Further, there were no signs of water in the body, and it was said that this was a sign that she was not drowned; but then it was answered that it might show that she had drowned herself, because if she wished to drown herself she would choke herself without swallowing any water.

The doctors and surgeons have talked a great deal to this purpose, and of the water's going into the lungs or the thorax; but unless you have more skill in anatomy than I you would not be much edified by it. I acknowledge I never studied anatomy; but I perceive that the doctors do differ in their notions about these things.... Gentlemen, I was very much puzzled in my thoughts, and was at a loss to find out what inducement there could be to draw in Mr. Cowper, or these three other gentlemen, to commit such a horrid, barbarous, murder. And on the other hand, I could not imagine what there should be to induce this gentlewoman, a person of plentiful fortune, and a very sober good reputation, to destroy herself.'

But if they believed the letters that had been produced to be in her hand, there was evidence to show that although she was a virtuous woman, a distemper might have turned her brains, and discomposed her mind.

As to these three other gentlemen that came to this town at the time of the last assizes, what there is against them, you have heard; they talked at their lodging at a strange rate, concerning this Mrs. Sarah Stout, saying, her business is done, and that there was an end of her courting days, and that a friend of theirs was even with her by this time. What you can make of this, that I must leave to you; but they were very strange expressions; and you are to judge whether they were spoken in jest, as they pretend, or in earnest. There was a cord found in the room, and a bundle seen there, but I know not what to make of it. As to Mrs. Stout, there was no sign of any circle about her neck, which, as they say, must have been if she had been strangled; some spots there were; but it is said, possibly these might have been occasioned by rubbing against some piles or stakes in the river. Truly, gentlemen, these three men, by their talking, have given great cause of suspicion; but whether they, or Mr. Cowper, are guilty or no, that you are to determine. I am sensible I have omitted many things; but I am a little faint, and cannot remember any more of the evidence.

The jury then retired, and in half an hour returned with a verdict of Not Guilty as to all the prisoners.

The acquittal in this case led to an appeal of murder, the most curious survival of the earliest English criminal procedure, which was not finally abolished till 1819. The effect of such a proceeding was that after an acquittal on an indictment for murder, the prosecutor might challenge the accused to an ordeal by battle. Accordingly, in the long vacation following the trial, Mrs. Stout, the mother of the dead woman, sued a writ of appeal out of Chancery, against Cowper, in the name of an infant who was her daughter's heir. The sealing of the writ was delayed, it is said to nearly the last possible day, a year after the alleged murder, for the purpose of keeping the matter in suspense as long as possible; and the consent of the mother of the infant to Mrs. Stout's being named as his guardian for the purpose, was obtained from her by a fraudulent representation that the object of the proceeding was to obtain the deceased woman's property for him. On discovering what its real effect was, she and her friends applied to one Toler, the under-sheriff of Hertfordshire, for the writ, and on his giving it up to them, burnt it. On a rule being obtained for the return of the writ, and it appearing that Toler had delivered it to the infant's mother, he was adjudged guilty of a gross contempt, and heavily fined. Holt, Lord Chief-Justice, said on this occasion that

he wondered that it should be said that an appeal is an odious prosecution. He said he esteemed it a noble remedy, and a badge of the rights and liberties of an Englishman. The court of king's bench, to show their resentment, committed Toler to the prison of the king's bench for his fine, though the clerk in court would have undertaken to pay it. And Holt, chief-justice, said to Toler, that he had not been in prison long enough before, and that he might now, if he pleased, go to Hertford and make his boast that he had got the better of the king's bench.

Afterwards Mrs. Stout petitioned the Lord Keeper for another writ; the infant and his mother presenting a counter-petition disowning their former writ as sued forth without their consent. After an argument before a full court it was decided that the Court had power to grant a new writ, but that it would be unjust to grant one under the present circumstances, because, among other reasons, the appellant and his mother had renounced the writ as soon as they understood its nature, and there was no proof that the appellees had been privy to their action.

FOOTNOTES:

[43] Spencer Cowper (1669-1727) was the younger brother of Earl Cowper, who was the first Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. He was educated at Westminster, and made Controller of the Bridge House Estates in 1690. At the time of this trial his brother was the member for Hertford. In 1705 and 1708 he represented Beeralston in Parliament; he was one of the managers in Sacheverell's trial, and lost his seat in consequence, but was afterwards elected for Truro in 1711. In 1714 he became Attorney-General to the Prince of Wales, and in 1717 Chief-Justice of Chester. On the accession of George the Second he was made Attorney-General of the Duchy of Chester, and a Judge of the Common Pleas in 1727. He died the same year. He was the grandfather of William Cowper the poet.