4. Statement of Dr. Marsden.
‘My name is Anthony Marsden. I am a physician, and formerly resided at Mrs. Brown’s house, in Russell Place. Some three or four years ago I found the atmosphere of London beginning to tell upon my health, and determined to remove into the suburbs. I bought a small practice in the neighbourhood of St. John’s Wood, and gave up the greater portion of my London patients. I was, however, desirous of not altogether relinquishing that connection, and with this object rented two rooms at Mrs. Brown’s, where I might be consulted by such patients as I still retained in that neighbourhood. I used to drive up for this purpose every Monday and Friday morning. I had been doing this for some time, when the first and second floor apartments were taken by the Baron R**. I did not at first much like him. I thought him an impostor. He seemed, however, to wish to make my acquaintance, and I found that he was, at all events, a very highly informed man on all matters of science. We had frequent conversations respecting mesmerism. He certainly seemed to be himself a believer in it. Were I not myself thoroughly satisfied of its impossibility, I am not at all sure but that he might have convinced me on the subject. I am quite unable to account for many of the phenomena exhibited. They were, however, of course to be accounted for in some way. He seemed a very excellent chemist, and we used at times to pursue our investigations together. There was a small room at the back of the house, on the basement floor, which he used as a laboratory. He invited me to make use of it, and I was frequently there. He was always engaged in experiments of one kind or another, and had various ingenious projects in hand. In the laboratory was a large assortment of chemicals and medicines of various kinds. In the case of poor patients, I have sometimes asked him to make up a prescription, and he has done so. At the time at which I knew him, he was engaged in a series of experiments on the metals, and more especially on mercury, antimony, lead, and zinc. I think he must have had almost every preparation of these that is made. I believe that his researches were for the purpose of finding a specific against the disease so prevalent among painters, which is known by the name of “lead colic.” The laboratory was at the back of the house, and quite detached from all the other rooms. There was an open space between it and the rest of the house, with only a passage communicating with the offices. This passage was shut off by a glass door, and there was a wooden door at the end into the laboratory. Both these doors were always kept closed. They were not usually locked. I told the Baron I thought they should be, but he said no one would go there. He had a weight put on to the laboratory door to close it. The glass door had a spring already. I frequently made use of his laboratory: sometimes when he was absent. I might go there with or without him, whenever I pleased. There was no attempt at concealing from me anything whatever that was done there. It was all quite open. I attended Madame R** through greater part of her illness. It was a very long affair, and of a very singular character. I cannot be at all certain as to the date at which it commenced. I was not regularly called in at the time, and did not notice it in my book. The Baron only consulted me in a friendly way about it, two or three days afterwards. It was certainly as much as that. I think it was the third day. I cannot be sure of that, but I am quite sure it was at least the second. By being the second day, I mean that at least one clear day had intervened between the night on which she was ill and the day on which I was consulted by the Baron. I cannot swear to more than one, but I think it must have been. From what the Baron told me of the symptoms, I remember concluding it to be a case of English cholera, but she was almost recovered at the time I first heard of it, and I did not prescribe for her. About a fortnight or three weeks after this she had another slight attack, for which the Baron himself also prescribed. He acquainted me on my visit to town with the course he had pursued, and I entirely concurred in his treatment of the case. The attack, however, returned I think more than once, and he then asked me to see and prescribe for her. I first saw her professionally on the 23rd of May, 1856.22 This was two days after the third or fourth attack, which occurred on the night of the 21st of May. As soon as I regularly took up her case, I made notes of it in my diary. Extracts from this are enclosed (vide 5 herewith), showing the progress of the case from time to time. I attended her throughout her illness. The attacks occurred, as will be seen from my diary, about every fortnight. They increased in intensity up to the 10th of October, 1856. At this time, she was apparently, for three or four days, almost in articulo mortis, and I was unable to hold out any hope of her recovery. Another attack would certainly have been fatal. Happily the disease appeared to have spent itself, and at the expiration of the fortnight no renewal of the more acute symptoms was experienced. From this date, Madame R** progressed slowly but steadily to convalescence, and would no doubt have ultimately entirely recovered, but for the unfortunate accident which put an end to her life. Madame R**’s case was one of great difficulty. It was apparently one of chronic “gastritis;” but its recurrence in an acute form at stated intervals was a very abnormal incident. The case presented, in fact, all the more prominent features of that of chronic antimonial poisoning recorded by Dr. Mayerhofer in Heller’s Archiv., 1846, and alluded to by Professor Taylor in his work on “Poisons,” p. 539. There were also strong points of general resemblance to the other cases of M‘Mullen and Hardman, quoted by Professor Taylor at the same page, and recorded in Guy’s Hospital Reports for October 1857. As matters progressed, I took the opportunity of pointing this out as delicately as I could to the Baron, and asked if he had any suspicions of foul play. He seemed at first almost amused by the suggestion; but upon further consultation was inclined to take a graver view of the matter. We went carefully through the cases in question, the Baron translating that of Dr. Mayerhofer for my benefit, as I was not a German scholar. At his suggestion, we determined to make the customary analyses, and an examination was accordingly instituted in the Baron’s laboratory. He was always very particular in keeping up the supply of medicine, and would never allow the bottles, &c., to be thrown away. There was therefore some remnant of every medicine that had been made up for her. These, with the other subjects of analysis, we tested carefully, both for arsenic and for antimony, but without finding the slightest trace of either. The analysis was conducted by the Baron, who took the greatest interest in it. I could not perhaps have done it myself. Such matters have not come within my line of practice. In such a case I should certainly not trust to my own manipulations. I trusted to those of the Baron, because I knew him to be an expert practical chemist, and in the daily habit of such operations. My own share in them was limited to the observation of results, and their comparison with those pointed out by Professor Taylor. I did not take any special pains to ascertain the purity of the chemical tests employed or of their being in fact what they were assumed to be. That is to say, when a colourless liquid, with all the apparent characteristics of nitric acid was taken from a bottle labelled “Nit. Ac.,” I took for granted that nitric acid was being employed. Similarly, of course, with the other chemical agents. It never occurred to me to do otherwise. Nor did I take any especial precautions to identify the matters examined. Others might certainly have been substituted; but if so, it must have been done by the Baron himself. It was, perhaps, possible that he might have conducted his investigations, under such supervision as I then exercised, with fictitious tests, and it was quite so to substitute other matters and mislead me by subjecting them to a real analysis. That is to say, this would have been possible to be done by the Baron. No one else could, under the circumstances, have done it, or at least without his direct connivance. I had no ground for any suspicion of the kind, nor do I see any now. I think it most unwarrantable. Every circumstance that came under my notice goes equally to contravene such a supposition. The Baron was devotedly attached to his wife; he supplied her liberally with professional advice, as also with nurses, medicine, and every necessary; his care for her led him to precautions which, in their incidental results, must have inevitably exposed any attempt at the
administration of poison. During the severer period of the disorder, he had no opportunity of attempting such a crime, as he universally insisted on both food and medicine being both prepared and administered by the nurses; he himself rendered every assistance in the endeavour to detect any such attempt when its possibility had been suggested by myself; and lastly, Madame R** did not die, although the investigation had already removed all suspicion. I think such an imputation wholly unwarranted and unwarrantable from any one circumstance of the case.’
5. Extracts from Dr. Marsden’s Diary.23
May 23rd.—Madame R**, nausea, sickness, tendency to diarrhoea, profuse perspiration, and general debility. Pulse low, 100. Spirits depressed. Burning pain in stomach—abdomen tender on pressure. Tongue discoloured.
26th.—Madame R** slightly better—less nausea and pain.
30th.—Madame R**. Improvement continues.
June 2nd.—Madame R** improving.
6th.—Ditto.
9th.—Recurrence of symptoms on Saturday evening.24 Increased nausea, vomited matter yellow, with bile. Pulse low, 105. Throat sore, and slight constriction. Tongue foul.
13th.—Symptoms slightly ameliorated. Treatment continued.
16th.—Ditto. Tongue slightly clearer. Pulse 100.
20th.—Improvement continued. Pulse slightly firmer.
23rd.—Ditto.
24th.—Special visit. Return of symptoms last night. Great increase of nausea and vomiting—very yellow with bile. Throat sore and tongue foul. Abdomen very tender on pressure. Slight diarrhoea. Tingling sensation in limbs.
27th.—Slight improvement.
30th.—Continued, but slight. Pulse firmer.
July 3rd.—Improvement continued, especially in throat. Perspiration still distressing. Less tingling in limbs.
6th.—Improvement continued. Pulse somewhat firmer, 110.
(10th to 20th.—Absent in Gloucestershire.)
20th.—A slight rally. Baron says, attack shortly after last visit, but recovery for time more rapid.
24th.—Improvement continues, but less rapid. Pulse 110.
27th.—Recurrence yesterday. General symptoms as before, much aggravated. Soreness and aphthous state of mouth and throat. Perspiration. Pain in abdomen. Complains of taste in mouth like lead. Pulse low, 115. Qy. antimony? Speak, Baron.
31st.—Analysis—satisfactory. Symptoms slightly abated.
August 3rd.—Improvement continued. Pulse 112, firmer.
7th.—Same.
10th.—Return of sickness, &c. General aggravation of symptoms. Patient much prostrated.
24th, 28th, 31st.—Slight improvement.
September 4th.—Improvement continued, but slight.
7th.—Return of severe symptoms. Vomiting, extremely yellow, much bile. Diarrhoea. Pulse low and fluttering, 120. Violent perspiration. Slight wandering. Extreme soreness and constriction of throat. Slight convulsive twitchings in limbs. Great exhaustion and prostration.
10th, 14th, 18th.—Very slight abatement of symptoms.
21st.—Violence of symptoms increased. Pulse 125. Great prostration.
25th, 28th.—Very slight amelioration. Pulse 125. Wandering.
October 1st, 4th, 8th.—Symptoms slightly less severe.
11th.—Aggravation of all symptoms. Pulse 132, low and fluttering. Face flushed and pale. Much convulsive twitching in limbs. Power of speech quite gone. Entire prostration. Can hardly live through night.
12th, 13th, 14th.—Special visits. No perceptible change.
15th.—Pulse a shade firmer, 136.
N.B.—From this date, recovery slow, but steady.
6. Memorandum by Mr. Henderson.
From the very vague nature of the foregoing evidence, so far as dates are concerned, it was, as you will at once perceive, no very easy task to determine the precise day of Madame R**’s first attack. To the view of the case, however, which I was even then inclined to adopt, this was a matter of the last importance, and I determined to spare no effort to elucidate it if possible from the very loose data furnished by the depositions. In this I have, I think, been successful; but as the process has been somewhat complicated, I must ask you to follow me through it step by step.
The difficulty of tracing the truth seemed at first sight not a little augmented by the fact that no one had been in the house but Mrs. Brown herself, whose memory, even had it afforded any clue, could not have been relied on. On further consideration, however, I began to fancy myself mistaken in this respect, and finally conceived a hope that this very fact might, if properly handled, prove an assistance instead of an obstacle to my investigation. The following was the course of reasoning I pursued.
There are only two points on which Mrs. Brown appears to be certain; her son’s presence in England, and her being herself alone in the house on the actual day in question. The only chances of success therefore seemed to be:—First, in ascertaining precisely the limit of time within which such a combination was possible; and, second, in determining by a process of elimination the actual day or days on which such a combination could fall.
The result has been far more complete than at the outset of the investigation I could venture to hope.
1st. For the period of time to which our researches should be directed.
This was obviously limited by the residence of Richard Brown in England, and my first efforts were therefore directed towards determining the exact dates of his arrival and departure.
1. On enquiry at Liverpool, I found that the only vessels which had arrived from Melbourne during the month of March 1856, were as follows:—
Ship.
Captain.
Owners.
Arrived.
James Baines
M’Donald
Jas. Baines & Co.
4th March
Lightning
Enright
Jas. Baines & Co.
24th March
Emma
Underwood
Pilkington Bros.
27th March
Of these, the James Baines left Melbourne on the 28th November, and the Lightning on the 28th December. The exact date of sailing of the Emma I have not been able to ascertain, but it is immaterial to the case.
The fragment of newspaper preserved by Mrs. Brown has no date, nor could I at first find any clue by which it might be determined. The last paragraph, however, commences as follows:—
Seasonable Weather!—The thermometer has, for the last four days, never been lower than ninety degrees in the shade. We wonder what our friends in England would say to singing their Ch…rols in such a.…
The remainder is torn off, but the missing syllables are clearly Christmas Carols, and this shows clearly that the paper must have been published after the departure of the James Baines on the 28th November. Richard Brown must, therefore, have come home either in the Lightning or the Emma, the earliest of which reached Liverpool on the evening of the 24th March. The 25th of March, therefore, is the earliest date from which our examination need commence.
2. From Mrs. Troubridge, mother of the young woman to whom Richard Brown was married during his stay in England, I learned that the young couple sailed for Sydney in the Maria Somes. Mrs. Brown was unable to give me the date of this vessel’s departure, but a search through the file of the Times for April 1856, shows that she left Gravesend on the 23rd of that month. The period to be analysed is therefore confined to the interval between the 25th March and the 25th April, 1856.
3. During this period, as we learn from Mrs.
Brown’s statement, Richard Brown was at home every day except Saturdays and Sundays. These were respectively, 29th and 30th of March, and 5th, 6th, 12th, 13th, 19th, and 20th of April.
4. Dr. Marsden, in his evidence, states most distinctly that he did not see Madame R** until at least ‘one clear day’ had elapsed after her attack. Dr. Marsden’s visits take place on the Monday and Friday of each week. Madame R**’s seizure, therefore, did not occur on a Sunday. This reduces the days on which it may have happened to the 29th March, and 5th, 12th, and 19th April.
5. From Mrs. Troubridge’s evidence we learn that Mrs. Brown and the whole party slept at Gravesend on the Saturday night previous to the sailing of the Maria Somes. Mrs. Brown was therefore absent from town on the 19th April. The issue is thus narrowed to the 29th March and the 5th and 12th April.
6. From Mrs. Brown’s statement we learn that on the Saturday and Sunday preceding the wedding, her son’s friend, Aldridge, slept at the house. The wedding took place on the 14th April. On the 12th April, therefore, Mrs. Brown was not alone. The only days, therefore, on which the occurrence, as described, could have taken place are the 29th March and 5th April.
At this point I feared for some time that my clue was at an end. This would, however, have been most unsatisfactory, as the possible error of a week in point of date would have seriously detracted from the trustworthiness of the entire case. The only possible chance of determining the point seemed to lie in ascertaining the precise date of the servant’s dismissal, and it at length occurred to me that this might be accomplished by means of the police records of the Court before which she was carried. From them I found—
7. That the offence for which she was discharged was committed on Sunday, the 30th of March. On the 29th, therefore, she was still in Mrs. Brown’s house. The only day, therefore, on which Madame R**’s first seizure could have taken place, as stated during Richard Brown’s stay in England, and on a night when Mrs. Brown was alone in the house, was the 5th of April.
The Notting Hill Mystery Page 9
