by Dr. Addington and others, and in the afternoon "at the house of
John Gale, Richard Miles, Gent., Mayor and Coroner of the said
town," opened his inquiry into the cause of death. An account of the
proceedings at the inquest is printed in the Appendix. The medical
witnesses examined were Drs. Addington and Lewis; Mr. Nicholson,
surgeon in Henley; and the apothecary, Mr. Norton, who severally
spoke to the symptoms exhibited by the deceased during life, the
appearances presented by his body, and the result of the analysis of
the powder. They were of opinion that Mr. Blandy died of poison, and
that the powder was a poison capable of causing his death. The
maids, Gunnell and Binfield, Harman the footman, and Mary's old
flame, Ned Herne, were the other witnesses whose depositions were
taken. Having heard the evidence, the jury found that Francis Blandy
was poisoned, and that Mary Blandy "did poison and murder" him; and
on Friday, 16th August, the mayor and coroner issued to the
constables his warrant to convey the prisoner to the county gaol of
Oxford, there to be detained until discharged by due course of law.
That night Mr. Blandy's body was buried in the parish church at
Henley. None of his relatives were present, Norton, his apothecary;
Littleton, his clerk; and Harman, his footman, being the only
mourners.
Miss Blandy was not removed to Oxford Castle till the following day,
to enable her to make the arrangements necessary for a lengthy
visit. By her request, one Mrs. Dean, a former servant of the
family, accompanied her as her maid. Her tea caddy--"the cannisters
were all most full of fine Hyson"--was not forgotten. At four
o'clock on Saturday morning the ladies, attended by two constables,
set out "very privately" in a landau and four, and, eluding the
attention of the mob, reached Oxford about eleven. Mary's first
question on arriving at the gaol was, "Am I to be fettered?" and,
learning that she would not be put in irons so long as she behaved
well, she remarked, "I have wore them all this morning in my mind in
the coach." At first, we are told, "her imprisonment was indeed
rather like a retirement from the world than the confinement of a
criminal." She had her maid to attend her, the best, apartments in
the keeper's house were placed at her disposal, she drank tea--her
favourite Hyson--twice a day, walked at her pleasure in the keeper's
garden, and of an evening enjoyed her game of cards. Her privacy was
strictly respected; no one was allowed to "see her without her
consent," though very extraordinary sums were daily offered for that
purpose. What treatment more considerate could a sensitive
gentlewoman desire? But the rude breath of the outer world was not
so easily excluded. One day the interesting prisoner learned from a
visitor the startling news that her father's fortune, of which, as
he had left no will, she was sole heiress, had been found to amount
to less than four thousand pounds! With what feelings would she
recall the old attorney's boastful references to her £10,000 dower,
the fame of which had first attracted her "lover," Cranstoun, and so
led to results already sufficiently regrettable, the end of which
she shuddered to foresee. How passionately the fierce woman must
have cursed the irony of her fate! But to this mental torment were
soon to be added physical discomfort and indignity. A rumour reached
the authorities in London that a scheme was afoot to effect her
rescue. On Friday, 25th October, the Secretary of State having
instructed the Sheriff of the county "to take more particular care
of her," the felon's fetters she had before feared were riveted upon
her slender ankles; and there was an end to the daily walks amid the
pleasant alleys of the keeper's garden. This broad hint as to her
real position induced a different state of mind. The chapel
services, hitherto somewhat neglected, were substituted for the
mundane pastimes of tea-drinkings and cards, and the prison
chaplain, the Rev. John Swinton, became her only visitor. To the
pious attentions of that gentleman she may now be left while we see
what happened beyond the narrow circuit of her cell.
We are enabled to throw some fresh light upon the doings of the
powers in whose high hands lay the prisoner's life from certain
correspondence, hitherto unpublished, relating to her case. These
documents, here printed for the first time from the original MSS. in
the British Museum and Public Record Office, will be found in the
Appendix. On 27th September, 1751, Lord Chancellor Hardwicke wrote
to the Duke of Newcastle, Secretary of State, advising that, if upon
the examinations there appeared to be sufficient grounds to proceed
against Mary Blandy for her father's murder, the prosecution should
be carried on at the expense of the Crown, an unusual but not
unprecedented practice; and that Mr. Sharpe, Solicitor to the
Treasury, be ordered to take the necessary steps, under direction of
the Attorney-General; otherwise it would be a reproach to the King's
justice should so flagrant a crime escape punishment, as might, if
the prosecution were left in the hands of the prisoner's own
relatives, occur. As it was thought that Susan Gunnell and the old
charwoman, Ann Emmet, material witnesses, "could not long survive
the effects of the poison they partook of," and might "dye" before
the trial, which in ordinary course would not be held until the Lent
Assizes, his lordship suggested that a special commission be sent
into Berkshire to find a bill of indictment there, so that the trial
could be had at the King's Bench Bar within the next term. It
appears from the correspondence that one Richard Lowe, the Mayor of
Henley's messenger, had, shortly after Miss Blandy's committal, been
despatched to Scotland with the view of apprehending the Hon.
William Henry Cranstoun as accessory to the murder. From the address
on Mary's intercepted letter, Cranstoun was believed to be in
Berwick, and Lowe applied to Mr. Carre, the Sheriff-Depute of
Berwickshire, who seems to have made some difficulty in granting a
warrant in terms of the application, though ultimately he did so. By
that time, however, the bird had flown; and Lowe and Carre each
blamed the other for the failure to effect the fugitive's arrest.
His lordship accordingly recommended that the Lord Justice-Clerk of
Scotland be requested to hold an inquiry into the facts. Lord
Hardwicke, in a private letter to the Duke of the same date,
commented on the "extraordinary method" taken to apprehend
Cranstoun, pointing out that a messenger ought to have been sent
with the Secretary of State's warrant, "which runs equally over the
whole kingdom"; _that_ might have been executed with secrecy,
whereas by the course adopted "so many persons must be apprized of
it, that he could hardly fail of getting notice." On receipt of
these letters, Newcastle wrote to Sir Dudley Ryder, the
Attorney-General, that His Majesty would be pleased to give orders
for the prosecution of Mary Blandy, and instructing him to take the
requisite steps for that purpose. The result of the Justice-Clerk's
inquiry, as appears from the further correspondence, was completely
to exonerate Mr. Carre from the charges of negligence and delay made
against him by the Mayor's messenger.
On 4th October the Chancellor wrote to the Secretary regarding a
petition by the "Noblemen and Gentlemen in the Neighbourhood of
Henley-upon-Thames, and the Mayor and principal Magistrates of that
Town, to the Duke of Newcastle," thanking his grace for King
George's "Paternal Goodness" in directing that the prisoner should
be prosecuted at "His Majesty's Expence," stating that no endeavour
would be wanting on their part to render that prosecution
successful, and praying that, in order to bring to justice "the
Wicked Contriver and Instigator of this Villainous Scheme," His
Majesty might be pleased to offer by proclamation a reward for
Cranstoun's apprehension. The signatories included the Mayor and
Rector of Henley, divers county magnates, and also the local
magistrates, Lords Macclesfield and Cadogan, whose "indefatigable
diligence" in getting up the Crown case was specially commended by
Bathurst at the trial. By Lord Hardwicke's instructions the Duke
submitted the petition to the Attorney-General, with the query,
whether it would be advisable to issue such a proclamation? And Sir
Dudley Ryder, while of opinion that the matter was one "of mere
discretion in His Majesty" and generally approving the measure,
thought it probable that the person in question might even then "be
gone beyond sea." Mr. Attorney's conjecture was, as we shall find,
correct.
There is an interesting letter from one Mr. Wise to Mr. Sharpe,
Solicitor to the Treasury, giving us a glimpse of Miss Blandy in
prison. The writer describes a visit paid by him to Oxford Castle
and the condition in which he found her, tells how he impressed upon
the keeper and Mrs. Dean the dire results to themselves of allowing
her to escape, and mentions the annoyance of Parson Swinton, "a
great favourite of Miss Blandy's," at the "freedom" taken with his
name by some anonymous scribbler. This was not the first time that
reverend gentleman had to complain of the "liberty" of the Press, as
we learn from certain curious pamphlets of 1739, from which it would
seem that his reputation had no very sweet savour in contemporary
nostrils. Mr. Sharpe, writing to Mr. Wise on 6th December, alludes
to a threatening letter sent to Betty Binfield, purporting to be
written by Cranstoun, from which it was inferred that the fugitive
was lying concealed "either here in London or in the North." A
similar "menacing letter" signed W.H.C. had been received by Dr.
Lewis on 23rd November, which, like the other, was probably a hoax.
Cranstoun, being then safe in France, would not so commit himself.
The last document of the series, "The Examination of Francis
Gropptty," dated 3rd February, 1752, tells for the first time the
story of the fugitive's escape. This was the man employed by the
Cranstoun family to get their disreputable relative quietly out of
England. The delicate negotiation was conducted by the Rev. Mr. Home,
brother of Lord Home, and a certain Captain Alexander Hamilton. It was
represented to Gropptty, who had "lived with Lord Home several years"
and then "did business for him," that such a service would "very much,
oblige Lord Cranstoun, Lord Home, and all the Family," and that, as
there were no orders to stop Cranstoun at Dover, by complying with
their request he, personally, ran no risk; accordingly he consented
to see the interesting exile as far as Calais. On 2nd September
Captain Hamilton produced Cranstoun at Gropptty's house in Mount
Street. Our old acquaintance characteristically explained that he was
without funds for the journey, having been "rob'd" of his money and
portmanteau on his way to town. Gropptty was induced to purchase for
the traveller "such, necessaries as he wanted," and Captain Hamilton
went to solicit from Lord Ancrum a loan of twenty pounds for expenses.
His lordship having unaccountably refused the advance, the guileless
Gropptty agreed to lend ten guineas upon Captain Hamilton's note
of hand, which, as he in his examination complained, was still
"unsatisfied." He and Cranstoun then set out in a post-chaise for
Dover, where they arrived next morning at nine o'clock. On 4th
September they embarked in the packet for Calais, paying a guinea for
their passage; and Gropptty, having seen his charge safely bestowed in
lodgings "at the Rate of Fifty Livres a Month," returned to London.
Informed of the successful issue of the adventure, the Rev. Mr. Home
evinced a holy joy, and, in the name of his noble kinsman and of Lord
Cranstoun, promised Gropptty a handsome reward for his trouble. That
gentleman, however, said he had acted solely out of gratitude to Lord
Home, and wanted nothing but his outlays; so he made out an "Acct. of
the Expences he had been at," amounting, with the sum advanced by him,
to eighteen pounds, for which Captain Hamilton obligingly gave him a
bill upon my Lord Cranstoun. By a singular coincidence this document
of debt also remained "unsatisfied"; his lordship, after keeping it
for six weeks, "returned it unpaid, and the Examt. has not yet recd.
the money"! Thus, in common with all who had any dealings with the
Hon. William Henry Cranstoun, Gropptty in the end got the worse of the
bargain.
While her gallant accomplice, having successfully stolen a march
upon the hangman, was breathing the free air of the French seaport,
Miss Blandy, in her cell in Oxford Castle, was preparing for her
trial. She had at first entrusted her defence to one Mr. Newell, an
attorney of Henley, who had succeeded her late father in the office
of town-clerk; but the lawyer, at one of their consultations,
untactfully expressing astonishment that she should have got herself
into trouble over such "a mean-looking little ugly fellow" as
Cranstoun, his client took umbrage at this observation as reflecting
upon her taste in lovers, dispensed with his further services, and
employed in his stead one Mr. Rivers of Woodstock. From the day of
her arrest all sorts of rumours had been rife regarding so
sensational a case. She had poisoned her mother; she had poisoned
her friend Mrs. Pocock--how and when that lady in fact died we do
not know; she was still in correspondence with Cranstoun; she was
secretly married to the keeper's son, a step to which the
circumstances of their acquaintance left her no alternative; her
fortune was being employed to bribe the authorities; the principal
witnesses against her had been got out of the way; she had
(repeatedly and in divers ways) escaped; finally, as she herself,
with reference to these reports, complained--"It has been said that
I am a wretched drunkard, a prophane swearer, that I never went to
chapel, contemned all holy ordinances, and in short gave myself up
to all kinds of immorality." The depositions of the witnesses before
the coroner were published "by some of the Friends and Relations of
the Family, in order to prevent the Publick from being any longer
imposed on with fictitious Stories," but both Miss Blandy and Mr.
Ford, her counsel, took great exception to this at the trial.
Pamphlets, as we shall presently see, poured from the press, and
even before she appeared at the bar the first instalments of a
formidable library of _Blandyana_, had come into being.
On Monday, 2nd March, 1752, the grand jury for the county of Oxford
found a true bill against Mary Blandy. The Town Hall, where the
Assizes were usually held, was "then rebuilding," and as the
University authorities had refused the use of the Sheldonian
Theatre, the trial was appointed to take place next morning in the
beautiful hall of the Divinity School. Owing to the insertion
overnight--by a mischievous undergraduate or other sympathiser with
the day's heroine--of some obstacle in the keyhole, the door could
not be opened, and the lock had to be forced, which delayed the
proceedings for an hour. The judges meanwhile returned to their
lodgings. This initial difficulty surmounted, at eight o'clock on
Tuesday, 3rd March, Mary Blandy was placed at the bar to answer the
grave charges made against her. There appeared for the Crown the
Hon. Mr. Bathurst and Mr. Serjeant Hayward, assisted by the Hon. Mr.
Barrington and Messrs. Hayes, Nares, and Ambler. The prisoner was
defended by Mr. Ford, with whom were Messrs. Morton and Aston. The
judges were the Hon. Heneage Legge and Sir Sidney Stafford Smythe,
two of the Barons of His Majesty's Court of Exchequer.
As the following pages contain a verbatim reprint of the official
report of the trial, published by permission of the judges, it is
only necessary here briefly to refer to the proceedings. The trial
lasted thirteen hours. It is, says Mr. Ainsworth Mitchell, in his
_Science and the Criminal_, "remarkable as being the first one of
which there is any detailed record, in which convincing scientific
proof of poisoning was given." The indictment charged the prisoner
with the wilful murder of Francis Blandy by administering to him
white arsenic at divers times (1) between 10th November, 1750, and
5th August, 1751, in tea, and (2) between 5th and 14th August, 1751,
in water gruel. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, a jury was duly
sworn, and the indictment having been opened by Mr. Barrington,
Bathurst began his address for the Crown. Though promoted later to
the highest judicial office, he has been described as "the least
efficient Lord Chancellor of the eighteenth century." Lord Campbell,
in his _Lives of the Chancellors_, says that Bathurst's address was
much praised for its eloquence, and "as it certainly contains proof
of good feeling, if not of high talent and refined taste," his
lordship transcribes for the benefit of his readers certain of its
purpler passages. It was deemed worthy, at the time, of publication
in separate form, with highly eulogistic notes, wherein we read that
by its eloquent appeal both judges and counsel "were moved to mourn,
nay, to weep like tenderest infants." The prisoner, however, heard
it dry-eyed, nor will its effect be more melting for the modern
reader. At the outset the learned counsel observed, with reference
to the heinous nature of the crime, that he was not surprised "at
this vast concourse of people collected together," from which it
appears there were few vacant seats that morning in the Divinity
School. Space will not permit us to accompany the future Lord
Chancellor through his "most affecting oration," which presents the
case for the Crown with moderation and fairness, and concludes with
a tribute to the "indefatigable diligence" of the Earl of
Macclesfield and Lord Cadogan "in inquiring into this hidden work of
darkness." He was followed by Serjeant Hayward, who, employing a
more rhetorical and florid style, was probably better appreciated by
the audience, but added little to the jury's knowledge of the facts.
In an "improving" passage he besought "the young gentlemen of this
University," who seem to have been well represented, to guard
against the first insidious approaches of vice. "See here," said he,
"the dreadful consequences of disobedience to a parent."
We need not examine in detail the evidence led for the prosecution;
from the foregoing narrative the reader already knows its main
outlines and may study it at large in the following report. The
Crown case opened with the medical witnesses, Drs. Addington and
Lewis, and Mr. Norton, who clearly established the fact that arsenic
was the cause of Mr. Blandy's death, that arsenic was present in the
remains of his gruel, and that arsenic was the powder which the
prisoner had attempted to destroy. The appearance of Mrs. Mounteney
in the witness-box occasioned the only display of feeling exhibited
by the accused throughout the whole trial. This lady was her
godmother, and as she left the Court after giving her evidence, she
clasped her god-child by the hand, exclaiming "God bless you!" For
the moment Mary's brilliant black eyes filled with tears, but after
drinking a glass of wine and water, she resumed her air of stoical
indifference.
Susan Gunnell, "wore down to a Skelliton" by the effects of her
curiosity, but sufficiently recovered to come into Court, was the
principal witness for the prosecution. In addition to the material
facts which we have before narrated, Susan deposed that the prisoner
often spoke of her father as "an old villain," and wished for his
death, and had complained that she was "very awkward," for, if he
were dead, "she would go to Scotland and live with Lady Cranstoun."
Susan gave her evidence with perfect fairness, and showed no animus
against her former mistress. Equal in importance was the testimony
of Betty Binfield, which, perhaps, is more open to Miss Blandy's
objection as being "inspired with vindictive sentiments." When
communicating to the maids Mrs. Morgan's prophecy regarding the
duration of their master's life, the prisoner, said witness,
expressed herself glad, "for that then she would soon be released
from all her fatigues, and be happy." She was wont to curse her
father, calling him "rascal and villain," and on one occasion had
remarked, "Who would grudge to send an old father to hell for
£10,000?" "Exactly them words," added the scrupulous cook, though in
this instance her zeal had probably got the better of her memory. In
cross-examination Betty was asked whether she had any ill-will
against her mistress. "I always told her I wished her very well,"
was the diplomatic reply. "Did you," continued the prisoner's
counsel, "ever say, 'Damn her for a black bitch! I should be glad to
see her go up the ladder and be hanged'"? but Betty indignantly
denied the utterance of any such ungenteel expressions.
The account given by this witness of the admissions made by her
mistress to Dr. Addington in her presence led to the recall of that
gentleman, who, in his former evidence, had not referred to the
matter. The prisoner's counsel invited Dr. Addington to say that
Miss Blandy's anxiety proceeded solely from concern for her father;
the doctor excused himself from expressing any opinion, but, being
indiscreetly pressed to do so, said that her agitation struck him as
due entirely to fears for herself: he saw no tokens of grief for her
father. On re-examination, it appeared that the doctor had attended
professionally both Susan Gunnell and Ann Emmet; their symptoms, in
his opinion, were those of arsenical poisoning. Alice Emmet was next
called to speak to her mother's illness, the old charwoman herself
being in no condition to come to Court. Littleton, old Blandy's
clerk, gave his evidence with manifest regret, but had to admit that
he frequently heard Miss Blandy curse her parent by the unfilial
names of rogue, villain, and "toothless old dog." Harman, the
footman, to whom Mary had offered the £500 bribe, and Mr. Fisher and
Mr. and Mrs. Lane, who spoke to the incidents at the Angel Inn on
the day of her attempted flight, were the other witnesses examined;
the intercepted letter to Cranstoun was put in, and the Crown case
closed.
According to the practice of the time, the prisoner's counsel, while
allowed to examine their own, and cross-examine the prosecutor's
witnesses, were not permitted to address the jury. Mary Blandy
therefore now rose to make the speech in her own defence. Probably
prepared for her beforehand, it merely enumerates the various
injustices and misrepresentations of which she considered herself
the victim. She made little attempt to refute the damning evidence
against her, and concluded by protesting her innocence of her
father's death; that she thought the powder "an inoffensive thing,"
and gave it to procure his love. In this she was well advised, for
she was shrewd enough to see that upon the question of her knowledge
of the quality and effect of the powder the verdict would turn.
[Illustration: Miss Blandy
(_From a Mezzotint by T. Ryley after L. Wilson, in the Collection of
Mr. A.M. Broadley_.)]