Page images
PDF
EPUB

Now a catalogue of fifty Greek words, which originally began with F, and having fifty Latin words, derived from them likewise beginning with F, is surely enough to establish a correspondence between the Greek F and the Latin F.

Such are the chief animadversions of the Reviewer upon the Author of the Hora Pelasgicæ. In what spirit the attack was conceived, and with what success it has been made, we leave for our readers to determine.

This is the first appearance of Dr. Marsh before the public as a classical scholar, and we are assured that it will be hailed with exultation by all those who are worthy of the name. The powers of Dr. Marsh are of an order to add lustre to any department of literature in which he may be engaged; and we are persuaded that there will be very few, among the band of real scholars, who will not feel proud of his alliance. Could we indeed allow ourselves to indulge in a feeling of jealousy upon the present occasion, it would be, that Dr. Marsh has withdrawn any portion of his valuable time and labour from the defence of the doctrine and discipline of our Church to any other less important object. Dr. Marsh, however, is entitled to repose from his severer toils in the cause of us all, and especially when the volume before us is the fruit of such an armistice, we shall not grudge him the respite. He will return, like the giant refreshed, to that field in which truth has guided, and victory has blessed his In the mean time, we shall offer him our best thanks for the masterly erudition, the lucid arrangement, and the scholarlike ingenuity which he has displayed in the work before us. The subject is to our minds most curious and interesting, and, in a literary point of view, of sufficient importance to warrant the expenditure of Dr. Marsh's labour. Upon this, as upon every other subject on which he has employed his pen, he has illustrated what was before obscure, and disentangled what was before perplexed: Nihil tetigit, quod non illustravit.

arms.

ART. IV. The Important Results of an elaborate Investigation into the Case of E. Fenning, &c. &c. By John Watkins, LL.D. 8vo. 6s. 6d. Hone. 1815.

OF all the wretched attempts which have ever been made to shake the confidence of the people in the administration of public justice, this is the most audacious. Of the man, whose name is prefixed to the publication, we know nothing; we remember, indeed, to have noticed some months since a puritanical exposition of the Scriptures by a Dr. Watkins, of which we did not wholly approve; as the book, however, contained some good points in it, we cannot suppose that its author is the same with the compiler of the work before us. We strongly suspect the

Dr.

Dr. Watkins before us to be an imaginary being, conjured up for the occasion. To the name, indeed, we have no objection, but we could have suggested a more appropriate title for its supposed author, that indeed which has been already adopted by the patron of its compilers-LEGION,-" for we are many.'

The contents of the volume are, first, the trial of this wretched woman, with notes and observations upon each distinct question and answer. The insolent vulgarity and flippant equivocation displayed in this part of the volume is of such a nature, that the lowest attorney who ever disgraced the Sessions-house would be ashamed of its production; for if his conscience did not start at its quibbling and prevarication, his understanding would be ashamed of its contradiction and absurdity. After this precious specimen of knavery and folly, come "Illustrations of the Evidence," and a long account of the means taken to save the criminal's life. After this we are presented with a detailed account of her execution, and a long list of miscellaneous particulars, concluding with thirty letters written by E. Fenning during her confinement.

The primary aim of this most insolent and absurd publication, is to agitate the public mind with unnecessary and dangerous alarins, and to paralyse the arm of public justice. For the wretchedness of the design we give its compilers their due credit, but the clumsiness of its execution is such, as, in the mind of every reasonable being, fully to counteract its intended mischief. The points which the compilers labour to establish are four:

Firstly, To insinuate that the poison in the dumplings was administered by Mrs. R. G. Turner to her husband.

Secondly, To insinuate that it was administered by Mr. R. G. Turner to his wife.

Thirdly, To insinuate that it was administered by Sarah Peers the other maid-servant, or King the other apprentice, both with and without each others knowledge.

And Fourthly, That there was no poison in the dumplings at all.

The first of these insinuations is conveyed in the following

note :

"Mrs. Charlotte Turner swears that she did not wish the girl to leave the kitchen; that she did not wish her to leave the dough. Some explanation is here requisite. Of the reason for this wish there is no information whatever. What necessity could exist for it? What were the motives for these strongly expressed, and peculiar wishes of Mrs. Charlotte Turner, concerning these yeast dumplings? As Mrs. C. Turner usually had the common baker's dough for yeast dumplings, what could have occasioned her extraordinary solicitude, and repeated cautions, that after this dough was to be made, it should never be left by the particular person who

was

was to make it? The operation of fermentation or rising, as it is called, is spontaneous, and requires very little attention: the preparation for it is technically termed by bakers setting sponge, which, when done, they go to sleep, and leave the rising wholly to itself. Why, after she had told the girl that as the man had brought the yeast she might make some dumplings the next day, did Mrs. Charlotte Turner go into the kitchen the next day, and again tell her she might make some; but, instead of allowing the girl to try her professed" capital hand" at these yeast dumplings, herself step in, and assume the direction of her manufacture, ordering milk and water to be used in their mixture? What was there peculiar in the management of these yeast dumplings, that Mrs. Charlotte Turner should not only deem her own presence and superintendence requisite, but the absence of the prisoner improper, and make precise arrangements to prevent it, as she considered, during the whole process? What, connected with these dumplings, occasioned such extraordinary precaution and caution? In particular, why did Charlotte Turner not wish the girl to leave the kitchen?-why?WHY? WHY?" P. 8.

The second is insinuated from the statement (not the affidavit) of a Mr. Gibson in the following words:

6

"About the month of September or October last, to the best of my recollection, Mr. TURNER, junior, called at our house, and appearing in a wild and deranged state, I invited him into a back room, or counting house, where I detained him, whilst Mr. Crockford, another gentleman in Messrs. Corbyn's house, went to his father's. In this interval, Mr. Turner, junior, used the most violent and incoherent expressions-such as, My dear Gibson, do, for GOD's sake, GET ME SECURED OR CONFINED, for, if I am at liberty, I shall do some mischief; I SHALL DESTROY MYSELF and MY WIFE: I must and shall do it, unless all means of destruction are removed out of my way; therefore do, my good friend, have me put under some restraint: something from above tells me I must do it, and unless I am prevented, I certainly shall do it.'

[ocr errors]

"Mr. Gibson, to whom Mr. Robert G. Turner thus addressed himself, also stated to the Recorder and Mr. Becket OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES exhibiting the general symptoms of a deranged mind. He further stated, that Mr. Crockford, a gentleman associated with him, could confirm the fact of his, Mr. Robert G. Turner's mental derangement at more periods than the instance then alluded to: but that Mr. Crockford was unfortunately at that time out of town. Mr. Gibson concluded by stating, that, in the interval between Elizabeth Fenning's apprehension and her trial, he waited on Mr. Turner, sen. and strongly urged the impropriety of proceeding with the trial, entreating him, to consider the state of his son's mind, and the language he had used, and trusting that the consideration of these circumstances would induce them not to press the trial. He acquainted Mr. Turner, sen. that these were not alone his sentiments; but that some mutual friends of the Turners' family and himself had mentioned the impropriety of Mr. Robert G. Tur

6

ner's

ner's being at large under the circumstances with which he was afflicted." P. 84.

We ought here to remind our readers, that in the Morning Chronicle of the 6th. of November, appeared a statement signed by thirteen most respectable friends of Mr. Turner, flatly contradicting the statement of Mr. Gibson, and declaring the perfect sanity of Mr. Turner.

The third insinuation and conveyed in more places than one: "Sarah Peer corroborated the circumstance of the warning having been given to Eliza Fenning by Mrs. Turner, and added, spontaneously, "after that I heard her say she should not like Mr. and Mrs. Robert Turner." We were certainly surprised that NO cross-examination took place in this stage of the evidence. There must have been some conversation between the witness and the prisoner which led to this observation. We should have been curious to have ascertained the particulars; and we are far from thinking it improbable that a little legal sifting might have been resorted to, on this occasion, with good effect. We repeat, that where such serious issues hang upon a connexion of circumstances, the utmost care ought to be taken to leave nothing uninvestigated, which can be inquired into. This witness it was who fetched the milk, who received the yeast of the brewer, and who took up the dumplings to table, but who went out immediately, having previously received her mistress's permission, and consequently did not partake of the dumplings." Append. p. 44.

And again in the memorial of Eliza Fenning to the Lord Chancellor :

"Thomas King (one of the apprentices, who was not examined on the Trial), was in the front kitchen while I was in the back room cleaning the knives: I thought it was my mistress; but as I was going into the kitchen I met him, and asked what he had been doing. To which he made no reply, but went up stairs. Now, God forbid that I should impeach any person; I only relate this circumstance, as I am informed that arsenick, merely sprinkled over the dough, would infuse itself through the whole; and it ap peared that the arsenick was put by Mr. Turner in a place open to any body." P. 73.

The fourth and most extraordinary point is urged in the following manner:

Mr. Marshall does not say one word about arsenick in the dumplings; all that he deposed to was the presence of arsenick in the remainder of the dough in the dish the dumplings had been made in. What experiments did he use to discover that there was poison in the dumplings? Was any of the remaining dumpling and a half given to a cat or dog, or other animal? Were the contents discharged from the stomachs of any of the family given to an animal, examined or analized? THERE IS NOT THE LEAST EVIDENCE, THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE TRIAL,

THAT

THAT ARSENICK, OR ANY OTHER POISON, WAS IN THE DUMPLINGS! In vain is such proof looked for from the first to the last witness-the medical man." P. 46.

Thus then because it is proved that there was arsenic in the scrapings of the dough, which was a remaining part of the dumplings, there could be none in the dumplings themselves: especially when Mr. R. Turner who eat of the dumplings alone, was attacked by all the vomiting and pain which is the constant and infallible effect of arsenic taken into the stomach.

It cannot be supposed that the opinion of any sober mind should be warped by such a farrago of absurdity; but it is astonishing with how much avidity it is received by those with whom quibbling works conviction, and assertion is received as proof. Not one tittle of the evidence, under which E. Fenning was pronounced guilty, is invalidated in the present publication. Whether it is in the power of arsenic to make knives black and dumplings heavy, is immaterial; there are other proofs of its existence, which are incontrovertible. Whether the coals were delivered on the day of the poisoning, is also immaterial, particularly as the time of delivery is not stated: we confess that we believe, with Mrs. Turner and her maid, that they were not delivered on that day; the coal meter's ticket proves little, the evidence of the actual delivery is wanted to establish the fact; which, even if it had been established, would have had no weight against the body of the remaining evidence.

The reports respecting her former attempts to poison a family in which she had previously lived, are with a sufficient degree of probability, shewn to be unfounded; but with all the activity displayed in raking even the kennel for evidence in her favour, nothing is brought forward to contradict the well-authenticated fact of her having borne the character of a dissolute, lying, and immoral woman. Her whole behaviour in prison, even according to the garbled and dressed out representation in the pamphlet before us, convinces us still more powerfully of her guilt. There was none of the meekness and resignation of suffering innocence, but much more of the audacity of determined guilt. It is to be ever remembered, that she refused, from her sentence even to her dying moments, to confess any of those sins of which she had been notoriously guilty; it is not very extraordinary therefore, that she should have refused to confess the crime for which she was to be executed.

The case of E. Fenning was tried by an able and impartial jury, and defended by one of the ablest advocates in the Old Bailey practice, Mr. Alley, who, like the counsellor recommended by the Keeper in Amelia, " has been often known to succeed against positive evidence." From the few questions which that gentleman put in cross-examination, it is clear that

he

« PreviousContinue »