Sketches from the Parliament House. less to shake L'Angelier's resolution. Then Miss Smith changed her tone, and wrote to him again in the language of love. Mean while she had been purchasing considerable quantities of arsenic, as she alleged, for her complexion. L'Angelier had gone to the Bridge of Allan in Stirlingshire. She wrote to him there. On receipt of her letter, he returned to Glasgow, went to his lodgings, and soon afterwards went out, for the pur pose, as his landlady thought, of seeing Miss Smith. Early next morning he came back in mortal agony. He had every opportu nity to say where he had been, but the poor fellow turned his face to the .wall and died. Post-mortem examination and chem ical analysis clearly established that L'Ange lier's death had been caused by an enormous dose of arsenic. Miss Smith was forthwith arrested and charged with the murder.1 The prosecution was in the hands of the exLord Justice Clerk (then Lord Advocate) Moncrieff, and Inglis was retained as leading counsel for the defence. That he did defend Madeline Smith with consummate ability and secure her acquittal, is the onlyauthentic circumstance known to the public in connection with this case. But we cannot refrain from putting on record a few of the dramatic, if not altogether historical inci dents that have gradually gained a place for themselves in the story of The Queen vs. Madeline Smith. The weak point in the case for the Crown obviously was the absence of direct testimony that L'Angelier did go to see Madeline Smith on the night of his death. But the ingenious mind of the Dean of the Faculty had determined, it is said, on another, or at least a second, line of defence. Arsenic was a metallic poison which would sink at once to the bottom of a cup of coffee or cocoa, — the medium of administration suggested by the Crown. It was therefore impossible that L'Angelier could have re1 She was charged also with a previous attempt to murder; but the jury returned a verdict of " Not guilty" on this count of the indictment, and therefore we forbear to dwell upon it.
133
ceived from the hands of Madeline Smith the enormous dose of poison which the chemical analysis showed that he had taken. If well founded, this argument clearly sup ported the hypothesis of suicide suggested by the defence. But was it well founded? Inglis, so the story goes, summoned to his aid an eminent analyst, and demonstrated to him by experiment that arsenic would sink to the bottom of a cup of cocoa. The analyst made no answer, but took the cup from the advocate's hand and stirred the contents with the spoon. The arsenic was at once temporarily suspended in the cocoa! "Good-night," said Inglis; "we shall not require your evidence at the trial." Public opinion in Scotland is still divided on the question as to whether the Dean be lieved in his client. According to one set of raconteurs, he thought her innocent; accord ing to another set, he not only knew her to be guilty, but had in his possession, nay, insisted upon having from her, a written confession of guilt. If this latter statement is true, Inglis did what no other advocate in modern times has done, — even Mr. Phillips in Reg. vs. Courvoisier did not court an avowal of the prisoner's guilt, — he adopted to the full the cynical theory of advocacy which Manzoni puts into the mouth of the learned Dr. Azzecca-Garbugli, — " chi dice le bugie al dottore . . . e uno sciocco che dira la verita al giudice. All' avvocato bisogna raccontarle cose chiare; a noi tocca poi a imbrogliarle." 1 A circumstance which, if true, tends to show that Mr. Inglis was doubtful of the in nocence of his client, is related by one who was present at the trial. Every morning while the case was going on and the pris oner's fate hung in the balance, Mr. Inglis nodded and smiled to her as he entered the court, and thus silently impressed the jury. When the negative verdict of " Not proven" was returned, Miss Smith is said to have looked down from the dock to catch the glance of her counsel. But Inglis sat with 1 Ipromessi sposi, p. 41.
