BY POISONING.
No species of murder is so base and cowardly, or so cool and deliberate in its perpetration as murder by poison, which because of its secresy prevents all precaution, whereas most open murder gives the party killed some opportunity of defence;[[108]] it is generally committed in violation of domestic duty and confidence, and too frequently evinces that unrelenting and barbarous depravity, which can witness the sufferings of its victim for days nay months unmoved; therefore our ancient laws adjudged those convicted of poisoning to a severer punishment than other offenders. 3 Nels. Abr. 363. Jac. Law Dict. tit. Poison. By the 22 Hen. 8. it was ex post facto enacted that Richard Roose, (or Cooke), for putting poison into a pot of pottage in the Bishop of Rochester’s kitchen, by which two persons were killed, should be boiled to death; and that the offence in future should be adjudged High Treason; but this among other new treasons (with which the reign of Henry the 8th had abounded) was abolished by the statute of Edward 6, and now to poison any one wilfully is murder if the party die in a year. 1 Edw. 6. c. 12.
By the 43 Geo. 3. c. 58. (commonly called Lord Ellenborough’s Act) any person administering poison with intent to murder another, (though no death ensue) or to procure the miscarriage of a woman quick with child, is declared guilty of felony without benefit of clergy: and persons administering medicines to procure miscarriage, though the woman is not quick with child, are declared guilty of felony, punishable by imprisonment or transportation (vide post). If a man persuade another to drink a poisonous liquor, under the notion of a medicine, who afterwards drinks it in his absence, or if A, intending to poison B, put poison into a thing, and deliver it to D who knows nothing of the matter, to be by him delivered to B, and D innocently delivers it accordingly in the absence of A;[[109]] in this case the procurer of the felony is as much a principal as if he had been present when it was done (2 Hawk. P. C. 443: Vin. Ab. tit. Accessory) or if one mix poison with any eatable with intent to kill another, and a stranger casually eat it and die,[[110]] it is murder; Dalton, 93. Agnes Gore’s case for poisoning by ratsbane (9 Co. Rep. 81: Palm. R. 547.), not so if it be to kill vermin; but query if it be manslaughter where there is not proper precaution, as where the poison is laid in ordinary places for keeping meat, and mixed with ordinary food, so that a child may take it. 1 East. P. C. He that counsels another to give poison, if that other doth it, the counsellor, if absent, is accessory before. Coke, P. C. 49. Case of the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, Harg. St. Trials. But he that absolutely gives or lays the poison, to the intent to poison, though he be absent when it is taken by the party, yet he is principal, and this was Weston’s case. Harg. St. Trials: Co. P. C. p. 49. Vaux’s case, ubi supra, and Donellan’s case for the murder of Sir Theodosius Boughton, Warwick Assizes, 1784. See Appendix, 243.
It is not our intention to detail every mode by which murder by poison may be committed; too many are already known to the world in general; on those which are known, we may safely comment; nor would there be as much mischief as is commonly supposed in hinting at some others; for if any should study this subject with evil intention, he may be assured that the progress of modern science, though it may have discovered some new modes of destruction, has been yet more fertile in antidotes for the injured, and in means of detecting the guilty.
OF POISONS,
CHEMICALLY, PHYSIOLOGICALLY, AND PATHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED.
Toxicology, or the history of Poisons, forms one of the most important and elaborate branches of Forensic Medicine, and in tracing the subject through all its numerous and interesting relations to Jurisprudence, we shall experience no small degree of gratification by observing, how greatly and progressively this obscure department of science has, within the last few years, been enlightened by the discoveries of Chemistry and Physiology.
The labours of the modern Chemist, indeed, have enabled us to recognise and identify each particular substance by its properties and habitudes, with an infallible delicacy, which the Physicians of a former age could scarcely have anticipated, and much less practised.
The Physiologist, by an invaluable series of observations and experiments, has demonstrated the particular organ, or texture, upon which each individual poison exerts its energies; and the Pathologist has been thus enabled to establish the mode in which it depraves the health, or extinguishes the life of an animal. Nor has the Anatomist withheld his contributions upon this interesting occasion, for he has demonstrated the situation, extent, and intensity of the organic lesions which result from the operation of these terrible agents upon the living body; and has pointed out several appearances which occur from natural causes, but which might be mistaken by the unskilful or superficial observer, for the ravages of poison. It remains for the Forensic Physician to converge into one focus the scattered rays which have thus emanated from so many points, and thereby to elucidate and determine the line of conduct which the medical attendant is called upon to pursue, for the relief of the patient suffering under the torments of poison, and for the establishment of the guilt or innocence of the party charged with the perpetration of a crime, which may be said to rob courage of its just security, while it transfers to cowardice the triumphs of valour. That engines so powerful and secret in their work of destruction, should have universally excited the terror of mankind is a fact which cannot surprise us, and, when we consider how intimate are the relations between fear and credulity, we need not seek farther for the solution of the many problems to which the exaggerated statements of ancient Toxicologists[[111]] have given origin; the most extraordinary of those relate to the alleged subtlety of certain poisons, which was believed to be so extreme as to defeat the most skilful caution, and at the same time so manageable, as to be capable of the most accurate graduation; so that, in short, the accomplished assassin was not only thus enabled to ensure the death of his victim through the most secret, and least suspicious agents, but to measure his allotted moments with the nicest precision, and to occasion his death at any period that might best answer the objects of the assassination. The writings of Plutarch, Tacitus, Theophrastus, Quintillian, and Livy, abound with such instances of occult and slow poisoning; most of which, however, notwithstanding the weight they may acquire from their testimony, bear internal evidence of their fallacious character. Plutarch informs us that a slow poison which occasioned heat, cough, spitting of blood, a lingering consumption of the body, and a weakness of intellect, was administered to Aratus of Sicyon. This same poison is also alluded to by Quintillian in his declamations. Tacitus[[112]] informs us that Sejanus caused a secret poison to be administered by an eunuch to Drusus, who in consequence gradually declined, as if by a consumptive disorder, and at length died. Theophrastus[[113]] speaks of a poison, prepared from Aconite, that could be so modified as to occasion death within a certain period, such as two, three, or six months, a year, and even sometimes two years.
To such an extent does the crime of poisoning appear to have been carried, about two hundred years before the Christian æra, that according to Livy,[[114]] above one hundred and fifty ladies, of the first families in Rome, were convicted and punished for preparing and distributing poison. The most notorious and expert character of this kind is handed down to us by the historians and poets under the name of Locusta, who was condemned to die on account of her infamous actions, but was saved in order that she might become a state engine, and be numbered, as Tacitus expresses it, “Inter instrumenta regni.” She was accordingly employed to poison Claudius by Agrippina, who was desirous of destroying the Emperor, and yet feared to despatch him suddenly, whence a slow poison was prepared by Locusta, and served to him in a dish of mushrooms, of which he was particularly fond, “Boletorum appetentissimus;” but it failed in its effects, as we learn from Tacitus, until it was assisted by one of a more powerful nature. “Post quem nihil amplius edit.” This same Locusta prepared also the poison with which Nero despatched Britannicus, the son of Agrippina, whom his father Claudius wished to succeed him on the throne. This poison appears to have proved too slow in its operation, and to have occasioned only a dysentery. The Emperor accordingly compelled her by blows and threats, to prepare in his presence one of a more powerful nature, and as the tale is related by Suetonius, it appears that it was then tried on a kid, but as the animal did not die until the lapse of five hours, she boiled it for a longer period, when it became so strong as instantaneously to kill a pig to which it was given. In this state of concentration it is said to have despatched Britannicus as soon as he tasted it.[[115]] Vide Tac. An. 13. s. 15. 16. Now it would clearly appear from these statements that Locusta, avowedly the most accomplished poisoner of ancient Rome, was wholly incapable of graduating the strength of her poisons to the different purposes for which they were applied.
The records of modern times will furnish examples no less atrocious than those we have just related. Tophana, a woman who resided first at Palermo, and afterwards at Naples, may be considered as the Locusta of modern history; she invented and sold those drops so well known by the names of Aqua Toffania; Aqua della Toffana; Acquetta di Napoli, or simply Acquetta. This stygian liquor she distributed by way of charity to such wives as wished for other husbands; from four to six drops were sufficient to destroy a man, and it was asserted that the dose could be so proportioned as to operate within any given period.[[116]] It appears that in order to secure her poison from examination, she vended it in small glass phials, inscribed, “Manna of Saint Nicolas Bari,” and ornamented the vessel with the image of the Saint. Having been put to the rack she confessed that she had destroyed upwards of six hundred persons, for which she suffered death by strangulation in the year 1709[[117]]. In 1670 the art of secret poisoning excited very considerable alarm in France; the Marchioness de Brinvillier, a young woman of rank and great personal beauty, having intrigued with, and subsequently married an adventurer named Saint Croix, acquired from him the secret of this diabolical act, and practised it to an extent that had never before been equalled. She poisoned her two brothers through the medium of a dish at table. She also prepared poisoned biscuits, and to try their strength she distributed them herself to the poor at the Hotel Dieu. Her own maid was likewise the subject of her experiments. To her father she gave poisoned broth, which brought on symptoms characteristic of those induced by corrosive sublimate. Her brothers lingered during several months under much suffering. The detection of this wretch is said to have been brought about in the following manner. Saint Croix, whenever engaged in the preparation of his poisons, was accustomed to protect himself from their dangerous fumes by wearing a glass mask, which happening to fall off by accident, he was found dead in his laboratory.[[118]] A casket directed to the Marchioness, with a desire that in case of her death it might be destroyed unopened, was found in his chamber, a circumstance which in itself was sufficient to excite the curiosity and suspicion of those into whose hands it fell. The casket was accordingly examined, and the disclosure of its contents at once developed the whole plot, and finally led to the conviction of this French Medea, who after a number of adventures and escapes, was at length arrested and sent to Paris, where she was beheaded, and then burnt, on the 11th of July, 1676. The practice of poisoning, however, did not cease with her execution, and it became necessary in 1679 to establish a particular Court, for the detection and trial of such offenders; which continued for some time to exert its jurisdiction under the title of Chambre de Poison, or Chambre Ardente.