be, not only a murderer, but a murdered man. Now,
granted for a moment that in the prisoner at the bar you have a
potential murderer, where is the murdered man?
MR. WALTERS: This is strictly against all agreements.
MR. CROTCH: I will put my statement in another way, my Lord.
MR. WALTERS: I draw your attention to this fact: it is
agreed that the legal point that no conviction can take place since
no body has been found, shall be raised only after the retirement of
the jury. This ought not to have been introduced at all.
JUDGE: But we may assume, what is apparently the fact, that
no murdered body has been found?
MR. WALTERS: But he went further, and said, “Where is the
body?”
MR. CROTCH: May I placate my friend and say, have we a
murdered man? We say John Jasper did not murder Edwin Drood on the
Christmas Eve of 1860. We have every reason to believe that Edwin
Drood is still alive, and in that case, of course, it follows that
you cannot legally convict John Jasper for murder. Now, it will
naturally be asked how, if a murder was admittedly attempted, it can
have failed, and still more, that if it failed, how the supposed
murderer could have believed that it had succeeded. Those questions
will be probably solved: we hope they will be solved by the evidence
which we shall put before you. All I think it is at the moment
necessary to say is, that the key to the story will be found in the
opium habits to which the prisoner undoubtedly was addicted. My
Lord, there is a story told of an Irish priest, who, warning his
congregation against the evils of intemperance, said, “What makes
you shoot at your landlord?” And the reply came, “It’s the drink.”
“And begad, what makes you fail to shoot him?” The same reply—“It’s
the drink.” My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury, we submit that, in a
word, is the story of John Jasper. Now John Jasper is—presumably my
friend will admit it—he has tried to prove it—I don’t think he has
demonstrated much by it—he has tried to get out of his witnesses
that this man was an opium smoker. From our point of view that is
excellent. We say that John Jasper had, on the night previous to this
murderous attack on Edwin Drood, indulged in a gross opium debauch,
and because he did, in the midst of the commission of his crime he
had one of those sudden seizures to which he was subjected, and that
under the influence of opium he failed to complete the crime, but
still believed that he had. Because he was under the influence of
opium, he completed it in imagination, and then afterwards imagined
that he had completed it in fact; and because his victim—and this is
the point that I want to draw your attention to especially—because
his victim also was under the influence of opium, having been drugged
by Jasper, he failed to give any connected or reasonable and rational
account of what had happened in these circumstances. That, I submit,
my Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury, is the outline. The details will
be presently filled in by witnesses, who will testify. You will
perceive that if it is true—and we shall prove it to be true—then
John Jasper, whatever his intention, however great his moral
obliquity, cannot be legally convicted of murder.—Eliza Lascar, alias
the “Princess Puffer.”
[EVIDENCE OF THE “PRINCESS PUFFER.”]
USHER: Eliza Lascar, alias “Princess Puffer”! [The witness
entered the witness-box, and was duly sworn.]
MR. CROTCH: Are you sworn?
WITNESS: Yes, deary.
MR. CROTCH: Your name, I believe, is Eliza Lascar?
WITNESS: Yes, deary. Oh, my lungs is so weak!
MR. CROTCH: My dear lady!
WITNESS: Oh, my lungs!
MR. CROTCH: You are known as “Princess Puffer”?
WITNESS: Yes, deary. I got Heavens-hard drunk for sixteen
year afore I took to this; but this don’t hurt me, not to speak of.
MR. CROTCH: You keep an opium den in the East End of London,
I believe?
WITNESS: I do; but business is slack.
MR. CROTCH: Do you know the prisoner?
WITNESS: Know him! Better far than all the Reverend Parsons
put together know him.
MR. CROTCH: He is a customer of yours, I believe?
WITNESS: When he first came to me he was quite new to it,
but after a while he could take his pipe with the best of ’em, deary.
MR. CROTCH: I conclude from that he was a heavy opium smoker?
WITNESS: He was, deary.
MR. CROTCH: Do you remember his being in your place on the
night of the twelfth of December?
WITNESS: He was, deary. I see him coming to, and I says,
deary, “Get him another ready when he wakes, and he will remember the
market price of opium is very high.”
MR. CROTCH: What was the date he next visited you?
WITNESS: December 23, my deary dear.
MR. CROTCH: You need not be so affectionate. What happened
next day?
WITNESS: I followed him to his home.
MR. CROTCH: What happened?
WITNESS: I lost him where the omnibus he got into nigh his
journey’s end plies betwixt the station and the place.
MR. CROTCH: Did you meet anybody else?
WITNESS: I met a dear gentleman named Edwin.
MR. CROTCH: What did you say to him?
WITNESS: I said to him, “My lungs is weak, my lungs is
bad”—and the dear gentleman he put three-and-sixpence in my hand.
MR. CROTCH: And when did you next meet the prisoner?
WITNESS: Oh, my poor head! In 1861. He comes to me all over
like for the want of a smoke. I says, “You have come to the right
place. This is the place where the all overs is smoked off.”
MR. CROTCH: Then what happened?
WITNESS: Then what happened, deary? I follows him to
Aldersgate Street, the place where he puts up, and I finds out where
he comes from, and I says to my poor self “I missed you the first
time, and I swore my oath I will not lose you again, my gentleman
from Cloisterham. I’ll go there first, and bide your coming.” And
I did. I goes to Cloisterham, and I waits outside the Nun’s House,
just where the omnibus goes, and he gets down, and I follows him up
a bystreet till he disappears under a archway to the left. I turns
round, and he was gone.
MR. CROTCH: Did you see any one?
WITNESS: A white-haired gentleman who told me that his name
was Datchery.
MR. CROTCH: Did you go to the Cathedral next morning?
WITNESS: I did, deary.
MR. CROTCH: Did you see the prisoner there?
WITNESS: I see him from behind a pillar.
MR. CROTCH: You recognised him?
WITNESS: I recognised him, deary.
MR. CROTCH: Did you afterwards meet the white-haired
gentleman you have spoken of?
WITNESS: I did, deary.
MR. CROTCH: Did you tell him you knew the prisoner?
WITNESS: I told him that I knew him.
MR. CROTCH: Yes?
WITNESS: I said, “I know him. I know him better than all the
Reverend Parsons put together knows him.”
MR. CROTCH: Thank you.
[“PRINCESS PUFFER” CROSS-EXAMINED.]
MR. WALTERS: Just one question. When you met Edwin Drood, I
think you told him “Ned” was a threatened name?
WITNESS: Yes, deary.
MR. WALTERS: What did you mean by “threatened”?
WITNESS: It was a bad name.
MR. WALTERS: Do you think a man threatened is in danger?
WITNESS: It sounds like it, deary, don’t it?
MR. WALTERS: It does. I want you to agree with me. I think
you were in the habit of listening to Mr. Jasper when he had a little
opium?
WITNESS: That is so.
MR. WALTERS: Ever hear him say the word “Ned”?
WITNESS: I can’t recollect. I should think he did.
MR. WALTERS: What made you hit upon the name “Ned” as a
threatened name?
WITNESS: He talked about him in a very unkind way.
MR. WALTERS: You say the man threatened was in danger. Did
you think “Ned” in danger?
WITNESS: I heard what he said. Shall I tell you?
MR. WALTERS: Not what he said. It doesn’t matter. But I want
to know that “Ned” was a threatened name.
WITNESS: That’s right, deary.
MR. WALTERS: Were you giving warning to anybody of the name
of “Ned”?
WITNESS: I told him it was a threatened name.
MR. WALTERS: Did you know he was called “Ned”?
WITNESS: I asked him.
MR. WALTERS: Did you know who called him “Ned”?
WITNESS: I don’t know.
MR. WALTERS: If I told you that Jasper, and Jasper alone,
called him “Ned”?
WITNESS: I should believe you, deary. I should believe you.
MR. WALTERS: And you would therefore also believe that
Jasper was threatening him?
WITNESS: Yes, deary.
MR. WALTERS: And that he meant it?
WITNESS: Yes, deary.
MR. WALTERS: So you think there was murder in the mind of
John Jasper?
WITNESS: I think he wanted to do him harm.
MR. WALTERS: Do you love John Jasper?
WITNESS: No, I don’t.
MR. WALTERS: I suppose you don’t love any of your customers?
WITNESS: I don’t care much about ’em.
MR. WALTERS: But you don’t turn them away? When they come to
you you take their money?
WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WALTERS: Do you always follow your customers down to
their private residences?
WITNESS: No.
MR. WALTERS: Why this one?
WITNESS: He had money.
MR. WALTERS: What! A poor man in a choir had got money?
WITNESS: He had money.
MR. WALTERS: It was worth all your while to go all the way
to Cloisterham after one customer?
WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WALTERS: He had such a lot of money?
WITNESS: Yes; to me he had. I’m only a poor woman.
MR. WALTERS: He was richer than all your other customers?
WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WALTERS: You think so?
WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WALTERS: You don’t know where all this money came from?
WITNESS: No.
MR. WALTERS: You hated him?
WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WALTERS: And you wanted his money?
WITNESS: Yes. He was always a-listening.
MR. WALTERS: I thought it was you listening?
WITNESS: Sometimes I would listen, and once he spoke to me
of a hazardous journey, and he said, “I did it a hundred million
times; I did it so often, that when it came to be really done, it was
not worth the doing, it was done so soon, and when it comes to be
real, it was so short that for the first time it seemed to be unreal.
No struggle, no sign of danger, no consciousness of peril! I never
dreamt that before.” That’s what he said, my deary dear.
MR. WALTERS: Well, he said, when it came to be done it was
so short it was not worth doing?
WITNESS: He said it was not real for the first time.
MR. WALTERS: He talked about a real thing?
WITNESS: He says, deary, “When it comes to be real it seems
to be unreal for the first time,” my deary dear.
MR. WALTERS: He said, “when it comes to be real”?
WITNESS: “It seems unreal for the first time,” my poppett.
MR. WALTERS: But when a man says “a real thing,” he means a
real thing?
MR. CHESTERTON: My Lord!
JUDGE: There is some element of paradox involved here. I
cannot consent to allow the witness to be attacked merely because a
criminal says that that which seemed real before it happened appeared
unreal when it happened, because I suppose most of us in this room
have committed crimes at some time or other, and that is a possible
state of affairs.
MR. WALTERS: I will not ask any more questions, my Lord.
MR. CHESTERTON (_re-examining_): When you say that
you imagined the prisoner was rich as compared with your other
clients—they would be Chinamen and sailors and Lascars?
WITNESS: They was very poor, deary.
MR. CHESTERTON: He was a different class of man?
WITNESS: He was, my poppett.
MR. CHESTERTON: The other question I want to ask you is
this: When you told Mr. Drood that “Ned” was a threatened name, what
did Mr. Drood say?
WITNESS: He says, “But threatened men live long.”
MR. CHESTERTON: What did you say?
WITNESS: “Then,” I says to him, “Ned, so threatened is he,
whoever he be, while I’m a talking to you, that he should live to all
eternity.”
MR. CHESTERTON: Thank you. Call Thomas Bazzard.
USHER: Thomas Bazzard!
[That gentleman entered the witness-box and was duly sworn.]
[EVIDENCE OF THOMAS BAZZARD.]
MR. CHESTERTON: Your name is Thomas Bazzard?
WITNESS: Yes.
MR. CHESTERTON: What is your profession?
WITNESS: I am a clerk and investigator to Mr. Grewgious, of
Staple Inn.
MR. CHESTERTON: Mr. Grewgious is not, as he is wrongfully
described I believe, in the indictment, a solicitor?
WITNESS: No; Mr. Grewgious is a member of the Bar, but is
not practising. He is Receiver and Manager of two large estates.
MR. CHESTERTON: And what sort of work do you do?
WITNESS: I believe the work that I am at present engaged
in is colloquially known as that of a “noser.” That is to say, I am
engaged partly in collecting the rents, and partly in inquiring what
is going on with his tenants—whether they are stealing the game,
and improperly dispersing the stock. Largely work of investigation
outside the office.
MR. CHESTERTON: When did you enter his employment?
WITNESS: Ten years ago.
MR. CHESTERTON: Where were you born?
WITNESS: I am the son of a Norfolk farmer, I am sorry to say.
MR. CHESTERTON: If your employer said, “It would be
extremely difficult to replace Mr. Bazzard,” that would refer to your
inquiry work?
WITNESS: I think that would refer to my inquiry work. Yes.
MR. CHESTERTON: Mr. Grewgious treats you rather respectfully?
WITNESS: Mr. Grewgious is extremely kind to me, and as he
values my work outside, he allows a great deal of latitude as to my
behaviour inside.
MR. CHESTERTON: Now, when did you first see Edwin Drood?
WITNESS: I think I saw him—by the way, I should like to
point out that Mr. Grewgious was not the legal adviser to Edwin Drood.
MR. CHESTERTON: You might explain that to the Court.
WITNESS: I noticed in the copy of the Agreement that he was
the legal adviser to Edwin Drood. So far as I know, that is not the
case. I first saw him some time before Christmas 1860, at the office
of Mr. Grewgious.
MR. CHESTERTON: Did Mr. Grewgious tell you about Mr. Drood’s
coming?
WITNESS: He did. Yes.
MR. CHESTERTON: And what was the general instruction that
Mr. Grewgious gave you?
WITNESS: These instructions: he said he was going to have
a private conversation—more or less private conversation—with Mr.
Drood, and if I appeared to be very interested in it, it might
embarrass Mr. Drood, and that therefore I should not pay any
particular attention to it.
MR. CHESTERTON: What did you do?
WITNESS: What happened was this: I think we all had dinner,
and then Mr. Grewgious had the private conversation in question. I
understood that what happened was that he admonished Mr. Drood as to
his proper feelings towards his future bride.
JUDGE: You did not hear that?
WITNESS: No; I didn’t hear that. I took the opportunity to
have a snooze. Waking up, Mr. Grewgious said to me, “I have handed a
ring of diamonds and rubies to Mr. Drood.” Mr. Drood handed a case
and said, “You see?” I said, “I follow you both, sir, and I witness
the transaction.”
MR. CHESTERTON: What was the next occasion you saw him?
WITNESS: The next occasion I saw Mr. Edwin Drood was Jan.
1st, 1861.
MR. CHESTERTON: That was a week after you first met him?
WITNESS: Yes.
MR. CHESTERTON: Where did you meet him?
WITNESS: At a hotel in Holborn.
MR. CHESTERTON: Did you hear what happened to him after that?
WITNESS: After that, I was informed that he was very
seriously ill with rheumatic fever, and was sent abroad to the South
of France to get his health back.
MR. CHESTERTON: Did Mr. Grewgious ever tell you how he came
across Edwin Drood?
WITNESS: What he told me was this: that on Christmas Eve,
1860, he received very late at night, a letter from Miss Rosa Bud,
his ward, to whom he was very much attached, and, if I may be allowed
to remark, to whose mother he was very devotedly attached also. This
letter was written by Miss Bud immediately following her conversation
with Mr. Edwin Drood, which is in the Official Record, I think, and
it entreated Mr. Grewgious, in very strong terms, to be with her in
Cloisterham on Christmas Day. The letter reached Mr. Grewgious very
late in the evening, and owing to the defects of the railway system,
some of which, I am glad to learn, have been altered since, it was
impossible for Mr. Grewgious to get to Cloisterham except by posting
down, which he accordingly did.
MR. CHESTERTON: There was no train after eight o’clock?
WITNESS: At that time no train after eight o’clock—from
Victoria.
MR. CHESTERTON: He posted down, and what do you understand
he did when he arrived at Cloisterham?
WITNESS: He told me that he drove into Cloisterham somewhere
about 5.30. Passing the Postern Gate, he stopped his carriage, and
asked it to wait a minute.
MR. CHESTERTON: Why?
WITNESS: He wanted to walk through the gate into the
Churchyard, a few yards—some 40 or 50 yards, I think—in order to put
some flowers on the grave of Miss Rosa Bud’s mother, as I think it is
stated in the official documents, he was very much attached to Miss
Bud’s mother.
MR. CHESTERTON: When he got there, whom did he find?
WITNESS: He found Edwin Drood lying prone.
MR. CHESTERTON: And what did he do?
WITNESS: I believe the first thing he did was to pick him
up. He then shook him together, begged him to speak to him, and
questioned him, and Edwin Drood entreated him to take him out of
Cloisterham without any delay.
MR. CHESTERTON: I understand, Mr. Bazzard, from your
narrative, that Mr. Drood could give practically no coherent account
of what had happened?
WITNESS: None whatever, beyond the fact that somebody had
tried to strangle him, as he thought.
MR. CHESTERTON: When you saw him, what sort of memory had he
of that night?
WITNESS: Vague and unsatisfactory.
MR. CHESTERTON: He could not have sworn that either Neville
Landless or Jasper had attacked him?
WITNESS: He could not swear anything, except that he had
been attacked.
MR. CHESTERTON: His sympathies leaned, of course, to Jasper
rather than to Landless?
WITNESS: He was very loath indeed to think that his uncle,
whom he had cherished with very great respect and esteem, had been
concerned in the attempt to murder him.
MR. CHESTERTON: If he could have given evidence then, I take
it he would have given evidence rather in favour of Jasper than of
Landless?
WITNESS: That depends on the Jury.
JUDGE: I was going to remark that the question goes a little
outside anything the witness is called upon to answer.