The Damnation of John Donellan (22 page)

As for the bottle itself, in contrast to Anna Maria's evidence that the bottle was not seen again, and that she did not know when it was removed or where to, Donellan writes:

Mr Caldecott, the solicitor, enquired for it … Mr Donellan immediately enquired of Sarah Blundell, who showed where she had put the bottles away (into a hole in the kitchen sometimes used for stewing) upon which he found one he thought might be it … shewed the same to Samuel Frost … took the bottle into the parlour, and put it upon the harpsichord ready to be produced when required.

But Donellan's lawyer never asked Samuel Frost to testify to this; the bottle was thought, after Anna Maria's testimony, to be lost. And so the burden of doubt fell on Donellan that he had somehow disposed of or destroyed it.

The prosecution brief was quite clear as to the fate of the bottles, however: it noted that Sarah Blundell had said that ‘the basin was soon after washed and the two bottles flung into the stove hole, where they were seen the next day broken and the labels torn off'. However, this was not referred to at the trial.

One further poignant story remains concerning Sarah Blundell. In her testimony, Anna Maria was asked by her own counsel what had become of the girl. Anna Maria replied shortly, ‘She is dead.' Donellan himself had little positive to say about the servant, either, writing in his
Defence
:

Sarah Blundell is since dead … she was a woman of known bad
character, and died in childbirth of a bastard; a matter which she so artfully concealed that nobody suspected anything of the kind till she was taken in labour, and even then did not confess what was the matter with her …

However, he went on:

During the time this woman was in labour, she was so extremely ill, that it was expected she should die before a delivery; and, as Mrs Donellan was particularly humane to her, she told her, in the presence of Sukey Sparrow, Mrs Donellan's maid, that she knew no harm of her husband, and that she told Mr B— [Balguy, one of the prosecuting counsel?] every time he sent for her, she knew nothing against him. This was spoke at a time when she thought of dying every moment, but she lingered upwards of a fortnight afterwards, and, during that time, every unfair advantage was taken to extort things from her, and Mr Caldecott, the solicitor in this prosecution, was with her the day of her death, but she was speechless that day and the day preceeding … notwithstanding, Lady Boughton had a coach and chaise, she sent this woman away from Lawford, at the time she was so ill, in a cart.

If Theodosia was still at Lawford, showing humanity to Sarah Blundell while the girl was in labour, then this puts Sarah's delivery of her child and her subsequent illness some time before Christmas 1780, as Theodosia had left, according to Caldecott, by December.

Anna Maria was evidently not disposed to show Sarah Blundell – who after all had supported her second deposition to the coroner – any such humanity. One wonders at her callousness in sending Sarah away in an open cart in the depths of winter.

Who was the father of the ‘bastard child'? The prosecution brief notes that Sarah Blundell's ‘sweetheart' was the footman John Yateman; but Yateman, despite being in the house at the time and having some relevant details about Donellan, was never called. In fact, all that we know about him is taken from a few sketchy references in the brief. Anna Maria never talks of him.

Why did Yateman not come forward at the trial to support Anna Maria's case? Did he bear her a grudge about Sarah's treatment? Or was his lack of support because he had realised that Sarah's child was not his?

The later questions to Anna Maria by her own lawyer concerned a comment that Sir Theodosius's stockings, which he had worn the night before, were wet; and that perhaps he had caught a cold and it was this which had occasioned his death. She said that the stockings were dry.

We return to the closing questions of Anna Maria's own lawyers.

Q: Do you remember Mr Donellan receiving a letter from Sir William Wheler, and when was the first letter he received from Sir William?

A: He received a letter from Sir William Wheler desiring that the body might be opened.

Q: Do you remember being shown the answer to that letter? A: Yes, I do.

Q: Who showed it you?

A: Mr Donellan.

Q: Do you recollect having made any observation upon his answer which he sent Sir William Wheler after Dr Rattray and Mr Wilmer had been there?

A: I remember he read the letter; I thought it of no use; that it would be unnecessary to send it.

Q: Did you state any reason why the letter was to be objected to?

A: I did not; I said, ‘He had better let it alone, and not send such a letter as that.'

Q: You disliked the letter, but the reason of your dislike you did not explain to him?

A: No; but he said it was necessary to send an answer, and he would send it.

Howarth refers here to ‘the first letter he received' and its answer. The first letter that Donellan received from Sir William,
dated 2 September, was merely an acknowledgement of the news. Presumably Howarth is referring here to Wheler's second letter, in which he asked for an autopsy because he had heard rumours of poison. Donellan's reply was that ‘we most cheerfully wish to have the body of Sir Theodosius opened'. Howarth is establishing that Lady Boughton knew an autopsy would be carried out.

The letter which Anna Maria says Donellan read out to her after Rattray and Wilmer's visit was dated 5 September; in this, he confirmed that they had been to Lawford (‘they proceeded accordingly') and then went on to describe the seriousness of Theodosius's venereal infection. Howarth did not pursue specifically why Anna Maria objected to the letter. Why he raised it, with its references to Theodosius's repeated infections and lack of regard for his mother's wishes, is a puzzle. Perhaps he wished to show that Donellan did not care for Anna Maria's feelings in the matter.

Newnham, in his cross-examination, however, took up the issue of Theodosius's health.

Q: When did you hear Captain Donellan say that your son was in a bad state of health, how long before his death?

A: He often talked about it for three weeks or a month before his time of death.

Q: That was only after he had been attended by Mr Powell for a recent complaint, but before that you was pleased to say Mr Donellan often expressed to you that Sir Theo was in a bad state of health?

A: I had said that my son had been ill of a particular disorder.

Q: Had you not written to Bath in the year 1777 and 1778 that his fine complexion was gone and he was in a very bad way?

A: I said I was afraid he was in a bad way, for his complexion was altered.

Q: I quote your words, ‘His fine complexion was gone'?

A: Yes.

At least Newnham took the opportunity this time to follow up
on a crucial issue. Theodosius was not ‘possessed of a good constitution, affected by no indisposition that could at all endanger his life', as Howarth had described in his opening speech. Nor indeed did he have ‘a slight venereal disorder'. But Howarth had compounded the misinformation in his opening speech by adding that when Samuel Frost saw Theodosius on the morning of his death, ‘he appeared in perfect good health, that he leaped out of bed for the purpose of getting something'.

Newnham's cross-examination attempted to show that Anna Maria knew very well that Theodosius had been unwell for some time; the loss of his ‘complexion' was a telling side-effect of prolonged illness – contemporary drawings and cartoons show the drained appearance and the rotted skin of prostitutes and their customers. As early as 1667 the notorious Earl of Rochester had written a pamphlet describing the ‘Shankers (chancres, venereal ulcers) or Cordes or Buboes dire' of what was called ‘the great pox' and which was traditionally treated with mercury. ‘A night with Venus, a lifetime with Mercury' was a popular saying.

It is to be presumed that the men of the jury knew all too well what both Howarth and Newnham were referring to, and perhaps the subject was not pursued out of deference to the delicacy of Anna Maria's feelings. But a little more detail from Newnham would have given credence to Donellan's contention that Theodosius's illness was well established and he was in far from ‘perfect health'.

Newnham also covered the issue of Theodosius regularly buying poison, which he used to lay in dead fish in order to poison rats:

Q: Whether you don't know that Sir Theodosius did amuse himself in laying poison for fish?

A: Sir Theodosius did sometimes amuse himself in laying poison for fish.

Q: Where did he put those things that he used to amuse himself with?

A: I won't mince the matter.

Q: Don't you know of his buying large quantities of arsenic?

A: He went for a pound, and after his death a quantity of arsenic was found in his closet.

Q: Where did he use to keep that?

A: In his inner closet.

Q: Which was sometimes locked?

A: Mostly.

Newnham next tried to show that Donellan had on several occasions tried to prevent or resolve various quarrels and fights in which Theodosius was involved:

Q: Do you recollect a quarrel that happened between Sir Theodosius and a gentleman at Bath?

A: Yes, and Mr Donellan interfered to prevent anything happening.

Q: Does not your ladyship recollect a quarrel your son had at Rugby?

A: Yes.

Q: Pray, who was sent for on that occasion?

A: Mr Donellan.

Q: Did not your ladyship go to Mr Donellan's room door and early in the morning press him to go over immediately?

A: Yes.

Q: Did not you put the letter under the door?

A: I wrote a letter, and had it put under the door, desiring him to go to Rugby, on account of a quarrel that happened there.

Q: Did Mr Donellan interfere and prevent any mischief happening there?

A: He told me that he did.

Q: Now, as to a third quarrel; whether he had another quarrel with a gentleman at Daventry?

A: They were both at Rugby.

Q: With a Mr Wildgoose of Daventry, at Rugby?

A: Yes.

Q: Was there a quarrel with Mr Chartres?

A: Yes, at that time I believe, but I am not certain.

But Anna Maria began to resist ‘recollecting' any more about Theodosius's continually bad behaviour and Donellan's role in rescuing him from harm. When the subject of Donellan preventing serious injury to Theodosius when the boy insisted on climbing the church tower at Newbold came up, Anna Maria answered that she did not remember any danger or accident; and that Theodosius did not mention the matter in the coach as they returned home.

Towards the end of the cross-examination, the prosecuting counsel, Howarth, interrupted:

Q: You have been asked of instances of friendship shown by Mr Donellan to your son; what was Mr Donellan's general behaviour for some months before he died? Did he treat Sir Theodosius with respect, friendship, and tenderness, or otherwise?

A: About a fortnight before my son's death I heard –

At this point Anna Maria was stopped by Justice Buller.

COURT: Have you heard your son say anything about Mr Donellan's behaviour when he gave you the relation mentioned by Mr Newnham [i.e. the instances of Donellan resolving quarrels]?

A: They used to have words, to be angry with each other; they did not in general live in friendship and intimacy.

Newnham regained the questioning.

Q: I presume that they had the sort of words that occasionally happen in all families, more or less?

A: I paid no great attention to it.

Buller interrupted again. He asked about the conversation in
the parlour after Theodosius's death about the washing of the bottles, but the questioning ended on Donellan's mood.

COURT: Was that spoken in a passion or resentment, or how?

A: Rather in a way of resentment.

The above exchange, coming as it did right at the end of Anna Maria's testimony, was a case of outright manipulation. Prosecuting counsel, evidently to Buller's disapproval, mentioned ‘respect, friendship and tenderness'; as Anna Maria answered, Buller stopped her, framing his question in a way that encouraged her to say that Theodosius resented Donellan's interference. Newnham tried to repair the damage – ‘the sort of words that occasionally happen in all families …?'. But directly after Anna Maria's noncommittal reply, Buller interrupted again.

And, with his prompting, Anna Maria's evidence ended with one word summing up Donellan's behaviour: resentment.

But there was one last issue not touched upon in court.

It was an accusation made by Donellan, and, as such, was purely Donellan's word against Anna Maria's. In his
Defence
, Donellan described the morning that Theodosius died and Anna Maria's behaviour just minutes – and hours – later:

In about an hour after Sir Theodosius died, Lady Boughton sent for different people from Rugby, to give them directions about his funeral; and before ten o'clock that morning, being Wednesday the 30th of August last, they all of them attended and received their instructions from Lady Boughton while she was at breakfast.

This is quite astonishing, if true. Less than two hours after her son has died, Anna Maria was, supposedly, eating breakfast and instructing the funeral directors; an unenviable task which anyone closely related to the deceased would have found harrowing enough even the next day. The funeral directors were there by ten o'clock; Rugby, as noted, was about four miles away. The journey
would not have been as excruciatingly urgent as it had been when William Frost rode out to fetch Powell, and therefore would have taken longer. To ride four miles at an orderly pace might have taken half an hour – with the return journey, an hour; therefore Anna Maria's instructions were sent within an hour of Theodosius dying.

Her son died; she argued with her son-in-law; she sent servants for the funeral directors (the names of which presumably took some research and discussion, unless she had a pre-prepared list to hand); and she sat down to breakfast. All within two hours. Also ‘some time that morning' she disputed the issue of the bottles again with Donellan in front of Theodosia.