The Psychology of Poisoning. had consented to marry him without ever having seen him. After the marriage a feel ing of loathing appears to have seized her, and she attempted to run away; there is no reason, however, to suspect that she loved any one else. Eventually she became recon ciled to her husband, and even seems to have shown him considerable affection. The theory of the defence was that either he had died from natural causes, or that he had been poisoned by a servant for the pur pose of robbery. This servant had in fact bought the arsenic for the accused (and so might have handed to her the harmless pow der found in the rats' potion, keeping the arsenic); he had taken the poisoned cake to Lafarge; and he had absconded before his evidence was called for at the trial. A valise of his master, containing a large sum of money, had disappeared during the return from Paris, while he was ill and in the care of the suspected servant. The jury convicted Mme. Lafarge; but the sentence (which was not acceptable to most people) was commuted to imprisonment for life. Mme. Lafarge appeared always calm, pious and resigned, but she protested her innocence to the last. She died after a few years. Mary Blandy was tried early in 1752, for the murder of her father. He undoubtedly died of arsenical poisoning, due to arsenic repeatedly put in his gruel, in small quanti ties, by his daughter. She tended him during his long illness carefully and lovingly, and appeared distracted with grief at his death. Miss Blandy loved and desired to marry a certain young man; but her father, objecting to his character, absolutely forbade marriage. The lover sent her the arsenic as a "lovephilter" to be given the father to secure his consent. She claimed to have administered it in entire ignorance of its nature. She also wrote a letter to her lover, saying "My father is so bad that ... if you do not hear from me soon again, don't be frightened. . . . Take care what you write." The jury found her guilty of murder; educated persons much
7
doubted her guilt, but the populace held her responsible, and clamored for her death. The pardoning power is said to have con templated a reprieve, but to have been over awed by the popular clamor. She was exe cuted, protesting her innocence to the last. A Scotch case tried in Glasgow in 1857 is in many respects similar. Madeline Smith, a girl of good family, had become intimate , with a young French clerk named L'Ange¡ Her; the intimacy had gone so far that the parties were perhaps man and wife, under the Scotch law of marriage. Compromising letters, couched in the warmest terms, had passed between them. Finally, Miss Smith appears to have wearied of L'Angelier; and, being sought in marriage by another, desired him to return her letters. He declined to do so, reproached her with her coolness, and threatened to go with the letters to her father and demand her as his wife. She professed to be still in love with him, and desired him to come to her window at night for an inter view; at the interview she made him a cup of chocolate, which he drank. He was found the next morning at the door of his lodging, suffering acutely, and soon afterwards died, undoubtedly from arsenical poisoning. An autopsy showed that he must have taken at least half an ounce of arsenic. Before this time Miss Smith had bought two lots of arsenic, giving her own name as purchaser, alleging falsely as a reason for the purchase that she needed the poison to kill rats. At the trial she explained that her real reason was that she desired to use it as a cos metic. L'Angelier also had had an oppor tunity to obtain arsenic in large quantities, and had often threatened to commit suicide. The arsenic Miss Smith bought was mixed, one lot with soot, the other with indigo; the soot could not possibly be removed, the indigo with great difficulty, by nice manipu lation. No trace of soot or of indigo was found in L'Angelier's body. Arsenic is dissolved in water in very small proportion, and little can be held in suspen sion. To have administered in chocolate the
