Cross-examined. Those were the only times I saw him – when he said “If you wish to make an exhibition of the coat I decline to tell you,” I understood him to mean an exhibition before the public – I don’t think he meant Madame Tussaud’s, or anything of that kind – perhaps it was an odd phrase to use, though at the time it did not strike me as particularly odd.
John Muter. I am a director of the South London School of Chemistry and Pharmacy in the Kennington Road. I have analysed the contents of the bottles found in the prisoner’s bedroom. They both contained a colourless liquid which I am satisfied was a solution of hydrocyanic acid, but it was not up to the standard of Scheele’s strength, which should contain five per cent of acid. No trace of the acid could be discovered, though that could be accounted for by the volatile nature of the liquid. I have also analysed the stains on the prisoner’s clothes. I found some skin as well as blood on a pistol – I have also examined a sponge with grey hairs sticking to it – they were long hairs. (Results of analysis read out as follows.)
Report on the stains on certain articles contained in six parcels received from Inspector Davis in the presence of Dr Rugg on the 20th October.
No.1 parcel contained a black coat, waistcoat and trousers. The coat exhibited 132 distinct stains on the outside, and 16 on the inside, the principal stains being on the left arm. The waistcoat had stains on the outside, chiefly near the buttons and buttonholes, ranging from two inches in diameter downwards. The trousers exhibited 95 stains, chiefly on the front of the left leg. There was one small stain at the bottom of the right hand pocket. A number of these stains were examined chemically and microscopically, and were found to have been caused by blood.
No.2 parcel contained a shirt and a pair of drawers. The wristbands of the shirt had been cut off, and the sleeves had the appearance of having been dipped in water. The drawers exhibited four stains, darker in colour than those on the shirt.
No.3 parcel contained a pair of Wellington boots, the soles of which presented the appearance of having been trodden in blood, especially near the toes.
No.4 parcel contained a sponge considerably stained, and having a quantity of hairs adhering to it. Several of them proved to be human hairs, and the remainder were short fragments of wool of various colours, similar to those which would be left on a sponge after rubbing a carpet or other coarse woollen fabric. The sponge was proved to be saturated with blood.
No.5 parcel contained an old, brass-barrelled, flint-lock horse-pistol, which was found to have a clot consisting of human blood near the left hand trigger guard. Several small fragments of skin were embedded in the brass ornamentation on the left hand side of the barrel.
No.6 was an envelope containing a portion of morocco leather which was almost entirely covered with human blood.
Charles Turner. I am a trunk and brush manufacturer in the Clapham Road. On Monday the 9th of October at half past twelve o’clock, the prisoner came into my shop and asked to look at some trunks – I showed him several but he did not seem to think them strong enough – what he wanted, he said, was more of a packing case. I suggested we should make him one. He replied he wanted one 2ft 9in long and 2ft 3in wide, and 1ft 9in deep. He did not really decide then and there whether he would have one made or not. I believe he thought he might get one somewhere else. I told him if he let me know by two o’clock it should be ready the next day about the same time. He came back at two o’clock as I had asked, and said he had made up his mind to have one made – I told him it would be a very large case, and asked him for what purpose it was intended. He said he wanted to pack some papers in it. The case was made and on the following day the prisoner called at the shop about two o’clock and said, “Don’t send that case round to my house, but I will pay for it.” He did so; he gave me a £10 note and I gave him the change. I remarked that I supposed I was not to send it round until I heard from him. The prisoner said something which I didn’t understand or fully hear as he was leaving the shop – I noticed a difference in his manner on the Tuesday – he seemed very depressed. The cost of the box came to £1. 5s. and yet he scarcely looked at his change.
MR WATSON’S LATINITY
To the Editor of The Times
Sir, It appears to me that the Latin phrase found among Mr Watson’s papers has been so construed by Mr Denman as to do him an injustice. ‘Saepe olim amanti nocuit semper amare.’ Mr Denman construes it allowing that it must be bad Latin if it means what he thinks, ‘To one who has so often loved it has always been harmful to love,’ giving, to say the least, an unamiable turn to the poor man’s reflections upon his life, and one by no means supported by the evidence. I would ask better scholars than myself whether it is not perfectly good Latin for ‘To one who has acquired the habit of loving it has often been an injury not to cease to love.’
Yours, G.Y., Lincoln’s Inn
Sir, Mr Watson’s Latin seems to me very indifferent. But the most obvious construction ought to be the following: ‘Saepe nocuit olim amanti semper amare’ – ‘It was often injurious or fatal to a man who once loved to go on forever loving’, i.e. to pretend to love on, to insist on a love which no longer exists. This, of course, refers to Mr Watson’s case, all whose calamities, by his own account, arose from his continuing to live with a wife whom he once loved, but life with whom had now become insupportable.
It must be observed that in the two versions mentioned by ‘G.Y.’, no account is taken of the ‘olim’, which is the key-stone of the sentence
I have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant
G., Lincoln’s Inn
Sir, It is amusing to see how much mystery can be made out of nothing. If a fifth form schoolboy at Eton (which I was once myself) were asked to translate ‘Saepe olim amanti nocuit semper amare’, he would go it thus, and he would be right: ‘Saepe’ (often) ‘olim’ (heretofore) ‘semper amare’, here used as a substantive, (constant love) ‘nocuit’ (has been injurious) ‘amanti’ (to the lover). This, no doubt, is bald enough: but dress it up a little, and use Shakespeare’s formula slightly changed:
Ah, me for all that ever I could learn,
Could ever read in tale or history,
True love hath often been the lover’s bane.
In this garb, I doubt not, both Mr Denman and ‘G.Y.’ will recognise their own extraordinary shortcomings and a solution of all their difficulties, which they will pardon me for thinking are rather to be attributed to their acquaintance with bad Latin than good.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Winchilsea.
P.S.: What would Mr Watson himself say of two such versions as these?
To one who has often loved it has always been harmful to love. Denman.
and
To one who has acquired the habit of loving, it has often been an injury not to cease to love. G.Y.
Why, if he were an Eton Master, he would put them both ‘in the bill.’
Sir, Whatever poor Mr Watson may have to answer for, he has not yet been convicted of writing bad Latin. Your ingenious correspondents from Lincoln’s Inn seem, however, to impute this to him. The word ‘olim’, as every scholar knows, means ‘in the far-off line’, which may be either past or future, but the phrase ‘olim amanti’ involves a contradiction in terms. The moment you attach an adverb to ‘amanti’ you restore to it its verbal or participial force – ‘one who loves in the present’ – and deprive it of its abstract meaning, ‘amatori’, or lover.
Lord Winchilsea’s construction is undoubtedly the right one. The Latin sentence, which I need not here repeat, simply means: ‘Often ere now has the lover suffered from the constancy of his love.’ This is good sense, applies to Mr Watson’s case, and no one can fairly cavil at Mr Watson’s rendering of it.
These ‘nugae’ may seem out of place when a man is on trial for his life, but the Law-Latinists must not be allowed to have the last word.
Yours, M.H.C..
Sir, It is hardly fair of your correspondents to assume that t
he line ‘saepe olim amanti nocuit semper amare’ must be bad Latin because they cannot interpret it satisfactorily. The Latin is good Latin, and the meaning of the words can be but one, however the application may differ. ‘Saepe olim’ go together, and like πολλάκις ῆδη, πάλαι in Greek, serve to state the result of experience in the form of a proverb. The apparent redundancy of ‘saepe olim’ is defended by such expressions as ‘saepe ante’, Sallust, Jugurtha 107,4, – ‘saepe ante paucis strenuis advorsum multitudinem bene pugnantium’. The meaning may be explained by the Greek:
‘Often in the experience of men constant love has proved the lover’s bane.’
I am, your humble servant, Hertford Scholar.
Magdalen College, Oxford.
Sir, Your learned commentators assume too readily that the words in question were meant by the reverend gentleman Mr Watson to apply to himself. May I venture to suggest that they may have been intended rather as an epigraph to the tale ‘Hercules’ which he had just completed?
Your readers will remember that the mad Hercules – the Hercules furens of Euripides’ play – was successful in all his labours but less fortunate in his dealings with the fair sex. After being required to satisfy the 50 daughters of Thespius in one night, he was forced into employment for sexual purposes by Queen Omphale of Lydia. He was brought down finally by his wife Deianira, who gave him the fatal shirt of Nessus to wear in the fond hope that it would be the means of restoring his love.
We may wonder too about the legibility of Mr Watson’s handwriting in this time of stress. Did he perhaps write not ‘amare’ (to love) but ‘amari’ (to be loved) – not ‘amanti’ (lover) but ‘amenti’ (madman)? If so, the adage would fit both equally – ‘Fortunate in all things except as pertains to the female sex. Often has it harmed a lover (or a madman?) to be pursued by love.’
Yours etc, CH, Camden Town
This correspondence is now closed – Ed.
Day Two Jan.11th 1872.
Ann Tulley. I am now housekeeper to Messrs Johnson and Son, of Cursitor Street, Holborn. My husband and I lived at the Grammar School, Stockwell, with the prisoner and his wife, he as drilling master, and I as housekeeper – my husband says we lived there five years. I have been in the habit, from time to time, of paying visits to Mr and Mrs Watson – I went there on Sunday, 8th October – I rang the doorbell – no one answered it, but I heard a traffic about inside; I thought it was Mrs Watson, and that the servant was busy – I heard a sound of tramping about, and after a bit Mrs Watson’s voice – I could not tell what she said just then – I rang the bell a second time, and then heard Mrs Watson say “There is somebody at the door,” she said that three times continuously – no one came, and I rang a third time. Mr Watson then opened the door, and said, “Oh, it is only Mrs Tulley” – he let me in, and went into the dining-room and told Mrs Watson, in a slow tone, “Mrs Tulley.” Mrs Watson came out to me, and said “How do you do, Mrs Tulley?” I said “Quite well, thank you, Ma’am,” and she asked me into the drawing-room, and when I got inside, Mr Watson stood in the hall, at the drawing-room door, for a moment or so – after a bit he came into the drawing-room. Mrs Watson said “The servant is out, Mrs Tulley” – Mr Watson said “Only every other Sunday,” and Mrs Watson repeated “Only every other Sunday” – she said “I am so frightened, Mrs Tulley.” “Are you, Ma’am,” I said – she said “I am afraid of somebody getting over the back.” “What, over the garden wall?” I said – she said “Yes.” Mr Watson was at the door at that time – he came into the room, and sat on the same side of the drawing-room as I was, opposite Mrs Watson, and he asked me how my husband was, and how we were getting on. I said we were quite well, and my husband was doing very well – he said “Have Johnson & Son got as many hands on as they generally have?” They are my employers; it is a large firm, they have different branches. I said, “Yes, Sir, they are at work day and night, by times; they give a large salary to clever writers.” I told him that they had a part portion taken at the Exhibition, and a great many page boys and young women in the business, selling catalogues – he was very pleased about Johnson & Son’s doing well. I forgot to mention that at first he was very cross; I thought, when I first came to the door, that he would not ask me in. After the conversation he seemed pleased. I thought he was very fidgety, sitting. I heard nothing more of the slightest importance said by him while I was in the room – I got up to go, and made my obedience to Mr and Mrs Watson, and thanked them for past favours to me and my husband, and he got up and returned it in the most kind and polite manner, and said they would be always glad to hear of our welfare; that is, my husband and I, I believe. I went out into the hall, and Mrs Watson went out – I said “Pray don’t come to the door, Sir,” as I did not want to give him trouble; so he stood close to the dining-room and drawing-room, and as I turned on the step to close the door I made my obedience to him, and he returned it with a very cross face – he made a bow as I was on the step. As near as I can tell you, I stopped in the house half an hour, or upon it; I got there about 5 o’clock, and left about 5.30, as near as I can recollect.
Cross-examined. I had been at the grammar school some years – I told the prisoner that Johnson’s employed a great many clever writers in hopes that he should go and ask for some business there – I knew him to be clever and out of employment, and it occurred to me to say so – Johnson & Son printed the catalogue of the last International Exhibition – it occurred to me, as a matter of kindness, to mention it to him, he being out of employment. I suppose he had no idea that I meant the information for him – Mrs Watson did not say anything about that, she was very silent – the prisoner did not shake hands with me, but he thanked me for my words, for what I said – I have been always in the habit of calling on the families I lived with, and seeing how they were getting on. I had not been there for a year and four months.
Charlotte Jane Hall. I live at 87, London Road – the house 28, St Martin’s Road, Stockwell, belongs to me – Mr Watson had occupied it six years last Midsummer – the rent was sixty guineas – I did not know Mr Watson personally – I never saw him till I saw him here. In October 1870, I received this letter, I know it to be his writing – I have corresponded with him, and received rent from him – (Read: “October 27th, 1870. Dear Madam – I have received Mr Duett’s note, and shall be prepared to receive him according to his notice, on Saturday next. It will be convenient if he calls before half-past twelve. Circumstances have occurred which render it necessary for me to give you notice that you must be prepared for my quitting this house at Midsummer next. It may be possible, if you should find a desirable tenant before that time, I may be able to leave it sooner, but I shall be able to speak more confidently on the subject in January next, and I shall be obliged if you will acknowledge this notice.”) Mr Duett is my agent – I sent an answer, and on 19th May, 1871, I received this letter, which is in the prisoner’s writing – “May 19th, 1871. Mrs. Hall. Madam. I did not say anything to your agent when he last called about the rent, my movements being uncertain, and expecting to remove at or about Midsummer next. Still, not being decided as to leaving at Midsummer, I should ask, if I could stay beyond that time, would you allow me to go on another quarter? Please understand that I may leave at Midsummer or not, but it will be a convenience to know that I can stay another quarter if I have occasion to.” – I answered that letter, and gave my consent to his leaving at any time at a quarter’s notice – on 23rd May, I received this letter – “May 23rd, 1871. Mr Watson presents his compliments to Mrs Hall, and begs to thank her for her note of yesterday, giving him permission to either leave at Midsummer or to remain until the following Michaelmas, as may suit his convenience.” – On Monday morning, 25th September, I received this letter from him, the 23rd was on Saturday – ‘September 25th, 1871. Dear Madam. I called at your place today to speak about our continuance in this house, but had not the good fortune to find you at home. I had fully expected to leave it before this time, but uncertainty as to
our movements has still detained us. I have been looking out for several weeks for a suitable place to which I may remove, but I have not been able to fix upon one. I have something in view in one or two directions, but, whatever we decide, I think it will be impossible we can clear the house before quarter-day. Under these circumstances I was going to ask of you to show us an indulgence for a time. It has occurred to me that, as the house must be unoccupied for a quarter to be done up, you would not be particular as to our staying a little beyond the stated time. Of course, I don’t want to put you to inconvenience, or to be encroaching. An early answer will oblige.” On Wednesday morning, 11th October, I received this letter by the first post – it is written by the prisoner – it enclosed his own cheque for 15L.15s –’October 10th. Mr Watson has the pleasure of enclosing to Mrs Hall the amount of the quarter’s rent, ending at Michaelmas last.” I paid away the cheque to Mr Duett, my agent, and afterwards gave the receipt to Mr Fraser, the prisoner’s solicitor. The day after I received that letter, I heard of this melancholy transaction.
Watson’s Apology Page 21