The Damnation of John Donellan (23 page)

This does not read like a woman prostrated by grief.

According to Donellan, there was more to come, however. Anna Maria took the time after breakfast to consider another matter:

She also, some time the same morning, unlocked the great parlour door, and calling Mr Donellan into the same, said, that as Sir Theodosius was then dead, he (Mr Donellan) might consent to let her (Lady Boughton) have a particular farm, rented by one Thomas Parsons, which Mr Donellan's wife came into possession of on Sir Theodosius's death, adding at the same time, that his wife would consent to anything he might agree to. She also told him, that he might consent to let her relation, Mr Rye, a young clergyman, have the reversion of the living of Newbold, if he pleased; and further said, that if he would consent to those things, she would have his life put into his Marriage Settlement. She also said, that she had proposed these things long before Sir Theodosius's death, and that she had absolutely spoken to a Mr Smith, an attorney of Northampton, about altering the settlement, and that he had drawn a draft of deed for the purpose; and also that she had mentioned it to Sir William Wheler.

This account shows extraordinary calm on Anna Maria's part. With her son lying dead in his bedroom, within three hours she had not only organised a funeral and eaten breakfast but had turned
her mind to the family fortune. Whether she wanted Parsons' farm for its income, or to live in herself, is not clear; but she was certainly trying to obtain something for her brother's son, Robert Rye, from the estate.

Sitting in the great parlour, she must have considered her options. If her later testimony is to be believed, then less than three hours after she had remonstrated with her son-in-law over washing out a bottle which she suspected to contain the poison that had caused her son's death, she was negotiating with him for financial favours. What was her state of mind or motive to negotiate with someone who had acted so suspiciously? Had she considered the events, and thought she had overreacted? Or, despite reservations about Donellan's role, had she decided that murder could never be proved, and so she was prepared to wrestle more than she might ordinarily be expected to receive from Theodosius's estate?

Alternatively, perhaps she was demonstrating an unnatural calm at this stage because Theodosius's death had not been a shock to her. If Donellan is to be believed, Anna Maria had been considering the topic for some time, and had been talking to an attorney about it. Had she already envisaged Theodosius's death and made plans to safeguard her financial future should Theodosia inherit? Why would this be necessary if Theodosius was in the state of ‘perfect health' that her own lawyers described?

Donellan claimed not to have responded to Anna Maria's suggestions. ‘Mr Donellan was astonished at these suggestions,' his
Defence
continues, ‘and making no other reply than that of telling her Ladyship he was no more than guardian to his children, and therefore would never do anything to their prejudice, left her.'

The prosecution had noted down something even more amazing, however, when they talked to John Derbyshire in Warwick Gaol: ‘Captain Donellan had said that Lady Boughton proposed that, if he would give up his interest in Sir Theodosius's property, and a farm of about £200 a year, she would ask no more and all should be well.'

Not surprisingly, the prosecution thought it best not to trespass
too far into this territory. Anna Maria's supposed attempt at blackmailing Donellan was never mentioned.

Whatever Anna Maria's reasons for discussing the estate at this unusual moment, Donellan himself said that he was not prepared to engage in such a conversation. Stressing that his only concern was for his children – his
Defence
adopted something of a morally offended tone – he left the room.

Perhaps this refusal to consider Anna Maria's financial future was far more damaging than Donellan ever imagined.

‘All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance
and obscurity, is to be sceptical, or at least cautious; and not to
admit to any hypothesis, whatsoever …'
‘A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.'

David Hume,
An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding
(1748)

CATHARINE AMOS
, the cook–maid at Lawford, was called to the stand directly after Anna Maria Boughton. She confirmed Theodosius's symptoms on the morning of his death but only after laboured prompting did she admit to Donellan owning a still:

Q: Did Mr Donellan bring anything to you at or about the time of Sir Theodosius's death?

A: No.

Q: At any time before his death?

A: No.

Q: Was anything brought to you by Mr Donellan within a fortnight or three weeks before the death of Sir Theodosius Boughton?

A: No.

Q: You said you was cook–maid?

A: Yes.

Q: Was the oven under your direction?

A: Yes.

Q: Was anything brought to you at that time?

A: Yes, a still.

Q: Who brought it?

A: Mr Donellan …. he desired me to put it into the oven to dry it.

The rumour that Donellan was distilling laurel leaves for poison was rife locally. (‘It has also been propagated about the country that Mr Donellan made use of a still and that he distilled poisons in it,' noted his
Defence
.) The fact that he brought the still down to the kitchen to dry it out after Theodosius died was never disputed by Donellan. His case was, however, that he had used it to distil roses and lavender for his wife. It was never proved that laurel leaves had been used in the still, only that laurel grew in Lawford Hall's garden (the gardener was called at the trial to confirm this, and this alone). No one had ever seen Donellan picking laurel leaves; nor seen him take any kind of vessel or phial for holding laurel water; nor seen laurel leaves in the still; nor seen a container of laurel water anywhere in the house. (However, it did much later transpire that Donellan had used a laurel-water foot lotion.) The servants who cleaned his rooms never spoke of or testified to the bitter almond smell described by Anna Maria anywhere about the rooms or in his clothing or on his hands – a smell that Rattray maintained in his evidence was so strong that when he tried it out on animals it ‘made his gums bleed'.

Donellan wrote in his
Defence
that he had brought the still to the kitchen because he had put lime water in it to destroy fleas in his children's rooms. (Donellan used to wash the bedsteads with lime water ‘as the women servants can testify' and he claimed that he had filled the still with that simply because it was the first thing to hand; popular commentaries of the time say that this was a completely ineffectual remedy.) Donellan further made the point that,
if the purpose of the lime water was to obliterate the smell of laurel water, then the lime should have been in both parts of the still, whereas it was only in the lower.

The part of his
Defence
prepared before the trial reads as if Donellan took it for granted that the servants would be called to verify this. But they were not. Nor was the gardener cross-examined; ‘Counsel were instructed to cross-examine the gardener but did not do it,' his solicitors remark in their footnotes.

Prosecuting counsel Digby next called the Reverend Newsam, the vicar of Great Harborough.

Newsam confirmed that he had seen Theodosius at Lawford Hall on the Saturday before his death and that Donellan had told him that Theodosius:

… had never got rid of the disorder that he had brought with him from Eaton, but rather, in his opinion, had been adding to it; that he had made such frequent use of mercury, inwardly and outwardly, that his blood was a mass of mercury and corruption; that he had a violent swelling in his groin … that he had frequent swellings in his throat, and his breath was so offensive that they could hardly sit at table to eat with him. My answer was, ‘If that was the case, I did not think that his life was worth two years' purchase.' He replied, ‘Not one.'

Q: Perhaps you can tell, from the appearance of Sir Theodosius Boughton, what was the actual state of his health at that time, and for some time before?

A: He looked like a man to all appearance in health.

While Newsam's description of Theodosius's infection is the most lurid yet, he was not prepared to venture an opinion as to whether Theodosius's life was as short as Donellan predicted. Under cross-examination by Mr Green, he admitted that Theodosius had been under the care of William Kerr, a respected local surgeon and the founder of Northampton Hospital. Kerr was called to the stand to substantiate this. But he was not asked about
the extent of Theodosius's illness or the effects on the body of prolonged treatment with mercury.

A note in Donellan's
Defence
reads:

Mr Newnham did not think it prudent or necessary to ask for the bills of the different Surgeons, or to cross-examine Mr Powell at all; therefore the court remained ignorant of Sir Theodosius having had any other venereal complaint than the last infection, or of his ever having taken or used mercury at all.

The first of the medical men who had been called to examine Theodosius after his death, and who witnessed the autopsy, now gave evidence: David Rattray. Mr Balguy, named by Sarah Blundell (according to Donellan) as the man who tormented her for proof of Donellan's guilt on her deathbed, asked the questions.

Rattray first testified that he received ‘an anonymous note' on 4 September asking him to go to Lawford Hall ‘in order to open the body of Sir Theodosius Boughton' and to bring Mr Wilmer with him. However, as Wilmer was out of town that afternoon, it was late in the evening, and dark, by the time the two men arrived at Lawford.

Donellan's account of Rattray's description of ‘an anonymous note' is especially critical. ‘Some men in the world exult at other men's distress,' his
Defence
concludes, after drawing attention to Rattray's lack of objectivity. ‘This gentleman gave evident marks of partiality when he opened his evidence. The letter … being wrote in a hurry … did not put his name to it and called Mr Wilmer “Dr Wilmot”. This advantage over the unfortunate prisoner pleased Dr Rattray …'

Rattray told how Donellan was waiting for them in the hallway when they arrived; how he said that he expected Sir William Wheler might come; and that they ate supper while they waited for the coffin to be unsoldered. Then he was shown a letter from Sir William Wheler, taken out of Powell's hands in the hallway, which said that Wheler would not be coming because he thought it improper. Donellan searched his waistcoat for another letter, but
Rattray admitted impatience; he wanted, he said, ‘to get over such little matters as these'.

Rattray testified that he and Wilmer went upstairs and saw the body alone but Wilmer thought it would ‘answer no purpose to open the body at that time'. Then they went downstairs and asked Donellan what was the reason for an autopsy, to which Donellan replied, ‘For the satisfaction of the family.'

Q: Did he at any time intimate to you the suspicion of poison?

A: No, nothing of the sort.

Donellan's
Defence
weighs in heavily against Rattray's evidence. Rattray's attitude throughout, Donellan predicted accurately in his notes, ‘will give as unfavourable account of this business as he can … being very much connected with Sir William Wheler and from hopes thereby of pleasing him, or from a wish … to gain popularity … or from what other motive is not at present known.'

Rattray was then asked about the autopsy on 9 September. Again he claimed to have been contacted in ‘some strange roundabout way' but he went to Newbold-on-Avon churchyard and watched the disinterment.

Q: What were the material appearances that struck you at that time?

A: The body appeared distended a good deal; the face, of a round figured, extremely black, the teeth black … the tongue protruding beyond the fore teeth and turning upwards towards the nose; the blackness descended upon the throat … there was another circumstance which, for decency, I have omitted, but, if called upon, I am ready to mention.

Q: That circumstance is not at all material …

A: We proceeded to open the body … the bowels in the lower belly seemed to put on an appearance of inflammation … the heart appeared to be in a natural state … the lungs
appeared what I call suffused with blood … the kidneys appeared as black as tinder and the liver in much the same state …

Q: … independent of appearances … what was, in your judgement, the occasion of Sir Theodosius's death?

A: I am of the opinion that the swallowing of the draught … was poison, and the immediate cause of his death.

The prosecution brief had the full statement from Rattray on the state of the body at the autopsy; it emphasised ‘gangrene' – or putrefaction – a little more than Rattray was allowed on the witness stand, and made clear how impossible it was to detect poison at all. It also detailed the ‘circumstance' which had ‘been omitted for decency':

On 9th September at Newbold, the whole body was very much swollen with universal gangrene, the face appeared greatly enlarged, putrid, extremely black; the lips were so much retracted particularly the upper lip as to show the teeth and gums of the upper jaw distinctly. The tongue protruded a considerable way beyond the teeth appearing much inflated, the point bearing upwards towards the nose. The gums were much swelled, the nose small in proportion and apparently in a decaying state on the outer side of the right nostril.

The breast and throat were of a purple colour deepening as it reached the head. The belly afforded proof of it being in a gangrenous state. No swellings in the groin could be discovered either by the eye or by the finger. The genitals were an extraordinary object; the scrotum was much increased in bulk and the penis was in strong erection. The skin around the anus was very black but the inner part of the rectum seemed a bright red.