LET me confess another weakness, on my part, before I begin theStory of the Trial. I cannot prevail upon myself to copy, for thesecond time, the horrible title-page which holds up to publicignominy my husband's name. I have copied it once in my tenthchapter. Let once be enough.

Turning to the second page of the Trial, I found a Note, assuringthe reader of the absolute correctness of the Report of theProceedings. The compiler described himself as having enjoyedcertain special privileges. Thus, the presiding Judge had himselfrevised his charge to the jury. And, again, the chief lawyers forthe prosecution and the defense, following the Judge's example,had revised their speeches for and against the prisoner. Lastly,particular care had been taken to secure a literally correctreport of the evidence given by the various witnesses. It wassome relief to me to discover this Note, and to be satisfied atthe outset that the Story of the Trial was, in every particular,fully and truly given.

The next page interested me more nearly still. It enumerated theactors in the Judicial Drama--the men who held in their hands myhusband's honor and my husband's life. Here is the List:

THE LORD JUSTICE CLERK,}LORD DRUMFENNICK, }Judges on the Bench.LORD NOBLEKIRK, }

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mintlaw), } DONALD DREW, Esquire(Advocate-Depute).} Counsel for the Crown.

MR. JAMES ARLISS, W. S., Agent for the Crown.

THE DEAN OF FACULTY (Farmichael), } Counsel for the PanelALEXANDER CROCKET, Esquire (Advocate),} (otherwise the Prisoner)

MR. THORNIEBANK, W. S.,}MR. PLAYMORE, W. S., } Agents for the Panel.

The Indictment against the prisoner then followed. I shall notcopy the uncouth language, full of needless repetitions (and, ifI know anything of the subject, not guiltless of bad grammar aswell), in which my innocent husband was solemnly and falselyaccused of poisoning his first wife. The less there is of thatfalse and hateful Indictment on this page, the better and truerthe page will look, to _my_ eyes.

To be brief, then, Eustace Macallan was "indicted and accused, atthe instance of David Mintlaw, Esquire, Her Majesty's Advocate,for Her Majesty's interest," of the Murder of his Wife by poison,at his residence called Gleninch, in the county of Mid-Lothian.The poison was alleged to have been wickedly and feloniouslygiven by the prisoner to his wife Sara, on two occasions, in theform of arsenic, administered in tea, medicine, "or other articleor articles of food or drink, to the prosecutor unknown." It wasfurther declared that the prisoner's wife had died of the poisonthus administered b y her husband, on one or other, or both, ofthe stated occasions; and that she was thus murdered by herhusband. The next paragraph asserted that the said EustaceMacallan, taken before John Daviot, Esquire, advocate,Sheriff-Substitute of Mid-Lothian, did in his presence atEdinburgh (on a given date, viz., the 29th of October), subscribea Declaration stating his innocence of the alleged crime: thisDeclaration being reserved in the Indictment--together withcertain documents, papers and articles, enumerated in anInventory--to be used in evidence against the prisoner. TheIndictment concluded by declaring that, in the event of theoffense charged against the prisoner being found proven by theVerdict, he, the said Eustace Macallan, "ought to be punishedwith the pains of the law, to deter others from committing likecrimes in all time coming."

So much for the Indictment! I have done with it--and I amrejoiced to be done with it.

An Inventory of papers, documents, and articles followed at greatlength on the next three pages. This, in its turn, was succeededby the list of the witnesses, and by the names of the jurors(fifteen in number) balloted for to try the case. And then, atlast, the Report of the Trial began. It resolved itself, to mymind, into three great Questions. As it appeared to me at thetime, so let me present it here.