THE feeling of interest excited by the Trial was prodigiouslyincreased on the fourth day. The witnesses for the defense werenow to be heard, and first and foremost among them appeared theprisoner's mother. She looked at her son as she lifted her veilto take the oath. He burst into tears. At that moment thesympathy felt for the mother was generally extended to theunhappy son.

Examined by the Dean of Faculty, Mrs. Macallan the elder gave heranswers with remarkable dignity and self-control.

Questioned as to certain private conversations which had passedbetween her late daughter-in-law and herself, she declared thatMrs. Eustace Macallan was morbidly sensitive on the subject ofher personal appearance. She was devotedly attached to herhusband; the great anxiety of her life was to make herself asattractive to him as possible. The imperfections in her personalappearance--and especially in her complexion--were subjects toher of the bitterest regret. The witness had heard her say, overand over again (referring to her complexion), that there was norisk she would not run, and no pain she would not suffer, toimprove it. "Men" (she had said) "are all caught by outwardappearances: my husband might love me better if I had a bettercolor."

Being asked next if the passages from her son's Diary were to bedepended on as evidence--that is to say, if they fairlyrepresented the peculiarities in his character, and his truesentiments toward his wife--Mrs. Macallan denied it in theplainest and strongest terms.

"The extracts from my son's Diary are a libel on his character,"she said. "And not the less a libel because they happen to bewritten by himself. Speaking from a mother's experience of him, Iknow that he must have written the passages produced in momentsof uncontrollable depression and despair. No just person judgeshastily of a man by the rash words which may escape him in hismoody and miserable moments. Is my son to be so judged because hehappens to have written _his_ rash words, instead of speakingthem? His pen has been his most deadly enemy, in this case--ithas presented him at his very worst. He was not happy in hismarriage--I admit that. But I say at the same time that he wasinvariably considerate toward his wife. I was implicitly trustedby both of them; I saw them in their most private moments. Ideclare--in the face of what she appears to have written to herfriends and correspondents--that my son never gave his wife anyjust cause to assert that he treated her with cruelty orneglect."

The words, firmly and clearly spoken, produced a strongimpression. The Lord Advocate--evidently perceiving that anyattempt to weaken that impression would not be likely tosucceed--confined himself, in cross-examination, to twosignificant questions.

"In speaking to you of the defects in her complexion," he said,"did your daughter-in-law refer in any way to the use of arsenicas a remedy?"

The answer to this was, "No."

The Lord Advocate proceeded:

"Did you yourself ever recommend arsenic, or mention it casually,in the course of the private conversations which you havedescribed?"

The answer to this was, "Never."

The Lord Advocate resumed his seat. Mrs. Macallan the elderwithdrew.

An interest of a new kind was excited by the appearance of thenext witness. This was no less a person than Mrs. Beauly herself.The Report describes her as a remarkably attractive person;modest and lady-like in her manner, and, to all appearance,feeling sensitively the public position in which she was placed.

The first portion of her evidence was almost a recapitulation ofthe evidence given by the prisoner's mother--with thisdifference, that Mrs. Beauly had been actually questioned by thedeceased lady on the subject of cosmetic applications to thecomplexion. Mrs. Eustace Macallan had complimented her on thebeauty of her complexion, and had asked what artificial means sheused to keep it in such good order. Using no artificial means,and knowing nothing whatever of cosmetics, Mrs. Beauly hadresented the question, and a temporary coolness between the twoladies had been the result.

Interrogated as to her relations with the prisoner, Mrs. Beaulyindignantly denied that she or Mr. Macallan had ever given thedeceased lady the slightest cause for jealousy. It was impossiblefor Mrs. Beauly to leave Scotland, after visiting at the housesof her cousin's neighbors, without also visiting at her cousin'shouse. To take any other course would have been an act ofdownright rudeness, and would have excited remark. She did notdeny that Mr. Macallan had admired her in the days when they wereboth single people. But there was no further expression of thatfeeling when she had married another man, and when he had marriedanother woman. From that time their intercourse was the innocentintercourse of a brother and sister. Mr. Macallan was agentleman: he knew what was due to his wife and to Mrs.Beauly--she would not have entered the house if experience hadnot satisfied her of that. As for the evidence of theunder-gardener, it was little better than pure invention. Thegreater part of the conversation which he had described himselfas overhearing had never taken place. The little that was reallysaid (as the man reported it) was said jestingly; and she hadchecked it immediately--as the witness had himself confessed. Forthe rest, Mr. Macallan's behavior toward his wife was invariablykind and considerate. He was constantly devising means toalleviate her sufferings from the rheumatic affection whichconfined her to her bed; he had spoken of her, not once but manytimes, in terms of the sincerest sympathy. When she ordered herhusband and witness to leave the room, on the day of her death,Mr. Macallan said to witness afterward, "We must bear with herjealousy, poor soul: we know that we don't deserve it." In thatpatient manner he submitted to her infirmities of temper fromfirst to last.

The main interest in the cross-examination of Mrs. Beaulycentered in a question which was put at the end. After remindingher that she had given her name, on being sworn, as "HelenaBeauly," the Lord Advocate said:

"A letter addressed to the prisoner, and signed 'Helena,' hasbeen read in Court. Look at it, if you please. Are you the writerof that letter?"

Before the witness could reply the Dean of Faculty protestedagainst the question. The Judges allowed the protest, and refusedto permit the question to be put. Mrs. Beauly thereupon withdrew.She had betrayed a very perceptible agitation on hearing theletter referred to, and on having it placed in her hands. Thisexhibition of feeling was variously interpreted among theaudience. Upon the whole, however, Mrs. Beauly's evidence wasconsidered to have aided the impression which the mother'sevidence had produced in the prisoner's favor.

The next witnesses--both ladies, and both school friends of Mrs.Eustace Macallan--created a new feeling of interest in Court.They supplied the missing link in the evidence for the defense.

The first of the ladies declared that she had mentioned arsenicas a means of improving the complexion in conversation with Mrs.Eustace Macallan. She had never used it herself, but she had readof the practice of eating arsenic among the Styrian peasantry forthe purpose of clearing the color, and of producing a generalappearance of plumpness and good health. She positively sworethat she had related this result of her reading to the deceasedlady exactly as she now related it in Court.

The second witness, present at the conversation alreadymentioned, corroborated the first witness in every particular;and added that she had procured the book relating to thearsenic-eating practices of the Styrian peasantry, and theirresults, at Mrs. Eustace Macallan's own request. This book shehad herself dispatched by post to Mrs. Eustace Macallan atGleninch.

There was but one assailable p oint in this otherwise conclusiveevidence. The cross-examination discovered it.

Both the ladies were asked, in turn, if Mrs. Eustace Macallan hadexpressed to them, directly or indirectly, any intention ofobtaining arsenic, with a view to the improvement of hercomplexion. In each case the answer to that all-importantquestion was, No. Mrs. Eustace Macallan had heard of the remedy,and had received the book. But of her own intentions in thefuture she had not said one word. She had begged both the ladiesto consider the conversation as strictly private--and there ithad ended.

It required no lawyer's eye to discern the fatal defect which wasnow revealed in the evidence for the defense. Every intelligentperson present could see that the prisoner's chance of anhonorable acquittal depended on tracing the poison to thepossession of his wife--or at least on proving her expressedintention to obtain it. In either of these cases the prisoner'sDeclaration of his innocence would claim the support oftestimony, which, however indirect it might be, no honest andintelligent men would be likely to resist. Was that testimonyforthcoming? Was the counsel for the defense not at the end ofhis resources yet?

The crowded audience waited in breathless expectation for theappearance of the next witness. A whisper went round amongcertain well-instructed persons that the Court was now to see andhear the prisoner's old friend--already often referred to in thecourse of the Trial as "Mr. Dexter."

After a brief interval of delay there was a sudden commotionamong the audience, accompanied by suppressed exclamations ofcuriosity and surprise. At the same moment the crier summoned thenew witness by the extraordinary name of

"MISERRIMUS DEXTER"