LITTELL'S LIVING AGE.-No. 666.-28 FEBRUARY, 1857

it to Saint-Croix, who had made himself re(1.) The great Oyer of Poisoning; the markable in Paris by his amour with the Trial of the Earl of Somerset for the Marquise de Brinvilliers, a married woman. Poisoning of Sir Thomas Overbury After a year's imprisonment, Saint-Croix and in the Tower of London, and various Exili were both set at liberty. therewith, from Contemporary MSS. By Andrew having perfected himself in this black art, Amos, Esq. London: Bentley. 1846. separated from Exili, and initiated the Mar(2.) A complete Collection of the State quise into its mysteries. This abandoned

Trials and Proceedings for High woman proved an apt scholar, and, under the Treason, and other Crimes and Mis- semblance of charity and the garb of a nun, demeanors. Fourth Edition. By F. Hargrave, Esq. London: 1776. (3.) The Queen vs. Palmer. Verbatim Report of the Trial of William Palmer. London: J. Allen; and Cockshaw and Yates. 1856.

to death. The frequency of the crime in | have not yet been able to penetrate. This France led to the institution of a court whose office it was to detect and punish crimes of this nature but the proceedings of this court became so inquisitorial, that after being in activity about a year it was finally closed.

In all the cases above mentioned, poisoning was carried on systematically; in all of them the actors were principally women; in all but the case of Brinvilliers the infernal trade was carried on from sordid motives, without any personal animosity towards the numerous victims, or even without personal knowledge of them. They supplied poisons with the same indifference as a chemist would make up a prescription for an unknown person. There is yet another point which we cannot contemplate without surprise, namely, the number of persons that, in the cases of Tofana, Spara, Le Vigoureux, and Le Voisin, must have been cognizant of their crimes, and the secresy which was observed respecting them.

crime, which, in some points of view, partakes of a political aspect, while in others it appears to originate in the private motives and malice of individuals of exalted station, was the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury in the Tower of London, by poison. "In the annals of crime," says Lord Campbell," there is not a murder more atrocious for premeditation, treachery, ingratitude, and remorselessness, than the poisoning of Sir Thomas Overbury by the Somersets." The ramifications of the crime, coupled with its manifest connection with state secrets, that have never yet been revealed, are so intricate the parties implicated so numerous, and some of them so exalted in station, that the crime against the individual acquires the character of a plot or conspiracy, which derives additional interest from the mystery in which it is still involved.

It is proposed to make the narrative of this crime, and the trials of the reputed There is a fashion in crime, as in more agents, the subject of this article; but preharmless affairs. One murder by the knife vious to entering on the details, we must is sure to be followed by several: if a man make a few preliminary observations, sugbeat his wife to death, or shoot at his sover-gested by a comparison of the proceedings in eign, others follow his example; one crime, criminal cases at the beginning of the sevenlike one wedding, is the precursor of many. teenth and the middle of the nineteenth cenAt present, poisoning seems to be the favorite tury. mode of disposing of obnoxious individuals. Amid the excitement occasioned by the discovery of Palmer's crimes, Dove availed himself of the information made public regarding strychnine, to poison his wife with this powerful drug. And while his trial was still pending, we heard of antimony sold in doses under the expressive name of "quietness," to the laboring women of Bolton, who use it as a quietus for drunken husbands! Has there been a Tofana, a Le Vigoureux, or Le Voisin among the women of Bolton, stimulating them to the commission of these foul acts? It used to be our boast that poisoning was an un-English crime; alas! it can be said so no longer!

Those who have watched with eager interest the progress of Palmer's trial, just concluded, who have considered the ability of his judges, the impartial and public character of the trial, the extensive, yet conflicting, medical evidence, the rigid cross-examination of the witnesses in the presence of the accused, and the able defence of the prisoner's counsel, will read with some surprise the record in the State trials of the criminal proceedings authorized by the English law in the time of James I.

We find, it is true, no lack of judges and prosecutors; but there appears to be a sad want of every thing which constitutes an impartial trial. The following is an outline of Although the criminal annals of England the criminal proceedings in those times. in former times have produced nothing so Prisoners and witnesses were examined sepaatrocious as the poisoning systems of Italy rately and privately, with the fear of the and France, yet there is one dark spot in our torture before their eyes, and their depositions history, one mysterious crime in which there taken by the same judges who afterwards were many actors-two of them women- tried the cause. On the day of the trial, and but one ostensible victim, around which after the opening of the case, the depositions, still hangs a veil of obscurity, which the re- or garbled passages only which told against searches of the historian and the archeologist the prisoner, were read in court, and if ad

66

were the terrors held out by the Star-Chamber for the punishment of him who dared to publish unauthorized versions of State trials. Mr. Amos and Mr. Jardine adduce many instances of discordance between the original examinations in the State Paper Office and the official account in the State Trials. It is but fair to remark that many of these may be attributed to the imperfect system of reporting, which then depended greatly upon the recollection of the parties.

ditional witnesses were examined, their ex- and to the extent, which they, with someaminations, when in favor of the accused, times short-sighted policy, deemed best calcuwere perpetually interrupted by a running lated to promote the interests of those in commentary of the Attorney-General, and power. thus, the chain of the evidence being broken, The pillory, branding on the cheeks with the jury had more difficulty in distinguishing a hot iron, loss of ears, and heavy fines, and retaining the real facts of the case. The documents appertaining to the trials for the murder of Overbury, discovered by Mr. Amos in the State Paper Office, make some curious disclosures relative to the manner in which the evidence was cooked," in order to meet the views of the prosecutors. Many of the documents are in the writing of Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice; every paragraph is marked in the margin with the letters of the alphabet; at the head of the document are some of the same letters, as, for instance, B. C. F.; these denote that the paragraphs marked B. C. F., are to be read on the trial, and these only. Many passages are also interlined over erasures, and others marked to be omitted. The case for the prosecution being closed, the prisoner was asked whether he wished to make any observations, and when he had concluded his defence, or declined to make any, the verdict of the jury was required; and according to this the prisoner was acquitted, or the judge pronounced sentence against him. If the judge was dissatisfied with the verdict, the jurymen were fined. The prisoner was not allowed counsel to defend him, neither were any witnesses permitted to be examined in his favor. In opposition to the principle of the English law, which presumes a man to be innocent until he is found guilty, the guilt was too frequently assumed by the judge, who browbeat and vituperated the prisoner before he was convicted.

But it is not enough to contrast the trials; we should also contrast the reports of those trials. While almost every newspaper has now its own reporter, and the fidelity of their report is secured by the check which is indirectly exercised upon each individual reporter by his fellow-laborers; in the time of James I., and long subsequently, there was but one formal public report of important trials, namely, that contained in the "State Trials." These reports are known to have been entirely under the control of Government, which did not scruple to garble, suppress, or interpolate such portions of the evidence and dying confessions in the manner,

Before entering upon the following narrative, we must acknowledge-and do so with pleasure-the assistance we have derived from Mr. Amos' learned and valuable work relating to the Overbury murder. This publication comprises not only the printed accounts of this mysterious crime, but many hitherto unedited documents discovered by the researches of Mr. Amos in the State Paper Office and British Museum. The comments and arguments, which display all the author's professional acuteness and ingenuity, are not the least interesting part of the work, and are highly deserving of an attentive perusal.

Robert Carr, afterwards created Lord Rochester, and subsequently Earl of Somerset, who preceded George Villiers in the affections of James I., was introduced accidentally to the notice of the King about the year 1608 or 1609. He was then in his eighteenth or nineteenth year. The circumstances attending his introduction were sufficiently romantic to make an impression upon the susceptible heart of the King. While officiating at a tournament as the esquire of a Scotch nobleman, Carr was thrown from his horse, and broke his leg, almost at the feet of James. The compassion which the good-natured monarch felt for his accident warmed into a more genial sentiment as he gazed on the handsome countenance and well-developed form of the young Scotchman. He ordered Carr to be taken to the palace, and visited him frequently. Every day the King became more attached to him. At last, Carr's presence became indispensable to the King's happiness; and the penniless Scotch youth, in spite of his defective education, which the

King was not slow to discover, rose rapidly to | project; he was thought also lately to govern rank, honors, and wealth. Although James Somerset, insomuch that in his own letters he himself condescended to give to his favorite vaunted that from him proceeded Somerset's lessons in the Latin grammar, Carr proved fortune, credit, and understanding.” * but a dull scholar; and whenever his pursuits The reigning beauty of the Court at this or employments required literary exertion, he time was Frances Howard, daughter of the was glad to avail himself of the competent intriguing Countess of Suffolk, who, when assistance of his friend Sir Thomas Overbury. only thirteen years of age, had been beThe friendship between Carr and Overbury trothed to the young Earl of Essex,† her subsisted for many years, and their mutual senior by two years only. The young brideconfidence was such that Overbury was ad-groom was sent abroad after the ceremony mitted by Carr to the most important secrets for four years. On his return he had the of the King; he became possessed of the key to the ciphers in which the most confidential communications were written; he opened, read, and took copies of all private dispatches belonging to the King; and was employed by Carr to write his love-letters for him. Overbury's assistance was probably of the greatest service to Carr, who, besides his want of education, had the additional defect of speaking broad Scotch.

mortification to find that his beautiful bride received him with marked coldness. Frances Howard, although so young, was a woman of strong and unbridled passions; and her residence under the same roof as her mother was not calculated to give her any accurate notions of moral duties and obligations. While still a girl in years, she had become notorious for her irregular and vicious conduct, and prompted, perhaps, by ambition, as well as There was great diversity of temper and by inclination, she conceived a criminal pasdisposition in the two friends. Carr, al- sion for the handsome favorite of the King. though dull and somewhat obtuse in intellect, Carr was at first insensible to her charms. was naturally gentle and noble in his disposi- In order to secure his affection, the Countess tion; so that if he had not been led astray employed one Mrs. Turner, her confidante, & by others he might, in the opinion of his con- woman of great beauty but dissolute manners, temporaries, have been a good man. Over- to procure love philtres and charms from a bury, on the contrary, was a man of talent Dr. Forman. Her wishes were at last crowned and energy; he had cultivated literature suc- with success; Carr was taken in her toils. cessfully, as some of his prose compositions, Overbury was the writer of the letters sent still extant, testify. His worst enemies do by Carr to the Countess of Essex. The not charge him with any vice, or even with guilty pair resolved upon marriage; but for leading an irregular life. Sir Francis Bacon, this it was necessary that the Countess should with the duplicity which forms so odious a obtain a divorce from her husband. part in his conduct as regards the case of bury was strongly opposed to this scheme. Overbury, has given two characters of him. He expressed his disapprobation of it with In his speech before the Star-Chamber on the warmth, and even violence. A coolness betrials of Lumsden, Wentworth, and Hollis, tween Carr and Overbury was the consequence. where he wished to throw the odium of the The coolness increased to positive animosity, murder upon Carr (then Earl of Somerset,) and on the part of the Countess to hatred, he says: "The greatest fault that I ever against Overbury. A plan was contrived to heard of him was that he made his friend his effect his ruin. The Countess sent for Sir idol."* When, on the contrary, he wished David Wood, who had been heard to threaten to furnish the King with an excuse for saving to bastinado Sir Thomas Overbury for some Somerset, he thus writes to James: "Over-offensive words he had addressed to him. bury was a man that always carried himself She urged him to revenge his wrongs, adding insolently both towards the Queen and towards the late Prince; he was a man that carried Somerset on in courses separate and opposite to the Privy Council; he was a man of a nature fit to be an incendiary of a state; bitterness and wildness of speech and

*State Trials, 334.

Over

that she also had been grievously injured by Overbury. She concluded by offering him

*Memorial touching the course to be had in my Lord of Somerset's Arraignment, addressed to the King by Sir Francis Bacon.-See Bacon's Works.

† He was the son of Robert Devereux, first Earl of Essex, who was beheaded in the reign of Elizabeth. The second earl afterwards became the leader of the Parliamentary army.

£1000, and protection from his enemies, if |covery of the crime, prevented his being he would murder Overbury as he returned brought to trial. from Sir Charles Wilmot's late at night. Sir David declined, telling her, bluntly, "He would be loath to go to Tyburn upon a woman's word." In the mean time, Carr and his friends had formed a plot, which was more successful, for removing Overbury. By the representation of Carr, the King was persuaded to nominate Overbury as ambassador to Russia. Sir Thomas was at first willing to accept the office, but, on the artful recommendation of Carr, he was induced to decline it. The King, who is described as "bearing a rooted hatred to Overbury," irritated at his refusal, and, perhaps, at some stinging sarcasms which he is said to have vented on the Court, committed him, as Carr had foreseen, a close prisoner to the Tower for contempt. This occurred on the 23d of April, 1613.

But To resume the narrative. In order to carry out the nefarious designs against Overbury, it was not enough to appoint a new Lieutenant of the Tower, who was in the interest of the enemies of the prisoner; the sub-keeper was also changed, and his place was supplied by one Richard Weston-a creature of the Countess' and formerly servant to Dr. Turner, the husband of the Countess' confidante.

*

On the morning of the 9th of May, Weston received a message from Mrs. Turner, desiring him to come immediately to Whitehall. There he saw the Countess, who told him that "a water" would be sent to him, which he was to give to his prisoner. At the same time she significantly told him not to drink of it himself. That same evening Weston's son William, an apprentice to the Countess' haberdasher, brought him a curiShortly after Overbury became an inmate ous little phial, only two inches long, filled of the Tower, Sir William Wade, the Lieu- with a liquor of a bluish color when held in tenant, was removed, and Sir Gervas Hel- the hand, but of a sickly greenish yellow wysse was appointed in his stead, through when held up to the light. He was then just the instrumentality of the Earl of Northamp-going to give Sir Thomas his supper. On ton, Carr, and Sir Thomas Monson. Sir his way he met Sir Gervas, of whom he Gervas, according to the venal spirit of the asked, "Whether he should now give him times, paid £1400 for his place. He was that he had or no?" The Lieutenant, neither reputed to be one of the "unco' godly, the affecting ignorance nor surprise, induced rigidly righteous," who assumed the appear-Weston to explain himself; then, having ance of wisdom and honesty, if he did not obtained the information he desired, he “ terreally deserve the appellation which he at-rified Weston with God's eternal judgment, tained of "the wise Sir Gervas Helwysse." and did so strike him, as with his hands As the Earl of Northampton will be fre- holden up he blessed the time that ever he quently mentioned in this article, it may be did know him,' with other words to that as well to give a slight sketch of this noble-effect." Sir Gervas, touched with Weston's remorse, held out his hand to him, spoke to him kindly-even drank to him; but, strange to say, still left him to take charge of Overbury. The next day Weston broke the little flask to pieces, and threw away the deadly liquor which it contained.

man.

The Earl of Northampton, the second son of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, was the uncle of the Countess. He was a man of talent and learning. It was said of him, that "he was the wisest among the noble, and the noblest among the wise." Honors and riches were showered upon him under King James. As to his character, opinions are divided there is, however, reason to believe that he connived at the intimacy of Carr (then Lord Rochester) with the Countess, and that he was deeply implicated in the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury. Northampton's death in 1614, previous to the dis

In the State Trials this name is written Sir Jervas Elves. We have adopted the form used by the Lieutenant himself.

6

To the surprise of the Countess the victim still lived. She sent for Weston, and questioned him. He maintained that he had given the poison. She put into his hand £20, and promised him more when Overbury should be dead. As soon as he was gone she set about devising new schemes.

Soon after, the Countess sent a servant to the Tower with a present to Overbury of

* See Helwysse's Letter to the King, in the State Paper Office, published by Mr. Amos, Trial, fc., p. 186.