Skip to main content

Full text of "Trial of John Jasper, lay precentor of Cloisterham Cathedral in the county of Kent, for the murder of Edwin Drood engineer : heard by Justice Gilbert Keith Chesterton sitting with a special jury, in the King's Hall, Covent Garden, W.C., on Wednesday, the 7th January, 1914"

See other formats


TRIAL 
OF  JOHN  JASPER 

Lay  Precentor  of  Cloisterham  Cathedral  in  the  County 

of  Kent,  for  the 

MURDER 
OF    EDWIN    DROOD 

Engineer. 


Heard  by 

MR.  JUSTICE  GILBERT  KEITH  CHESTERTON 

sitting  with  a  Special  Jury,  in  the  King's  Hall,  Covent  Garden, 
W.C.,  on  Wednesday,  the  7th  January,  1914. 

Verbatim  Report  of  the  proceedings  from  the  Shorthand  Notes  of 

J.  W.  T.  LEY. 


LONDON 

CHAPMAN   &    HALL,    LTD. 
1914 

Price  Two  Shillings  and  Sixpence  net. 


^■^m. 


TRIAL   OF  JOHN  JASPER 


TRIAL 
OF  JOHN  JASPER 

Lay  Precentor  of  Cloisterham  Cathedral  in  the  County 

of  Kent,  for  the 

MURDER 
OF    EDWIN    DROOD 

Engineer. 


Heard  by 

MR.  JUSTICE  GILBERT  KEITH  CHESTERTON 

sitting  with  a  Special  Jury,  in  the  King's  Hall,  Covent  Garden, 
W.C,  on  Wednesday,  the  7th  January,  19 14. 

Verbatim  Report  of  the  proceedings  from  the  Shorthand  Notes  of 

J.   W.  T.  Ley. 


LONDON 

CHAPMAN    &    HALL,    LTD. 
1914 


Printed  by  The  Westrn'mster  Press  ( Gerrards  Lid.),  \\\a  Harruir  Roa-i,  London,    W. 


KING'S  HALL,  GO  VENT  GARDEN 

JANUARY  7th,  1914. 


Under  the  Auspices  of  The  Dickens  Fellowship  (London  Branch) 

.   ■  '    •         '    Fr&;iik  S.  Johnson,  Hon.  Sec. 


JUDGE,  WITNESSES,  COUNSEL  AND  JURY 


Judge 

Counsel  for  the  Prosecution 


Counsel  for  the  Defence 


John  Jasper 

{Lay  Precentor  at  Cloisterham  Cathedral) 
Anthony  Durdles 

{The  Cloisterham  Stonemason) 

The  Revd.  Septimus  Crisparkle 

{Minor  Canon  at  Cloisterham  Cathedral) 

Miss  Helena  Landless 

{Ward  of  Mr.  Honeythunder) 

"  'Er  Royal  Higness  Princess  Puffer  " 
{The  Opium  Woman) 

[Thomas]  Bazzard 

{Clerk  to  Mr.  Grewgious) 

The  Clerk  of  Arraigns 

The  Usher 

Police  Officers 


Mr.  G.  K.  Chesterton 

Mr.  J.  Cuming  Walters 

and 
Mr.  B.  W.  Matz 

Mr.  Cecil  Chesterton 

and 
Mr.  W.  Walter  Crotch 

Mr.  Frederick  T.  Harry 

Mr.  Bransby  Williams 

Mr.  Arthur  Waugh 

Mrs.  Laurence  Clay 

Miss  J.  K.  Prothero 

Mr.  C.  Sheridan  Jones 

Mr.  Walter  Dexter 

Mr.  A.  E.  Brookes  Cross 

Mr.  H.  H.  Pearce 

and 
Mr.  C.  H.  Green 


The  Jury  will  be  chosen  from  among  the  following  : 


Mr.  George  Bernard  Shaw  (foreman) 

Sir  Francis  C.  Burnand 

Sir  Edward  Russell 

Dr.  W.  L.  Courtney 

Mr.  W.  W.  Jacobs 

Mr.  Rett  Ridge 

Mr.  HiLAiRE  Belloc 

Mr.  Tom  Gallon 

Mr.  Max  Pemberton 

Mr.  G.  S.  Street 


Mr.  Coulson  Kernahan 

Mr.  Edwin  Pugh 

Mr.  William  de  Morgan 

Mr.  Arthur  Morrison 

Mr.  Raymond  Paton 

Mr.  Francesco  Berger 

Mr.  RiDGWELL  Cullum 

Mr.  Justin  Huntly  McCarthy 

Mr.  Oscar  Browning 

Mr.  Wm.  Archer 


Barristers,  Reporters  and  Spectators. 


INDICTMENT 

of 

JOHN    JASPER 

Lay  Trecentor  of  Cloisterham  Cathedral,  in  the  County  of  K^ni, 

for  the 

MURDER 

of 
EDWIN    DROOD,    Engineer, 


TRIAL 

Holden    at    the   ASSIZES    at    WESTMINSTER, 
on    the    7th   January,    19 14. 


ASSIZE  COURT  \ 

KING'S  HALL,  COVENT  GARDEN  I    To  wit : 
County  of  LONDON  J 

The  Jurors  for  this  trial  upon  their  oath*  present,  that  JOHN  JASPER 
on  the  24th  day  of  December  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  One  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
sixty  in  the  Parish  of  Cloisterham  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  said  Court,  feloniously, 
wilfully,  and  of  his  malice  aforethought  did  kill  and  murder  one  EDWIN  DROOD 
against  the  peace  of  every  true  Dickensian. 


*  Or,  if  one  of  the  Grand  Jurors  be  a  Quaker  or  other  person  entitled  to  affirm 
instead  of  taking  an  oath,  say  instead :  "  The  jurors  of  Our  Lord  the  King  upon  their 
oath  and  affirmation  present,  &c." 


29;>958 


INDICTMENT 

WHEREAS,  in  support  of  the  above  Indictment,  divers  allegations  are  set  forth, 
as  follows,  that  is  to  say  : — 

The  accused,  JOHN  JASPER,  aged  26,  is  Choirmaster  at  Cloisterham 
Cathedral,  otherwise  known  as  "lay  precentor."  He  lodges  over  the  Gateway  of  the 
Cathedral.  For  some  years  he  admits  he  has  been  in  the  habit  of  taking  opium,  and  has 
resorted  to  an  Opium  Den  in  the  East  End  of  London  kept  by  an  elderly  woman  known 
as  "  Princess  Puffer," 

The  man  of  whose  murder  he  stands  accused  was  his  nephew,  EDWIN  DROOD, 
in  his  2ist  year,  and  by  profession  an  Engineer.  The  Prisoner,  who  was  likewise  Trustee 
and  Guardian  of  the  said  Edwin  Drood,  professed  the  greatest  affection  for  him,  and 
on  the  occasion  of  his  visits  to  Cloisterham  manifested  every  appearance  of  joy  and 
satisfaction. 

The  said  Edwin  Drood  was  betrothed  to  one  Rosa  Bud,  this  being  in  fulfilment  of 
a  contract  made  by  their  respective  parents  (now  deceased).  Certain  formalities  in 
connection  with  the  confirmation  of  this  engagement,  notably  the  handing  of  a  ring  by 
Mr.  Grewgious,  solicitor,  Staple  Inn,  legal  adviser  to  Edwin  Drood,  were  witnessed 
by  Mr.  Grewgious's  clerk,  Bazzard.  There  is  evidence  to  show  that  they  had  grown 
weary  of  each  other,  and  wished  the  Contract  to  be  annulled.  On  the  other  hand,  Jasper, 
the  Accused,  was  admittedly  in  love  with  Rosa  Bud,  and  it  is  alleged  was  secretly  jealous 
of  his  nephew.  Miss  Bud,  on  her  part,  deposes  that  she  not  only  disliked  but  "  feared  " 
Jasper  and  avoided  his  attentions  as  much  as  possible.  Eventually  the  engagement  be- 
tween Edwin  Drood  and  Rosa  Bud  was  rescinded  by  mutual  consent ;  but  the  said  John 
Jasper,  for  sufficient  reasons,  was  not  at  the  time  warned  of  this  fact.  The  circumstance, 
however,  was  revealed  to  Mr.  Grewgious. 

WITNESSES  will  be  called  to  prove  that  in  the  early  part  of  the  year,  the  Accused, 
Jasper,  accompanied  a  stonemason  named  Durdles  to  the  Cathedral  and  made  particular 
enquiry  into  the  destructive  qualities  of  quicklime.  It  is  also  alleged  that  Jasper  applied 
a  drug  to  this  same  Durdles,  causing  sleep,  and  that  he  then  appropriated  his  keys,  and 
therefrom  made  a  close  investigation  of  the  vaults,  especially  of  the  Sapsea  vault, 
which  was  partly  hollow. 

There  were  also  residing  in  Cloisterham  an  orphan  brother  and  sister,  twins,  by 
name  Neville  and  Helena  Landless.  They  came  from  Ceylon,  where  they  had  been 
subjected  to  personal  ill-treatment,  and  after  staying  with  Mr.  Honeythunder,  their 
guardian,  Neville  was  lodged  with  Canon  Crisparkle,  and  Helena  was  sent  to  Miss 

8 


Indictment 

Twinkleton's  school.  Neville  Landless  is  described  as  "  fierce  "  and  hot-blooded, 
Helena  Landless  is  "  almost  of  the  gipsy  type."  Between  her  and  her  brother  is  a 
strong  bond  of  affection.  In  her  girlhood  she  had  escaped  at  times  from  her  cruel  step- 
father by  disguising  herself  as  a  boy.  She  is  a  woman  of  much  daring. 

Soon  after  their  arrival  in  Cloisterham,  they  met  Drood,  Jasper  and  Miss  Bud  at  a 
party.  It  will  be  given  in  evidence  that  there  was  a  contention  between  Drood  and  Neville, 
and  that  Jasper  afterwards  fomented  the  ill-feeling  and  charged  Neville  Landless  with 
being  "  murderous."  At  the  same  time,  Miss  Landless  was  seized  with  an  instinctive 
hostility  towards  Jasper,  who,  she  thought,  was  unduly  menacing  Rosa  Bud.  Matters 
between  the  two  young  men  were  smoothed  over  to  some  extent,  and  on  the  following 
Christmas  Eve,  John  Jasper  decided  to  bring  them  together  at  a  convivial  gathering  in 
his  own  house. 

On  December  23rd  Jasper  visited  the  Opium  Den  in  London.  Next  day  he  returned 
to  Cloisterham,  and  was  followed  thither  by  the  Opium  Woman,  who  had  heard  him 
use  threatening  language  in  his  sleep  towards  someone  called  "  Ned  "  (Jasper's  nick- 
name for  Edwin  Drood). 

1  At  night  (Christmas  Eve)  the  three  men  met  and  dined.  It  was  a  night  of  wild  storm. 
The  next  morning  Jasper  hastened  to  Canon  Crisparkle's  house  shouting  excitedly 
that  his  dear  nephew  had  disappeared,  and  that  he  was  convinced  he  had  been  murdered. 

He  plainly  indicated  that  he  believed  the  murderer  was  Neville  Landless,  in  whose 
company  Drood  had  left  Jasper's  house  at  midnight ;  and  Neville  Landless  was  appre- 
hended, but  subsequently  released  for  want  of  evidence. 

On  December  26th  Mr,  Grewgious  visited  Jasper  and  informed  him  that  the 
engagement  between  Drood  and  Miss  Bud  had  been  broken  off.  It  is  in  evidence  that  on 
hearing  this  news  for  the  first  time,  Jasper  "  gasped,  tore  his  hair,  shrieked  "  and  finally 
swooned  away. 

Shortly  afterwards  Canon  Crisparkle  visiting  the  Weir  on  the  river,  discovered  Edwin 
Drood's  watch  and  chain,  which  had  been  placed  in  the  timbers  ;  and  in  a  pool  below 
he  found  Drood's  scarf-pin. 

It  is  in  evidence  that  the  accused,  Jasper,  after  a  short  interval,  renewed  his  attentions 
to  Miss  Rosa  Bud,  and  exercised  so  great  a  terror  upon  her  that  she  deemed  it  advisable 
to  take  refuge  in  London  under  the  supervision  of  Mr.  Grewgious  and  her  friend  Miss 
Twinkleton.  Neville  Landless  also  removed  to  London,  where  he  was  visited  by  his 
sister  Helena. 

Meanwhile,  a  careful  watch  was  kept  upon  John  Jasper  by  a  "  stranger,"  known  as 
Dick  Datchery.  This  person  took  lodgings  opposite  Jasper's  house  and  had  him  under 
close  observation.  "  Datchery  "  (which  is  admittedly  an  assumed  name)  interviewed 

9 


Indictment 

several  persons,  including  Durdles  and  "  Princess  Puffer,"  and  kept  a  private  record  in 
chalk  marks  of  all  facts  thus  ascertained.  In  consequence  of  the  suspicions  excited  by 
these  circumstances,  a  warrant  was  applied  for  and  John  Jasper  was  arrested  on  a  charge 
of  Wilful  Murder. 

To  this  he  pleads  "  NOT  GUILTY,"  and  this  is  the  issue  to  be  tried. 


The  following  WITNESSES  will  be  called  : 

ANTHONY  DURDLES  \ 
CANON  CRISPARKLE 
HELENA  LANDLESS 


By  Counsel  for  the  Prosecution. 


"  PRINCESS  PUFFER ' 
[THOMAS]  BAZZARD 


l     By  Counsel  for  the  Defence. 


NOTE 

The  design  on  the  front  page  of  this  Indictment  is  a  reproduction  of  that  on  the 
wrapper  of  the  monthly  parts  of  "  The  Mystery  of  Edwin  Drood  "  as  originally  issued 
in  1870.  It  was  drawn  by  Charles  Allston  Collins,  and  has  been  the  cause  of  much 
controversy  and  speculation. 


10 


CONDITIONS  AGREED  UPON  BETWEEN  THE 
PROSECUTION  AND  DEFENCE 

The  three  formal  witnesses  (that  is  to  say,  Crisparkle  and  Durdles  for  the  Prosecution 
and  the  Opium  Woman  for  the  Defence)  shall  not  in  their  evidence-in-chief  go  beyond 
the  book  or  make  any  statements  not  expressly  made  therein,  but  in  cross-examination 
they  may,  in  response  to  specific  questions,  give  explanations  not  expressly  contained 
in  the  book. 

The  two  chief  witnesses  (that  is  to  say,  Helena  Landless  for  the  Prosecution  and 
Bazzard  for  the  Defence)  shall  be  free  both  in  examination-in-chief  and  in  cross- 
examination  to  make  statements  not  made  in  the  book,  provided  that  they  are  not 
contradicted  therein. 

All  statements  made  in  the  book  shall  be  taken  to  be  true  and  admitted  by  both 
sides,  and  any  statement  by  a  witness  contradicting  such  statements  shall  be  considered 
thereby  proved  to  be  false. 

The  said  two  chief  witnesses  (and  no  others)  shall  be  allowed  to  give  hear-say  evidence. 

The  Defence  having  agreed  not  to  call  Edwin  Drood,  the  Prosecution  agree  not  to 
comment  upon  his  absence  from  the  witness-box  either  in  speech  or  cross-examination, 
but  the  Prosecution  reserve  the  right  to  comment  upon  the  silence  of  Edwin  Drood 
subsequent  to  the  murder. 

Both  sides  having  agreed  not  to  call  Grewgious,  it  is  agreed  that  neither  side  shall 
comment  upon  the  fact  that  the  other  has  not  called  him. 

The  Defence  agree  that  the  legal  point  that  no  conviction  can  take  place  since  no 
body  has  been  found,  shall  be  raised  only  after  the  retirement  of  the  jury,  but  the 
Defence  reserves  the  right  to  comment  upon  the  absence  of  a  body  as  part  of  the  general 
absence  of  direct  evidence  of  the  commission  of  a  murder. 


II 


REPORT  OF  THE  PROCEEDINGS 

His  Lordship  having  taken  his  seat,  the  Prisoner  was  immediately  put  into  the  dock, 
and  addressed  by  the  Clerk  of  Arraigns  in  the  following  terms  : 

John  Jasper,  the  charge  against  you  is  that  you  did  feloniously,  wilfully,  and  with 
malice  aforethought,  kill  your  nephew,  Edwin  Drood,  in  the  City  of  Cloisterham,  on 
the  night  of  the  24th  of  December,  i860.  Are  you  guilty,  or  not  guilty  ? 

The  Prisoner  :  Not  guilty. 

The  Clerk  of  Arraigns  :  Will  the  gentlemen  of  the  Jury  please  rise,  and  sit  down 
as  I  call  their  names  ?  Mr.  George  Bernard  Shaw,  Sir  Edward  Russell,  Dr.  W.  L. 
Courtney,  Mr.  W.  W.  Jacobs,  Mr.  Pett  Ridge,  Mr.  Tom  Gallon,  Mr.  Max  Pemberton, 
Mr.  Coulson  Kernahan,  Mr.  Edwin  Pugh,  Mr.  William  de  Morgan,  Mr.  Arthur  Morri- 
son, Mr.  Francesco  Berger,  Mr.  Ridgwell  Cullum,  Mr.  Justin  Huntly  McCarthy,  Mr. 
William  Archer,  Mr.  Thomas  Seccombe — you  shall  well  and  truly  try  the  Prisoner  at 
the  Bar,  John  Jasper,  for  the  murder  of  Edwin  Drood,  and  a  true  verdict  give  according 
to  the  evidence. 

Mr.  George  Bernard  Shaw  was  elected  Foreman. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  appear  for  the  prosecution,  my  Lord. 

Judge  :  Mr.  Cuming  Walters,  I  think,  for  the  prosecution.  Is  there  anyone  with  you  ? 

Mr.  Matz  :  I  am  with  him,  my  Lord. 

Mr.  Cecil  Chesterton  :  I  appear  for  the  defence,  my  Lord. 

Judge  :  Mr.  Chesterton,  I  think,  for  the  defence.  One  s,  I  think.  Is  anyone  with 
you  ? 

Mr.  Crotch  :  I  am,  my  Lord. 

[The  Case  for  the  Prosecution.] 

Mr,  Matz  then  proceeded  to  open  the  case  for  the  prosecution  in  the  following 
speech  : 

My  Lord  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury — 

The  case  to  be  tried  is  one  of  murder — murder  which  we  shall  contend  was  pre- 
meditated, pre-arranged  and  carried  out  in  a  methodical  and  determined  manner. 

The  Prisoner  is  John  Jasper,  Lay  Precentor  at  Cloisterham  Cathedral.  The  Prosecu- 
tion will  set  itself  to  prove  that  on  the  night  of  the  24th  December  he  murdered  in  that 
city  his  nephew  Edwin  Drood,  an  Engineer. 

The  said  Edwin  Drood  was  21  years  of  age,  and  for  some  years  was  betrothed  to 
Miss  Rosa  Bud  in  fulfilment  of  a  dying  wish  of  their  respective  parents  (now  deceased). 

To  this  young  lady  the  Prisoner  acted  as  music  master,  and  admittedly  was  enamoured 
of  her,  although  he  kept  this  fact  secret  from  Edwin  Drood. 

On  the  evening  in  question — the  24th  December — Edwin  Drood  and  Neville  Landless 
— a  pupil  of  the  Revd.  Septimus  Crisparkle — dined  together  with  the  Prisoner  in  his 
rooms  in  the  Gate  House  adjoining  the  Cathedral. 

The  night  was  a  terribly  stormy  one.  After  leaving  the  Prisoner,  some  time  about 
midnight,  the  two  young  men  took  a  walk  to  the  river  to  see  the  effect  of  the  storm  on 

13  B 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

the  water,  and  returned  to  the  house  of  the  Revd.  Septimus  Crisparkle  in  Minor  Canon 
Corner.  Here  Edwin  Drood  left  his  companion,  intending  to  return  to  his  Uncle's 
lodgings. 

Nothing  has  been  heard  or  seen  of  him  since. 

Gentlemen,  it  is  our  painful  duty  to  produce  evidence  to  prove  that  Edwin  Drood 
was  murdered  by  his  Uncle,  the  Prisoner.  We  contend  that  Jasper  divested  him  of  his 
watch  and  chain  and  his  scarf  pin,  articles  the  Prisoner  had,  on  another  occasion,  ex- 
plained to  the  local  jeweller  he  knew  Drood  to  possess.  The  words  he  used  were  that 
he  had  "  an  inventory  of  them  in  his  mind." 

We  contend  that  Jasper  then  cast  the  body  of  his  victim  into  a  vault  in  the  Cathedral 
precincts,  the  key  of  which,  or  a  duplicate,  he  had  previously  become  possessed  of. 
There  had  also  been  placed  in  the  vicinity  a  quantity  of  quicklime,  and  we  submit  that 
Jasper,  having  made  some  inquiries  into  its  properties,  used  this  for  the  purpose  of 
removing  all  traces  of  the  body  in  the  shortest  period  of  time.  We  submit  that  he  got  rid 
of  the  watch  and  chain  and  scarf  pin  in  the  river,  either  in  the  hope  of  disposing  of 
material  which  the  quicklime  would  not  destroy,  or  to  give  the  impression,  should  they 
be  found,  that  the  young  man  was  drowned. 

We  shall  in  evidence  show  that  the  Prisoner  had  motive  for  his  crime,  that  he  made 
elaborate  preparations  for  its  enactment,  and  that  he  succeeded  in  his  terrible  deed. 

The  evidence  may  be  circumstantial  only.  But  circumstantial  evidence,  I  submit, 
may  be  extremely  strong — as  strong  indeed  as  any  direct  evidence. 

We  shall  show  you  that  all  the  acts  of  John  Jasper  for  some  time  previous  to  the  com- 
mittal of  his  atrocious  crime  were  self-incriminatory.  Not  merely  that,  but  they  exhibit 
his  mind  working  out  the  very  means  by  which  that  crime  was  to  be  committed.  After  his 
terrible  deed  was  accomplished,  his  actions,  to  those  who  observed  him  closely,  also 
indicated  clearly  his  guilt. 

The  Prisoner,  having  made  up  his  mind  that,  for  his  own  selfish  ends  Edwin  Drood 
must  be  killed,  first  chose  the  spot  best  suited  to  his  purpose,  and  laid  methodical  plans 
to  secure  access  to  that  spot.  He  paid  visits  to  it  in  the  company  of  one,  Durdles,  the 
Cloisterham  stonemason,  v/hom  he  drugged  with  doctored  wine  whilst  there,  in  order 
that  he  might  acquire  secretly  the  key  to  a  certain  vault.  He  knew  where  quicklime  could 
be  procured  without  loss  of  time.  He  interviewed  other  persons,  and  timed  the  hour 
and  everything  else  so  thoroughly  that  nothing  essential  for  his  purpose  was  overlooked. 

Now,  gentlemen,  it  is  necessary  to  refer  briefly  to  some  further  facts  bearing  upon 
the  history  of  this  crime. 

Neville  Landless,  upon  whom  Jasper  cast  suspicion  of  being  the  murderer,  and  his 
sister  Helena,  were  both  students  in  Cloisterham  :  the  brother,  a  pupil  of  the  Revd. 
Septimus  Crisparkle,  and  the  sister  a  pupil  at  Miss  Twinkleton's  Academy  in  the  city. 
They  came  from  Ceylon,  where  they  had  been  severely  ill-treated,  and  had  made  several 
attempts  to  escape.  On  each  occasion  of  the  flight  Helena  "  dressed  as  a  boy  and  showed 
the  daring  of  a  man."  Neville,  a  highly  strung  and  emotional  youth,  took  immediate 
objection  to  Drood  because  of  his  "  air  of  proprietorship  "  over  Rosa  ;  whilst  Helena 
instinctively  disliked  Jasper  because  she  saw  that  he  loved  Rosa  and  that  Rosa  feared  him. 
It  is  worth  noting  as  a  significant  fact  that  at  the  earliest  stage  Rosa  appealed  to  Helena 
for  aid  and  every  assistance  was  promised  to  her, 

A  slight  quarrel  between  Edwin  Drood  and  Neville  Landless  took  place  in  Jasper's 
rooms,  and  undoubtedly  Jasper  goaded  them  on  by  his  taunts.  On  this  occasion  Jasper 
gave  them  some  mulled  wine  which  had  taken  him  a  long  time  to  mix  and  compound. 


Mr.  Matz,   Counsel   for  Prosecution 

They  drank  to  the  toast  proposed  by  Jasper  and  their  speech  quickly  became  thick  and 
indistinct,  indicating  that  there  was  a  sinister  design  in  the  mixing  and  compounding. 
Drood  became  boastful,  and  Neville  Landless  resented  his  tone,  and  at  the  height  of  the 
dispute,  flung  the  dregs  of  his  wine  at  Edwin  Drood.  Although  posing  as  a  Peacemaker 
Jasper  actually  fomented  the  hostility  of  these  two  young  men.  He  seemed  to  delight  in 
it  and  it  enabled  him  subsequently  to  report  to  Crisparkle  that  Neville  was  "  murderous.'^ 
Indeed  he  went  so  far  as  to  assert  that  he  "  might  have  laid  his  dear  boy  at  his  feet, 
and  that  it  was  no  fault  of  his  that  he  did  not." 

The  Revd.  Mr.  Crisparkle  talked  with  Helena  and  Neville  on  the  latter's  rash  conduct, 
and  he  expressed  extreme  regret  and  promised  to  exercise  more  caution  in  future.  On 
another  occasion  Crisparkle  visited  Jasper,  who  read  to  him  passages  from  his  diary 
expressing  fears  for  Drood's  safety.  A  few  days  later  Drood,  at  the  suggestion  of  Jasper, 
wrote  and  agreed  to  dine  with  him  and  Neville  on  Christmas  Eve  at  the  Gate  house, 
Cloisterham — in  order  that  the  two  young  men  should  become  friends.  Their  walk 
after  dinner  is  evidence  that  this  object  was  fully  achieved. 

We  submit  that,  the  whole  plans  having  thus  been  prepared,  the  murder  of  Edwin 
Drood  took  place  after  the  parting  of  the  young  men,  and  that  John  Jasper  and  no  other 
was  the  murderer.  In  support  of  this  we  shall  produce  evidence  to  prove  that  Jasper 
acted  in  a  highly  incriminatory  manner. 

The  next  morning  whilst  great  commotion  was  raging  in  the  vicinity  of  the  cathedral 
over  the  damage  done  by  the  storm,  John  Jasper  broke  into  the  crowd  crying  :  "  Where 
is  my  nephew  ?  "  as  if  everybody  knew  he  was  missing,  whereas  no  one  but  the  prisoner 
had  any  reason  to  think  he  was  not  in  the  Prisoner's  rooms.  He  even  volunteered  the 
statement  that  Drood  had  gone  "  down  to  the  river  last  night,  with  Mr.  Neville,  to  look 
at  the  storm,  and  had  not  been  back  ?  "  and  demanded  that  Mr.  Neville  should  be  called. 

These  utterances  were  made  to  the  Revd.  Canon,  and  showed  clearly  that  the 
murderer  felt  so  confident  that  he  had  executed  his  deed  with  perfect  thoroughness 
that  no  fear  of  discovery  need  enter  his  mind.  But  knowing  his  nephew  was  murdered 
he  tried  immediately  to  fix  the  deed  upon  another.  . 

I  must  direct  your  attention  to  one  other  matter.  John  Jasper,  whether  guilty  or  not 
of  murder,  is  indisputably  a  hypocrite,  leading  a  double  life.  Like  most  criminals  he  was 
also  capable  of  foolish  mistakes.  Had  he  not  killed  his  "  dear  boy,"  as  he  called  him,  he 
would  have  made  investigations  of  his  whereabouts,  he  would  have  refrained  from 
courting  inquiries,  and  would  not  have  excited  the  hostility  of  Rosa  Bud. 

But,  gentlemen,  most  criminals  of  the  John  Jasper  type,  make  at  least  one  error  in 
the  execution  of  their  crime,  which  ultimately  finds  them  out.  Jasper  made  his.  Having 
as  I  have  said,  divested  Edwin  Drood  of  his  watch  and  chain  and  scarf  pin,  all  the 
jewellery  he  was  aware  Drood  had  upon  his  person,  he  felt  safe.  But  he  left,  unknown  to 
him,  on  the  person  of  the  young  man  a  valuable  gold  ring  set  with  rubies  and  diamonds, 
and  this  ring  quicklime  could  not  consume.  The  ring  was  once  the  property  of  Rosa 
Bud's  mother  and  had  been  handed  to  Edwin  Drood  by  Mr.  Grewgious,  Rosa  Bud's 
guardian,  with  strict  instructions  that  he  should  give  it  to  Rosa  if  he  intended  to  marry 
her,  or  return  it  to  Mr.  Grewgious  should  Edwin  and  Rosa  decide,  as  seemed  likely,  to 
break  their  betrothal. 

This  was  a  faithful  promise  and  was  witnessed  by  one,  Bazzard,  the  clerk  to  the  said 
Mr.  Grewgious. 

It  so  happened  that  on  December  24th  the  young  couple  did  break  oflF  their  engage- 
ment. Therefore  if  Drood,  by  any  chance,  were  now  alive,  that  ring  would  have  been 

15 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

returned  to  Mr.  Grevvgious,  in  accordance  with  his  promise.  But,  gentlemen,  it  never 
has  been  returned,  and  why  ?  We  say  because  Drood  is  no  longer  alive,  but  dead,  and 
that  where  the  body  was  hidden  after  the  murder,  there  that  ring  was  hidden  also. 

Jasper  knew  of  all  the  articles  that  were  on  the  person  of  Edwin  Drood,  except  that  ring. 
He  did  not  know  of  that  because  it  had  only  been  handed  to  Drood  on  the  previous  day. 

Nor  did  Jasper  know  of  the  breaking  off  of  the  betrothal,  else  would  there  have  been 
no  object  in  his  committing  the  murder.  Evidence  will  be  given  that  Drood  promised 
Rosa  he  would  not  spoil  his  Uncle's  Christmas  festivities  by  telling  him  of  their  decision 
to  part  as  lovers. 

The  first  time  Jasper  learnt  the  fact  was  on  the  day  following  the  murder,  when  he 
heard  it  from  Mr.  Grewgious.  He  then  instantly  "  gasped,  tore  his  hair,  shrieked," 
swooned  and  "  fell  a  heap  of  torn  and  miry  clothes  upon  the  floor."  From  this  we  infer 
that  the  information  was  unexpected  and  a  shock  to  him. 

Sometime  afterwards  the  Revd.  Canon  Crisparkle  found  the  watch  and  chain  and 
scarf  pin,  when  walking  near  the  weir,  and  he  will  be  called  to  give  evidence  on  this 
and  other  facts. 

Now,  gentlemen,  let  me  read  to  you  an  extract  from  the  diary  of  Jasper  entered 
after  this  discovery.  It  reads  thus — 

"  My  dear  boy  is  murdered.  The  discovery  of  the  watch  and  shirt  pin  convinces 
me  that  he  was  murdered  on  that  night,  and  that  his  jewellery  was  taken  from  him  to 
prevent  identification  by  its  means." 

The  word  "  murdered  "  was  frequently  in  the  mind  of  Jasper  at  this  time,  and  he 
made  use  of  it  in  several  phrases  in  his  diary,  which  clearly  demonstrates  that  he  was 
attempting  to  create  the  impression  that  his  nephew  was  murdered,  and,  by  using  the 
words,  hoped  to  divert  attention  from  himself. 

But  he  became  so  nervous  of  what  he  had  written,  that  he  declared  to  the  Revd. 
Canon  that  he  meant  to  "  burn  this  year's  diary  at  the  year's  end  "  and  by  so  doing, 
as  he  evidently  thought,  destroy  all  evidence  of  his  guilty  conscience. 

There  is  one  more  phase  to  touch  upon. 

It  is  admitted  that  John  Jasper  was  secretly  addicted  to  opium  smoking  and  fre- 
quented a  certain  opium  den  in  London  kept  by  a  person  known  as  the  "  Princess  Puffer." 
Whilst  under  the  influence  of  opium  he  babbled  strangely,  moaned,  and  uttered  sig- 
nificant words  in  the  hearing  of  the  opium  woman.  This  woman  followed  him  more 
than  once  to  Cloisterham  and  on  one  of  these  occasions,  the  fateful  24th  December, 
she  accosted  Edwin  Drood,  and  for  the  price  of  three  and  sixpence  offered  to  tell  him 
something.  He  paid  her  the  money  and  she  asked  him  first  his  name,  and  when  he  told 
her  Edwin,  she  wanted  to  know,  "Is  the  short  of  that  name  Eddy  ?  .  .  ."  Drood  answered 
"  It  is  sometimes  called  so."  "  You  be  thankful  your  name  is  not  Ned,"  she  next  replied, 
"  because  it  is  a  threatened  name  :  a  dangerous  name."  "  Threatened  men  live  long," 
he  assured  her.  Her  reply  was — 

"  Then  Ned— so  threatened  is  he,  wherever  he  may  be  while  I  am  a-talking  to  you, 
deary — should  live  to  all  eternity  !  " 

Now,  gentlemen,  it  is  a  striking  and  amazing  fact  that  Jasper,  and  he  only,  called 
Edwin  Drood  "  Ned  " — the  threatened  name. 

That  very  night  Edwin  Drood  disappeared,  and  he  has  "  never  revisited  the  light  of 
the  sun." 

A  few  months  passed  and  no  trace  of  the  body  of  the  ill-fated  young  man  having 
been  found,  Jasper,  feeling  he  had  cleared  his  way  effectively,  called  at  the  Nun's  House 

16 


Evidence  of  Anthony  Durdles 

(Miss  Twinkleton's  Academy)  one  afternoon  in  the  vacation,  and  taking  Rosa  unawares 
made  passionate  love  to  her.  On  being  repulsed  he  vowed  vengeance  on  Neville  Landless 
— the  man  against  whom  he  had  already  directed  suspicion.  So  horrified  was  Rosa,  she 
flew  for  safety  to  her  guardian  Mr.  Grewgious  at  Staple  Inn.  A  strict  watch  was  kept 
upon  Jasper  by  a  person  calling  himself  Mr.  Datchery,  with  the  result  that  he  was 
eventually  arrested. 

Gentlemen,  that  is  the  case  put  to  you  as  briefly  as  possible — it  is  the  case  you 
have  to  try. 

We  feel  confident  that  the  evidence  we  shall  place  before  you  will  convince  you 
that  the  prisoner  has  committed  a  foul  crime,  and  that  we  can  safely  leave  the  issue 
to  you.  Painful  as  your  duty  may  be,  we  look  to  you  to  give  your  verdict  faithfully  and 
fearlessly  in  the  interests  of  justice  and  your  fellow-men. 

The  Foreman  :  My  Lord,  one  word.  Did  I  understand  the  learned  gentleman 
to  say  that  he  was  going  to  call  evidence  ? 

Mr.  Matz  :  Certainly. 

The  Foreman  :  Well,  then,  all  I  can  say  is,  that  if  the  learned  gentleman  thinks 
the  convictions  of  a  British  jury  are  going  to  be  influenced  by  evidence,  he  little  knows 
his  fellow  countrymen  ! 

Judge  :  At  the  same  time,  in  spite  of  this  somewhat  intemperate  observation 

[The  remainder  of  his  Lordship's  words  were  inaudible.] 

[Evidence  of  Anthony  Durdles.] 
Mr.  Matz  :  Call  Anthony  Durdles. 

Usher  :  Anthony  Durdles  !   [That  gentleman  immediately  entered  the  witness-box.] 
Clerk  of  Arraigns  :  The  evidence  that  you  shall  give  before  the  Court  and  Jury, 
shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Your  name  is  Durdles  ? 
Witness  :  Durdles  is  my  name.  "* 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  always  call  yourself  Durdles  ? 
Witness  :  I  do  ;  'cause  my  name  is  Durdles. 
Mr.  Walters  :  You  are  a  stone-mason,  I  believe  ? 
Witness  :  Ay  ;   Durdles  is  a  stone-mason. 
Mr.  Walters  :  Would  you  mind  telling  us  where  you  work  ? 

Witness  :  Durdles  works  anywhere  he  can,  up  and  down,  round  about  the  Cathedral. 
Mr.  Walters  :  Round  about  the  Cathedral.  Thank  you.  Very  good.  Do  you  happen 
to  know  the  prisoner,  John  Jasper  } 

Witness  :  Ay  ;   I  knows  John  Jarsper. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  did  you  ever  happen  to  meet  him  anywhere  near  the  Cathedral  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;  Durdles  met  Mister  Jarsper  near  the  Cathedral. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Perhaps  you  met  him  more  than  once  ? 

Witness  :  Twice. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  met  him  twice.  What  did  you  go  with  him  to  the  Cathedral  for  ? 

17 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Witness  :  Well,  sir  ;   he 

Mr.  Walters  :  Yes  :   speak  up,  please. 

Judge  :  I  must  interpose.  The  witness  cannot  possibly  know  what  Mr.  Jasper  went 
to  the  Cathedral  for. 

Mr.  Walters  :  My  Lord,  with  respectful  submission  to  you,  the  prisoner  might 
have  told  him. 

Judge  :  But  for  that  purpose  you  must  examine  the  prisoner  in  chief. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  think,  my  Lord,  that  you  will  find  a  conversation  took  place  between 
Durdles  and  the  prisoner,  and  that  I  am  perfectly  justified  in  asking  what  the  conversation 
was. 

Judge  :  Yes  ;   I  think  so. 

Mr.  Walters  {to  witness)  :  Let  us  know  what  the  conversation  was  between  you 
and  Mr.  Jasper. 

Witness  :  He  says  to  me,  "  Is  there  anything  new  in  the  crypt  ?  "  and  I  says, 
*'  Anything  new  1  Anything  old,  you  mean." 

Mr.  Walters  :  Yes  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  happened  then  ? 

Witness  :  We  went  down  in  the  crypt,  and  he  give  me  a  drink  out  of  his  bottle. 
Fine  stuflF  it  was,  too. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  what  about  that  bundle  which  I  believe  you  carried  ? 

Witness  :  He  asked  me  if  he  could  carry  my  bundle. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Yes  ? 

Witness  :  Ay. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  was  in  your  bundle  ? 

Witness  :  Durdles  knows  what  was  in  his  bundle.  Keys,  among  other  things. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Oh,  keys.  And  I  suppose  you  let  him  carry  your  bundle  ? 

Witness  :  I  did.  Well,  I  had  another  drink  out  of  his  bottle. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  happen  on  that  occasion  to  see  any  quicklime  lying  about  ? 

Witness  :  Well,  there's  always  quicklime  lying  about  the  crypt.  Always. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  noticed  it.  Did  Jasper  happen  to  notice  it  ? 

Witness  :  He  did.  He  asked  me  what  it  was  for. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Oh,  he  asked  you  what  it  was  for.  And  did  you  tell  him  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;  I  told  him  it  'ud  burn  anything  ;  burn  your  boots,  and  with  a 
little  handy  stirring,  it  'ud  burn  your  bones. 

Mr.  Walters  :  It  would  burn  your  bones  with  handy  stirring.  And  when  he  put 
that  curious  question  to  you,  did  it  occur  to  you  there  was  a  reason  for  it  ? 

Witness  :  Durdles  thinks  everybody  'as  a  reason  for  everything  they  says  and  does. 

Mr.  Walters  :  When  he  asked  you  would  that  quicklime  burn,  you  thought  he 
must  have  a  reason  for  it  ? 

i8 


Evidence  of  Anthony  Durdles 

Witness  :  Yes  ;  so  I  did. 

Mr.  Walters  :  People  use  quicklime  for  quite  innocent  purposes,  I  believe,  don't  they  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  They  use  it  for  cement  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  else  do  they  use  it  for  ? 

Witness  :  Bodies. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  think,  by  the  way  he  was  making  his  inquiries,  that  he 
wanted  to  know  if  it  would  burn  something  else  besides  ordinary  stuff  ? 

Witness  :  I  didn't  think  as  'ow  he  wanted  a  heap  of  quicklime  to  burn  his  waste 
paper  with. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  happened  next  ?  You  had  a  drink  out  of  the  bottle,  and  you 
had  a  little  talk  :  what  happened  then  ?   Did  you  go  home  ? 

Witness  :  No  ;   I  fell  asleep. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Oh,  you  fell  asleep  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Anything  else  ? 

Witness  :  I  had  a  dream. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  had  a  dream  before  you  woke  up  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  was  the  nature  of  that  dream  ? 

Witness  :  I  dreamt  that  Mister  Jarsper  was  a-moving  around  me,  handling  my  keys, 
and  I  thought  I  was  left  alone  in  the  dark.  Then  I  see  a  light  coming  back,  and  then 
I  found  Mr.  Jarsper  waking  me  up,  saying  "  Hi  !   wake  up  !  " 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  wake  up  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  remember  how  long  you  had  been  asleep  ? 

Witness  :  A  long  time.  I  remember  the  clock  struck  two. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  went  in  about  midnight  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  had  two  hours'  sleep  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  I  suppose  so. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Anything  else  ?   Did  you  notice  anything  ? 

Witness  :  When  I  woke  up,  I  sees  my  key  on  the  ground,  and  I  says,  "  I  dropped 
you,  did  I  ?  "  So  I  picks  it  up,  and  asks  Mister  Jarsper  for  my  bundle. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  he  give  it  to  you  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  think  you  had  on  that  occasion  a  little  conversation  about  a  curious 
art  of  yours — tapping  the  tombs  ? 

19 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Witness  :  Yes  ;    oh,  yes — yes, 

Mr.  Walters  :  Would  you  mind  telling  the  court  ? 

Witness  :  I  told  him,  with  my  little  hammer  I  could  tap  and  go  on  tapping,  and  I 
could  tell  whether  anything  was  solid  or  whether  it  was  hollow.  For  instance,  I  says, 
"  Tap,  tap,  old  'un  crumbled  up  in  stone  coffin  in  the  vault  !  " 

Mr.  Walters  :  That's  what  you  said,  is  it  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  what  did  Mr.  Jasper  say  to  that  ? 

Witness  :  He  said  it  was  wonderful,  and  I  says,  "  No  ;  I  ain't  going  to  take  it  as  a 
gift,  'cause  it's  all  out  o'  my  own  head." 

Mr.  W^alters  :  I  understand  you  told  him  what  you  could  do  by  tapping  the  walls 
— tell  whether  it  was  hollow  or  solid  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  Durdles  can  tell  whether  it's  hollow  or  solid  by  its  tap. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Was  he  interested  in  your  conversation  ? 

Witness  :  Very  much,  sir. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  happen  to  notice  the  Sapsea  tomb  ? 

Witness  :  Durdles  knows  the  Sapsea  tomb. 

Mr.  Walters  :  There  is  only  one  body  in  that  tomb  at  present } 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  tap  the  Sapsea  tomb  with  your  hammer,  and  did  it  sound 
surprising  there  } 

Witness  :  It  sounded  more  solid  than  usual. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Since  then,  you  have  tapped  it  lately,  and  it  sounds  a  little  more  solid  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  This  is  contrary  to  an  understanding.  This  is  a  formal  witness, 
not  to  be  cross-examined. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Very  well,  I  will  go  on.  (To  witness.)  Did  you  meet  him  at  another  time ? 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  This  is  only  formal  evidence. 

Judge  :  What  is  the  point  ? 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  will  find  before  you,  my  Lord,  a  document,  and  you  will 
find  there  that  certain  witnesses  who  are  to  be  cross-examined  at  length  will  be  free  to 
go  beyond  certain  admitted  evidence.  The  formal  witnesses  are  not  to  do  so. 

Judge  {after  perusing  the  "  Conditions  ")  :  Yes,  I  think  I  take  your  point,  Mr. 
Chesterman — or  Chesterton — whatever  it  is.  The  point,  I  understand,  is  that  you  are 
cross-examining  this  witness  as  if  he  were  a  principal  witness  of  the  trial. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  In  the  second  paragraph  I  think  you  will  notice 

Mr.  Walters  :  It  is  not  of  great  importance  to  me. 

Judge  :  One  moment :  I  will  see.  {After  reading  the  paragraph  referred  to.)  I  think 
you  are  justified  up  to  the  point  to  which  you  have  gone,  but  I  should  recommend  you 
to  terminate  it  with  some  rapidity. 

20 


Evidence  of  Anthony  Durdles 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  only  want  to  ask  one  question.  {To  witness.)  You  did  have  a  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Datchery  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  I  ask  you  to  say,  my  Lord,  that  the  Jury  must  entirely  disregard 
the  statement  about  the  tapping. 

The  Foreman  :  How  are  we  to  dismiss  it  from  our  minds,  my  Lord  ?  It  is  a  very 
difficult  point. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  think  I  shall  leave  the  Jury  to  draw  their  own  conclusions.  All  I 
want  to  know  from  Durdles  is,  did  he  have  a  conversation  with  Datchery  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Thank  you.  That  is  all. 

Witness  :  Thank  you,  sir.  I'll  drink  your  health  on  the  way  home,  p'raps  twice,  and 
Lwon't  go  home  till  morning. 

[Durdles  Cross-examined.] 
Mr.  Crotch  :  One  moment,  please. 
Witness  :  Oh,  beg  pardon,  sir,  beg  pardon. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Now,  Durdles, you  know  all  about  the  destructive  qualities  of  quicklime  ? 
Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Do  you  say  that  quicklime  will  not  destroy  metals  ? 
Witness  :  No  ;    I  don't  think  quicklime  will  destroy  metals. 
Mr.  Crotch  :  You  don't  think  it  will  ? 
Witness  :  No,  I  knows  it  won't. 
Mr.  Crotch  :  Now,  Durdles 

Judge  :  I  must  ask  you  to  address  the  witness  in  more  respectful  terms,  such  as 
"  Mr."  Durdles. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Very  well,  my  Lord. 

Witness  :  Mister  Durdles,  sir. 

Mr.  Crotch  {to  witness)  :  I  understand  you  were  employed  round  about  the  Cathe- 
dral, and  that  you  know  all  about  the  crypt  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Now,  tell  me  what  was  the  state  of  the  windows  in  i860. 

Witness  :  Ay  ? 

Mr.  Crotch  :  I  put  it  to  you  again.  In  what  state  were  the  windows  of  the  crypt  in 
i860? 

Witness  :  Do  you  mean  clean  or  dirty  ? 

Mr.  Crotch  :  I  put  it  to  you  they  were  in  a  very  broken  condition  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  sir  ;   always  broken. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  were  not  only  broken,  weren't  they,  but 
partially  boarded  up  ? 

Witness  :  Well,  I  can't  remember,  sir. 

21 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Can't  remember  !  You  were  constantly  in  the  crypt ! 

Witness  :  Some  of  'em. 

Mr,  Crotch  :  How  many  windows  are  there  ? 

Witness  :  I  don't  know. 

Mr,  Walters  :  I  don't  suppose  the  witness  is  expected  to  count  windows  ! 

Witness  :  Thank  you,  sir. 

Mr,  Crotch  :  Well,  now,  Mr.  Durdles,  I  will  ask  you  another  question.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  have  you  not  on  many  occasions  chased  little  boys  and  others  out  of  the  crypt  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  and  they've  chased  me. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Where  did  these  boys  find  their  way  into  the  crypt  ? 

Witness  :  Ay  ? 

Mr.  Crotch  :  You  don't  know  ? 

Witness  :  No,  I  don't. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  You  swear  you  don't  know  ? 

Witness  :  Ay,  I  swear  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  You  have  never  seen  them  creeping  through  the  windows  of  the  crypt  ? 

Witness  :  Might  be  :  when  I've  been  sober. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  That'll  do.  Now,  you  tell  us  that  you  met  Mr.  Datchery.  Is  that  so  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Have  you  ever  admitted  Mr.  Datchery  to  the  Sapsea  vault  ? 

Mr.  Walters  :  This  is  going  far  beyond — 

Mr,  Chesterton  :  If  my  learned  friend  will  look  at  the  first  paragraph  he  will  see 
that  in  cross-examination  the  formal  witnesses  may,  in  response  to  specific  questions, 
give  explanations  not  expressly  contained  in  the  book, 

Mr,  Walters  :  Then  I  must  re-examine  the  witness. 
Mr.  Chesterton  :  Certainly. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Now,  Mr.  Durdles,  have  you  ever  admitted  Mr.  Datchery  to  the 
Sapsea  vault  ,'' 

Witness  :  Not  that  I  can  remember, 

Mr.  Crotch  :  If  you  cannot  remember  admitting  Datchery,  do  you  at  any  time 
remember  admitting  anybody  else  ? 

Witness  :  No  ;   I  can't  say  as  I  do, 

Mr,  Crotch  :  Thank  you,  Mr,  Durdles, 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  won't  trouble  you  to  re-examine  you,  Mr.  Durdles. 

Witness  :  Well,  good  day.  I'll  drink  your  health  on  the  way  home,  and  I  won't  go 
home  till  morning — I  beg  your  pardon,  my  Lord. 

[Evidence  of  Reverend  Canon  Crisparkle.] 
Mr.  Walters  :  The  Reverend  Canon  Crisparkle. 

22  ^ 


Evidence  of  Reverend  Canon  Crisparkle 

Usher  :  Reverend  Canon  Crisparkle. 

[That  gentleman  responded  to  the  call,  and  entering  the  witness  box,  was  duly  sworn.] 

The  Foreman  :  May  I  interpose  for  a  moment  ?  This  gentleman  has  been  called  as  the 
Reverend  Septimus  Crisparkle.  I  submit  to  your  Lordship  that  his  real  name  is  Christo- 
pher Nubbles,  a  man  who  was  tried  before  you  on  the  information  of  a  certain  Mr. 
Chuckster,  on  the  charge  of  being  a  snob,  and  you,  in  one  of  those  summings-up  which 
have  made  your  name  famous  wherever  the  EngUsh  language  is  spoken,  found  that 
the  charge  brought  by  Mr,  Chuckster  was  well  and  truly  proved.  Now,  I  contend  that 
Mr.  Christopher  Nubbles  has  gone  to  Cloisterham,  become  a  Minor  Canon,  taken  the 
name  of  Crisparkle,  and  is  here  obviously  a  more  intolerable  snob  than  ever. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Mr.  Crisparkle  ;  I  believe  you  are  a  Minor  Canon  of  Cloisterham 
Cathedral  ? 

Witness  :  I  am,  sir. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  believe  your  identity  has  never  been  disputed  until  this  moment  ? 

Witness  :  Never.  I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  answer  that  impertinent  reflection, 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  happen  to  know  John  Jasper  ? 

Witness  :  Very  well.  He  was  associated  with  me  daily  in  the  duties  of  the  Cathedral. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  he  ever  tell  you  about  his  affection  for  his  nephew,  Edwin  Drood  ? 

Witness  :  Constantly. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  did  he,  while  in  this  confidential  mood,  also  tell  you  of  his 
great  aflfection  for  Miss  Rosa  Bud  ? 

Witness  :  No,  I  cannot  charge  my  memory  that  he  ever  mentioned  affection  for  her, 

Mr.  Walters  :  Well,  then,  in  that  matter  John  Jasper  deceived  you  ? 

Witness  :  Well,  shall  we  say  deceived  ?  Guilty  of  a  lapse  of  confidence  to  a  priest. 
Theologically  speaking  it  would  be  deceit,  perhaps. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  believe,  Mr.  Crisparkle,  that  you  have  been  acting  as  tutor  to 
Neville  Landless  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  mind  telling  the  court  the  opinion  you  formed  of  that  man's 
character  ? 

Witness  :  I  should  say  a  very  impulsive  man,  but  responsive  to  influence  of  any  kind. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  think  he  has  a  sister  ? 

Witness  :  Oh,  yes  :  Miss  Helena  Landless. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Is  he  under  her  influence  at  all  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  I  should  say  she  exercises  a  good  and  strong  influence  upon  him. 

Judge  :  I  should  suggest  that  question  is  very  improper.  We  are  all  under  the 
influence  of  each  other  to  a  great  extent.  I  am  as  much  under  the  influence  of  the 
foreman  of  the  Jury  that  I  almost  entirely  agree  with  the  view  that  he  takes  of  the 
situation  when  he  mentions  it.  But  I  think  it  is  not  quite  proper  to  say  "  Is  he  under 
the  influence  of  his  sister  ?  "  Surely  ? 

Mr.  Walters  :  But,  my  Lord,  this  gentleman  knows  both  parties,  and  is  perfectly 
acquainted  with  their  relationships. 

23 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Witness  :  Yes,  well. 
Judge  :  I 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  will  not  press  the  point.  I  will  ask  you,  Mr.  Crisparkle,  have  you 
any  influence  ? 

Witness  :  Is  that  proper,  my  Lord  ? 

Judge  :  Quite  proper. 

Witness  :  I  should  say  I  have  done  my  best.  I  have  talked  to  him  from  time  to  time 
and  found  him  very  anxious  to  profit  by  any  words  I  was  able  to  say. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  said  he  was  impetuous.  Perhaps  he  has  one  or  two  little  faults 
of  that  sort.  Would  you  regard  them  as  dangerous  ? 

Witness  :  No,  no  ;  oh  no.  The  faults  of  an  undisciplined  boy. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Has  he  any  good  qualities  ? 

Witness  :  Many,  which  appear  to  me  to  far  outweigh  the  others. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Suppose  Neville  Landless  had  a  little  quarrel  with  another  young 
man.  Would  you  attach  much  importance  to  it  ? 

Witness  :  No,  I  think  not  :  very  little,  I  think.  Hot-tempered  youth — soon  over. 
He  would  be  the  first  to  regret  it. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  know  Edwin  Drood  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  heard  of  a  quarrel  between  him  and  Neville  Landless  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Who  told  you  about  that  quarrel  ? 

Witness  :  Well,  in  the  first  instance,  Neville  Landless  mentioned  it  to  me  when 
he  came  back  to  my  house.  He  said  he  had  made  a  bad  beginning  and  was  sorry.  But 
immediately  afterwards  John  Jasper  came  to  the  house,  and  gave  me  what  I  am  bound 
to  say  was  a  very  different  account  indeed. 

Mr.  Walters  :  This  is  the  John  Jasper  who  had  already  deceived  you  } 

Witness  :  Who  had  perhaps  misled  me  by  suppression. 

Mr.  Walters  :  He  was  the  John  Jasper  who  was  Edwin  Drood's  rival  for  Rosa  Bud  ? 

Witness  :  It  would  appear  so. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  say  he  gave  a  strong  account  of  the  quarrel — Is  that  correct  ? 

Witness  :  It  is  more  than  correct.  He  said,  when  he  came  into  the  room,  that  he  had 
had  an  awful  time  with  him.  I  said,  "  Surely  not  as  bad  as  that !  "  and  he  said  "  Murderous 
— murderous  !  " 

Mr.  Walters  :  Are  you  sure  he  used  the  word  "  Murderous  "  .? 

Witness  :  I  am  absolutely  certain. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  did  you  say  to  that  ? 

Witness  :  I  said,  "  I  must  beg  you  not  to  use  quite  such  strong  language."  He 
continued  to  use  even  stronger  terms.  He  said  there  was  something  tigerish  in  Neville's 
blood.  He  was  afraid  he  would  have  struck  his  dear  boy,  as  he  called  him,  down  at  his  feet. 

24 


Evidence  of  Reverend  Canon  Crisparkle 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  are  quite  sure  those  were  his  words  ? 

Witness  :  Absolutely. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  I  suppose,  following  on  that,  you  asked  for  an  explanation  from 
Neville  ?    Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  a  long  conversation  with  him  in  company  with  his  sister. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Was  Jasper  satisfied  with  the  explanation  given  to  him  ? 

Witness  :  No,  I'm  afraid  not.  A  few  days  afterwards,  when  I  was  endeavouring  to 
make  peace  between  the  two  combatants,  and  arranged  a  meeting,  Jasper  took  the 
opportunity  to  show  me  his  diary,  in  which  he  had  written  his  fears  and  suspicions  in 
regard  to  his  dear  boy's  safety. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Fears  and  suspicions  ? 

Witness  :  That  was  the  phrase. 

Mr. Walters:  May  we  take  it  then,  that  this  man  was  always  harping  on  danger 
and  using  the  word  "  Murder,"  and  influencing  your  mind  against  Neville  Landless  ? 

Witness  :  I  am  afraid  that  was  the  impression  which  I  derived. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Was  that  the  impression  left  in  your  mind  after  the  conversation 
with  John  Jasper  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  think  you  know  that  on  the  Christmas  Eve  following,  there  was 
a  friendly  little  party  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;  I  was  instrumental  in  arranging  it. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Following  on  that,  Neville  Landless  was,  on  the  following  day,  to 
start  on  a  walking  expedition  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  he  tell  you  all  about  it  ? 

Witness  :  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  He  was  quite  frank  ? 

Witness  :  Quite  frank. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  he  start  to  carry  out  his  plans  ? 

Witness  :  He  started. 

Mr.  Walters  :  On  the  Christmas  morning,  early  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  remember  that  Christmas  Eve  ? 

Witness  :  Perfectly. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Why  ? 

Witness  :  Especially  because  of  the  beauty  of  Evensong  that  day.  John  Jasper  was 
in  splendid  voice  that  day,  and  I  congratulated  him  when  he  came  out  of  the  Cathedral. 
I  said  he  must  be  in  very  good  health. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Very  good  health  :    did  he  say  anything  ? 

Witness  :  He  said  he  was  in  very  good  health,  and  that  the  black  humours  were 

25 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

passing  from  him,  and  that  he  would  have  to  burn  his  diary — consign  it  to  the  flames — 
that  was  the  phrase. 

Mr.  Walters  :  He  also  laughed  ? 

Witness  :  He  went  laughing  up  the  postern  gate. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  mind  telling  us  whether  laughing  was  common  with  John 
Jasper. 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  In  short,  you  thought  it  an  exceptional  piece  of  good  humour  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;   he  made  that  impression  on  me. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  remember  what  sort  of  night  it  was  ? 

Witness  :  A  terrible  night  of  storm. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Let  us  get  on  to  the  next  morning.  The  next  morning  what 
happened  ? 

Witness  :  Before  I  was  about,  while  I  was  still  in  my  dressing  room,  I  was  aware 
of  a  great  noise  at  my  gate,  and  there  I  saw  John  Jasper,  insufficiently  attired,  crying 
very  loudly  to  me  in  the  house.  I  looked  out,  and  asked  what  was  the  matter,  and  he 
said,  "  Where  is  my  nephew  ?  "  Naturally,  I  said  to  him,  "  Why  should  you  ask  me  ?  " 
and  he  said,  "  Last  evening,  very  late,  he  went  down  to  the  river  to  see  the  storm,  in 
company  with  Mr.  Neville  Landless,"  since  when  nothing  had  been  heard  of  him. 
And  then  he  said,  "  Call  Mr.  Neville."  I  told  him  Neville  had  already  started. 

Mr.  Walters  :  When  this  conversation  took  place  between  you  and  John  Jasper, 
did  it  occur  to  you  that  he  was  dazed,  as  if  suffering  from  the  effect  of  drugs  ? 
Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  it  strike  you  that  he  was  particularly  clear-headed  ? 
Witness  :  I  think  so.  Yes  :    he  was  very  clear-headed. 
Mr.  Walters  :  Was  he  concise  and  clear  in  his  remarks  ? 
Witness  :  Yes,  perfectly  clear. 

Mr.  Walters  :  If  anybody  told  you  he  was  suffering  from  the  effect  of  drugs,  or  was 
dazed  or  bewildered,  would  your  observation  bear  that  out  ? 

Witness  :  No,  indeed. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  did  you  do  in  respect  of  Mr.  Neville  ? 

Witness  :  We  sent  some  men  after  him,  and  Mr.  Jasper  and  I  followed.  Directly 
we  came  up  with  him,  Jasper  said,  "  Where  is  my  nephew  ?  "  and  Neville  said,  "  Why 
do  you  ask  me  ?  " 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  did  Jasper  say  ? 

Witness  :  He  said,  "  He  was  last  seen  in  your  company  " — or  words  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  Walters  :  When  he  said  that,  what  sort  of  impression  did  it  cause  on  you  ? 
What  did  you  think  it  meant  ? 

Witness  :  I  am  sorry  to  say  I  had  the  unpleasant  impression  that  he  meant  to 
suggest  that  Neville  Landless  was  in  some  way  responsible  for  Drood's  disappearance. 
Mr.  Walters  :  Once  more  he  was  suggesting  murder  } 

26 


Evidence  of  Reverend  Canon  Crisparkle 

Witness  :  Yes,  that  was  the  impression. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  once  more  suggesting  that  Neville  Landless  was  the  murderer  ? 

Witness  :  That  was  so,  undoubtedly. 

Mr.  Walters  :  This  man,  Neville  Landless,  with  this  terrible  charge  hanging  over 
him  ;  did  he  come  back  readily  } 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  he  answer  any  questions  put  to  him  } 

Witness  :  Quite  frankly. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Some  time  afterwards,  you  made  a  discovery,  I  think.  Would  you 
mind  telling  the  Court  what  it  was  ? 

Witness  :  I  was  walking  along  by  the  river,  some  two  miles  above  where  these 
young  men  had  gone  for  their  walk — by  the  weir,  in  fact, — when  I  saw  something  shining 
brightly.  Looking  more  closely,  I  thought  it  was  a  jewel.  I  immediately  dived  in,  being 
fortunately  a  good  swimmer,  and  found  that  it  was  a  gold  watch  and  chain.  The  chain  was 
hanging  on  the  timbers.  Later  I  found  in  the  mud  a  gold  scarf-pin.  The  watch  had  the 
initials  E.  D.  engraved  on  it. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  tell  Jasper  you  had  discovered  these  things  ? 

Witness  :  At  once. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  he  say  anything  about  it  ? 

Witness  :  Nothing  at  the  time,  but  a  few  days  later,  when  we  were  disrobing  iii  the 
vestry,  he  showed  me  the  diary  to  which  I  have  alluded. 

Mr.  Walters  :    Did  it  contain  any  reference  to  it  ? 

Witness  :  I  cannot  charge  my  memory  with  the  exact  words,  but  something  to 
this  effect — "  My  poor  boy  is  certainly  murdered.  The  discovery  of  the  watch  and  scarf- 
pin  leaves  that  beyond  doubt.  They  were  no  doubt  thrown  away  to  prevent  identification 
of  the  body  " — or  words  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  Walters  :  One  moment,  Mr.  Crisparkle.  Am  I  right  in  saying  that  once  more 
Murder  was  suggested  to  you  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  that  Neville  Landless  was  pointed  to  as  the  murderer  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  so  that  would  be  the  impression  left  on  your  mind  by  your 
conversation  with  Jasper  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :   Whether  it  was  right  or  wrong,  that  would  be  the  impression  left  ? 

Witness  :  Whether  right  or  wrong,  that  would  undoubtedly  be  the  impression. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Thank  you,  Mr.  Crisparkle. 

The  Foreman  :  May  I  ask  one  question,  my  Lord  ? 

Judge  :  Certainly. 

The  Foreman  :  Do  I  understand  the  witness  to  say  that  the  prisoner  was  a  musician  ? 

Witness  :  He  was,  my  Lord. 

27 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Foreman  :  His  case  looks  black  indeed. 

[Canon  Crisparkle  Cross-examined.] 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Canon  Crisparkle,  you  referred  to  the  night  of  the  preliminary  quarrel 
and  the  return  of  Neville  Landless.  Do  you  remember  accusing  Neville  of  intoxication  ? 

Witness  :  Quite  well. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  You  said,  "  You  are  not  sober  "  ? 

Witness  :  I  did  so. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Do  you  remember  his  reply  ? 

Witness  :  He  said,  "  Yes ;  I  am  afraid  that  is  true,  although  I  took  very  little  to  drink." 

Mr.  Crotch  :  "  Although  I  can  satisfy  you  at  another  time  that  I  had  very  little  to 
drink."  I  put  it,  those  were  the  words  he  used  ? 
Witness  :  Doubtless. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  You  said  you  went  down  to  the  weir,  which  is  two  miles  from  the 
river  } 

Witness  :  No ;  two  miles  from  the  point  at  which  Edwin  Drood  and  Neville  Landless 
went  down  to  watch  the  storm.  It  is  two  miles  higher  up. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  And  it  was  there  you  found  the  articles  you  have  described  ? 

Witness  :  That  is  so. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  What  was  the  position  of  the  watch  and  chain  ? 

Witness  :  It  was  adhering  to  the  timbers.  Where  two  timbers  crossed,  it  had 
become  fixed. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  As  though  somebody  had  gone  down  with  a  hammer  and  nail  and 
hung  it  up  deliberately  ? 

Witness  :  No,  that  I  would  not  say. 

Mr,  Crotch  :  Was  the  pin  in  the  mud  ? 

Witness  :  In  the  mud. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  This  was  ordinary  loose  mud  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  a  kind  of  sludge. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Did  you  find  anything  else  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Nothing  else  at  all  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Now,  Canon  Crisparkle,  I  have  just  one  question  of  some  delicacy 
to  ask.  I  hope  you  won't  be  offended.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  you  are  in  love  with  Helena 
Landless  ? 

Mr.  Walters  :  My  lord,  my  lord,  I  must  object.  I  think  this  is  a  secret  to  a  man's 
breast,  and  my  friend  has  no  right  to  try  to  get  it  out. 

Witness  :  My  Lord,  I  have  no  objection  to  answer  the  question.  The  lady  will  appear 
before  you  shortly,  and  when  you  see  her  you  will  not  be  surprised  that  my  heart  is  a 
little  affected. 

28 


Evidence  of  Helena  Landless 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Thank  you,  Canon  Crisparkle. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Canon  Crisparkle,  one  word  please,  as  to  the  exact  position  of  the 
weir.  I  think  you  have  not  been  carefully  examining  the  exact  position  lately  ?  You  could 
not  testify  whether  it  was  two  miles,  one  mile,  or  one  and  a  half  miles,  and  would  not 
commit  yourself  to  an  actual  distance  ? 

Witness  :  No  ;  we  are  not  in  mathematics. 

Mr.  Walters  :  If  I  told  you  it  was  a  little  nearer  the  Cathedral,  you  would  not 
dispute  it  ? 

Witness  :  Not  for  a  moment. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Thank  you,  Canon  Crisparkle.  That  will  do. 

[Evidence  of  Helena  Landless.] 

Mr.  Walters  :  Call  Helena  Landless. 

Usher  :  Helena  Landless ! 

[That  lady  was  conducted  to  the  witness-box,  and  duly  sworn.] 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  is  your  name,  please  ? 
Witness  :  Helena  Landless. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  have  a  brother  named  Neville  ? 
Witness  :  Yes  ;  a  twin  brother. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Is  there  a  great  bond  of  sympathy  between  you  and  your  brother  ? 
Witness  :  A  very  great  bond. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Is  it  so  strong  that  you  have  an  intimate  understanding  of  each  other  ? 
Witness  :  We  almost  know  each  other's  thoughts. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  I  think  you  are  accustomed  to  exercise  influence  on  him — 
perhaps  to  lead  him  ? 

Witness  :  It  always  has  been  so. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Where  did  you  live  when  young  ? 

Witness  :  In  Ceylon. 

Mr.  Walters  :  With  your  parents  ? 

Witness  :  No.  My  parents  died  when  we  were  young,  and  a  step-father  brought  us  up. 

Mr.  Walters  :  How  did  he  treat  you  ? 

Witness  :  Very  badly  indeed.  He  was  always  cruel  and  harsh  to  us. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Ever  beat  you  ? 

Witness  :  We  were  whipped  like  dogs,  and  we  ran  away. 

Mr.  Walters  :  How  old  were  you  when  you  first  ran  away  ? 

Witness  :  Seven. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Who  suggested  running  away  ? 

Witness  :  I  did. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  did  your  brother  follow  you  ? 

Witness  :  He  always  followed  me. 

29  c 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  planned  everything  ? 

Witness  :  I  always  planned. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Weren't  you  afraid  to  run  away  ? 

Witness  :  I  was  afraid  of  nothing  to  be  free. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  did  you  do  in  order  to  make  a  flight  successful  ? 

Witness  :  I  cut  off  my  hair,  and  dressed  myself  as  a  boy. 

Mr.  Walters  :  That  needed  a  great  amount  of  daring  ? 

Witness  :  Well,  the  occasion  needed  all  the  daring  I  could  command. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  when  it  needs  all  the  daring  you  can  command,  you  don't  mind 
daring  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  As  a  matter  of  fact,  you  did  it,  I  think,  not  only  for  yourself,  but 
for  your  brother  ? 

Witness  :  I  think  more  for  him  than  for  myself. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  love  your  brother  very  much  ? 

Witness  :  Dearly. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Still  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Would  you  do  as  much  again,  Miss  Landless  ? 

Witness  :  I  would  ;  and  more. 

Mr.  Walters  :  As  much  for  anybody  else  you  love  ? 

Witness  :  If  I  loved  them  dearly  enough. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  have  lately  come  to  England.  When  you  came,  tell  us  where 
you  resided. 

Witness  :  I  went  to  Miss  Twinkleton's  at  the  Nun's  House,  and  my  brother  went 
to  Mr.  Crisparkle's. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  believe  the  Nun's  House  is  an  Academy  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Other  girls  there  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  several. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Miss  Rosa  Bud  there  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Ever  meet  her  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Ever  become  friends  with  her  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;  very  great  friends. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  form  an  estimate  of  her  character  ? 

Witness  :  I  thought  she  was  a  sweet,  lovable  girl,  but  shy  and  timid. 

30 


Evidence  of  Helena  Landless 

Mr.  Walters  :  Not  got  your  daring  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  She  was  learning  music,  I  think  ?   Who  was  her  tutor  ? 

Witness  :  John  Jasper. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  remember  a  party  at  Canon  Crisparkle's  shortly  after  your 
arrival  ? 

Witness  :  On  the  night  of  our  arrival. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Who  was  there  ? 

Witness  :  Myself,  Miss  Twinkleton,  and  Rosa  Bud,  and  Edwin  Drood,  and  John 
Jasper. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  are  sure  John  Jasper  was  there  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;   I  noticed  him  particularly. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Why  ? 

Witness  :  Because  of  his  strange  manner  towards  Rosa  Bud. 

Mr.  Walters  :  How  ? 

Witness  :  He  watched  her  closely.  During  the  evening  she  sang  to  his  accompani- 
ment, and  his  eyes  were  fixed  on  her  the  whole  time  with  a  most  peculiar  expression, 
and  this  seemed  to  trouble  Rosa,  although  she  was  not  looking  at  him.  Suddenly  she 
covered  her  face  with  her  hands,  burst  into  tears,  and  said  she  was  frightened  and  wanted 
to  be  taken  away. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  don't  think  it  was  pure  imagination  on  her  part  ?  She  was 
frightened  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  When  people  are  frightened  there  is  danger  about  generally.  Did  you 
think  there  was  any  danger  in  his  looking  at  her  ? 

Witness  :  I  thought  there  was  danger  in  his  looks. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  ever  speak  to  her  about  it  ? 

Witness  :  Yes.  She  said  she  was  terrified  at  him  ;  that  he  haunted  her  like  a  ghost, 
and  that  he  made  secret  love  to  her. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  she  didn't  Uke  it  ? 

Witness  :  She  begged  me  to  take  care  of  her,  and  stay  with  her. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  promise  to  do  so  ? 

Witness  :  I  said  I  would  protect  her. 

Mr,  Walters  :  Be  very  careful.  If  this  man  frightened  her,  would  he  not  equally 
frighten  you  ? 

Witness  :  In  no  circumstances. 

Mr.  Walters  :  That  is  because  you  are  a  woman  of  daring  ? 

Witness  :  I  suppose  so. 

INIr.  Walters  :  If  you  promised  to  shield  and  protect  her,  you  did  not  content 
yourself  with  words.  Did  you  take  any  action  ? 

31 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Witness  :  I  kept  a  sort  of  watch  on  John  Jasper. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Why  on  Jasper  ? 

Witness  :  Because  I  felt  that  he  menaced  Rosa's  peace  and  happiness. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  thought  he  was  the  source  of  the  danger  ? 

Witness  :  No  one  but  Jasper, 

Mr.  Walters  :  Had  she  any  enemies  ? 

Witness  :  No  ;  she  was  too  sweet  and  lovable. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  thought  it  was  John  Jasper,  and  John  Jasper  alone  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  We  will  leave  that  for  a  moment,  and  come  to  your  brother.  You  are 
very  intimate  with  your  brother,  and  he  confides  in  you.  Were  he  and  Drood  friendly  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  but  they  had  a  little  misunderstanding. 

Mr,  Walters  :  Misunderstanding  ? 

Witness  :  Only  a  difference  of  opinion. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  think  it  would  lead  your  brother  to  make  an  attack  on  him  ? 

Witness  :  The  idea  is  preposterous. 

Mr.  Walters  :  They  had  a  quarrel  at  the  outset  ? 

Witness  :  My  brother  did  not  like  the  way  in  which  Edwin  Drood  spoke  of  Rosa 
Bud.  He  thought  he  was  too  patronising.  John  Jasper  came  up,  made  a  great  deal  more 
of  it  than  it  warranted,  and  then  insisted  on  the  young  men  going  back  with  him  to 
have  a  glass  of  wine — stirrup-cup,  he  called  it, 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  was  the  effect  on  your  brother  ? 

Witness  :  Both  became  flushed  and  excited. 

Mr,  Walters  :  Was  it  very  usual  with  your  brother  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Yet  a  small  quantity  had  this  effect  on  him.  Did  you  suspect  anything 
of  the  wine  ? 

Witness  :  I  am  morally  certain  the  wine  was  drugged. 
Mr.  Walters  :  I  believe  after  that  there  was  to  be  a  little  patching  up  ? 
Witness  :  That  was  owing  to  Canon  Crisparkle.  They  were  all  to  meet  and  shake  hands. 
Mr,  Walters  :  Was  it  to  be  a  large  party,  or  confined  to  themselves  ? 
Witness  :  Only  my  brother  and  Edwin  Drood  and  John  Jasper,  who  had  invited 
them  to  his  house. 

Mr,  Walters  :  That  was  on  the  Christmas  Eve  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  know  anything  about  your  brother's  plans  for  the  next  day  ? 

Witness  :  He  had  planned  to  go  on  a  walking  tour. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  knew  all  about  it  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

32 


Evidence  of  Helena  Landless 

Mr.  Walters  :  All  arranged  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  No  secret  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  to  the  best  of  your  knowledge,  he  started  on  that  tour  next 
morning  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr,  Walters  :  Now,  to  get  back  to  the  party  :  you  saw  your  brother  just  before 
he  went  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Was  he  happy  and  jolly  going  to  the  party  ? 

Witness  :  No.  He  was  ready  to  shake  hands  with  Edwin  Drood,  but  he  had  a 
strange  dread  of  the  gatehouse. 

Mr.  Walters  :  He  did  not  object  to  going  ? 

Witness  :  No  ;   because  he  wanted  to  shake  hands  with  Edwin  Drood. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Then  the  main  object  of  his  going  was,  not  to  enjoy  himself,  but  to 
shake  hands  with  Edwin  Drood  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  think  that  was  practically  the  only  motive  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  We  are  told  that  Neville  was  fetched  back  after  starting  on  his  journey. 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Was  it  a  surprise  he  was  fetched  back  after  Drood's  extraordinary 
disappearance  was  mentioned  ? 

Witness  :  It  was. 

Mr.  Walters  :  But  when  you  heard  who  had  fetched  him  back,  was  that  a  surprise  ? 

Witness  :  No  ;  because  Jasper  had  always  been  his  enemy  from  the  first. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  thought  he  had  cast  suspicion  on  him  ? 

Witness  :  Jasper  had  hinted  in  Cloisterham  to  many  people  that  if  anything  ever 
happened  to  his  nephew  my  brother  would  be  responsible  for  it. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  so  you  knew  that  your  brother  was  under  deep  suspicion  when 
brought  back  to  Cloisterham  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  take  that  very  much  to  heart  ? 

Witness  :  I  did,  indeed,  seeing  it  concerned  the  one  I  loved  best  in  the  world. 

Mr.  Walters  :  There  were  two  persons  you  wanted  to  protect  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Who  were  they  ? 

Witness  :  My  brother,  and  Rosa  Bud. 

33 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  had  a  double  motive,  and  you  thought  the  danger  came  from 
one  and  the  same  man  ? 
Witness  :  I  certainly  did. 
Mr.  Walters  :  Who  was  that  ? 
Witness  :  John  Jasper. 
Mr.  Walters  :  What  did  your  brother  do  after  all  this  ? 

Witness  :  He  was  so  sad  and  unhappy  that  he  left  Cloisterham,  and  took  lodgings 
in  London. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  went  with  him  ? 

Witness  :  No,  I  stopped  there  to  live  it  down. 

Mr.  Walters  :  That  is  where  your  courage  came  in  again  ? — But  you  need  not 
reply.  I  shall  leave  it  to  the  Jury  to  draw  their  own  conclusions.  And  now,  all  this  time 
you  were  watching  Jasper  ?  Did  you  discover  anything  about  his  actions  ? 

Witness  :  Nothing  definite. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  hear  of  his  going  here  and  there  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;   there  were  periodical  disappearances. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  know  where  he  went  on  those  occasions  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  he  went  to  London. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  when  in  Cloisterham,  how  did  he  behave  ? 

Witness  :  He  went  about  always  throwing  out  hints  that  he  had  thought  my  brother 
so  hot  tempered  that  he  was  afraid  for  his  nephew  to  meet  him. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  he  meet  Rosa  Bud  again  ? 

Witness  :  He  made  love  to  her. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  she  receive  him  kindly  ? 

Witness  :  Hated  him,  loathed  him,  was  terrified  at  him. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  he  say  anything  to  her  when  he  discovered  what  her  attitude 
was  ? 

Witness  :  He  told  her  that  nothing  should  prevent  him  from  having  her  himself. 
No  one  should  stand  against  him. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  he  threaten  anyone  who  did  stand  against  him  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;   he  threatened  my  brother's  life. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  mean,  he  said  to  Rosa  Bud  something  which  amounted  to  a 
threat  against  your  brother's  life  ? 

Witness  :  He  said  he  could  place  him  in  the  greatest  jeopardy  and  danger. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Then  you  thought  his  danger  would  increase  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  suppose  you  went  to  London  occasionally  to  see  your  brother  ? 

Witness  :  Not  often. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  ever  see  Rosa  Bud  in  London  ? 

a4 


Evidence  of  Helena  Landless 

Witness  :  Yes.  She  fled  to  London,  so  terrified  was  she  at  Jasper  with  his  desperate 
love-making.  She  went  to  Mr.  Grewgious,  her  guardian. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  determined  to  shield  her  as  much  as  possible  ? 

Witness  :  More  than  ever. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  ever  recall  those  words,  that  you  would  not,  in  any  circum- 
stances, be  afraid  of  Jasper  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Not  a  mere  idle  boast  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  meant  it  ? 

Witness  :  I  did. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Six  months  went  by,  and  no  progress  made  ? 

Witness  :  I  found  out  nothing. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Yet  the  danger  remained,  and  increased  ? 

Witness  :  I  grew  more  and  more  anxious. 

Mr.  Walters  :  It  was  the  woman  against  the  man,  and  the  woman  was  making  no 
headway  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  think  it  was  about  time  to  change  your  course  of 
action  ? 

Witness  :  I  did. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  did  you  do  ? 

Witness  :  I  remembered  how,  as  a  little  girl,  I  dressed  myself  as  a  boy,  and  now 
I  determined  to  dress  myself  as  a  man. 

Mr.  Walters  :  That  was  the  result  of  recalling  what  you  had  done  as  a  girl  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  you  had  done  in  the  past  you  could  do  again  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  It  was  difficult,  you  realised  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  it  was  difficult,  but  I  determined  to  overcome  every  difficulty. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  did  not  shrink  ? 

Witness  :  Naturally  I  shrank,  but  the  end  was  worth  all  the  sacrifice. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  determined  to  go  through  with  it  ? 

Witness  :  I  did. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Because  you  had  this  double  motive  ? 

Witness  :  That  is  so. 

Mr.  Walters  :  The  overpowering  motive  which  overcame  everything  else  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

35 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Walters  :  Very  well,  now  ;  if  you  could  have  avoided  dressing  yourself  as  a 
man,  if  some  other  course  had  been  open  to  you,  would  you  have  taken  it  ? 

Witness  :  If  I  could  have  felt  sure  of  success. 

Mr.  Walters  :  But  you  felt  this  was  the  last  resource,  and  determined  to  do  it  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  In  order  to  appear  as  a  man,  you  had  to  adopt  a  very  complete 
disguise  indeed.  Did  you  remember  what  you  did  when  you  were  a  little  girl  ?  Did  you 
cut  off  your  hair  again  ? 

Witness  :  No,  I  thought  I  could  manage. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Miss  Landless,  I  don't  want  to  press  you,  but  was  there  any  par- 
ticular, personal  reason  why  you  didn't  wish  to  sacrifice  your  hair  ? 

Witness  :  Am  I  obliged  to  answer  that  question  ? 
Judge  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  His  Lordship  says  you  need  not  answer  that  question.  I  think  we 
may  leave  it  to  the  Jury,  as  human  beings,  to  give  their  own  answer.  But,  at  all 
events,  we  understand  that  you  did  not  cut  off  your  hair.  Did  you  whiten  your 
eyebrows  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  thought  you  could  manage  ? 

Witness  :  I  did. 

Mr.  Walters  :  How  did  you  disguise  yourself  effectively  ? 

Witness  :  I  put  on  a  large  wig  of  white  hair. 

Mr.  Walters  :  To  conceal  your  own  luxuriant  tresses  ? 

Witness  :  I  bound  them  well  down  underneath. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  else  ? 

Witness  :  I  thought,  in  keeping  with  a  large  head  of  white  hair,  I  had  better  assume 
the  free  and  easy  manners  of  an  elderly  man,  and  I  tried  to  put  a  little  dash  of  swagger, 
and  I  wore  a  blue  coat  and  buff  waistcoat. 

Mr.  Walters  :  It  was  not  so  difficult,  after  all,  in  some  respects,  for  you  are  a  rapid 
and  fluent  talker — you  need  not  be  shy,  you  are — and  therefore,  as  Dick  Datchery,  the 
affable  old  gentleman,  a  bit  garrulous,  you  did  not  find  much  difficulty  ? 

Witness  :  No  :   I  did  not  find  it  very  difficult. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  did  you  do  in  Cloisterham  ? 

Witness  :  I  put  up  at  the  Crozier  Inn. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Where  is  that } 

Witness  :  In  the  High  Street. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Far  from  the  Gate  House  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  try  the  effect  of  your  disguise  on  the  people  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood ? 

36 


Evidence  of  Helena  Landless 

Witness  :  Yes,  at  the  Crozier  I  walked  in,  asked  a  few  questions,  and  ordered  a 
man's  dinner, 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  ordered  a  man's  dinner  ? 

Witness  :  You  would  not  have  had  me  ask  for  a  glass  of  milk  and  a  Sally  Lunn  ! 

Judge  :  What  is  a  man's  dinner  ? 

Witness  :  I  called  for  a  fried  sole,  and  a  veal  cutlet,  and  a  pint  of  sherry.  Something 
like  a  man's  dinner  ! 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  did  you  consume  this  gargantuan  feast  ? 

Witness  :  I  think  you  are  an  intelligent  gentleman,  and  I  will  leave  it  to  you. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  may.  Now  let  us  come  to  your  inquiries.  I  suppose  you  wanted 
lodgings  ? 

Witness  :  I  asked  the  waiter  if  he  could  direct  me  to  any. 

Mr,  Walters  :  And  did  he  ? 

Witness  :  I  asked  for  something  old,  architectural,  and  inconvenient. 

Mr,  Walters  :  And  he  directed  you  ? 

Witness  :  He  did. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Very  far  ? 

Witness  :  No  ;   not  far  :   Mrs.  Tope's  house. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  find  it  easily  ? 

Witness  :  No,  That  would  not  have  done.  I  wandered  about  a  bit  in  the  wrong 
direction,  and  inquired,  and  at  last  found  it. 
Mr.  Walters  :  The  reason  for  all  that  ? 

Witness  :  I  wanted  to  put  everybody  off  the  scent,  and  tried  to  act  as  to  the  manner 
born,  so  that  if  anybody  were  watching  me  they  would  really  take  me  for  the  man  I 
wanted  to  be. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  thought  it  best  to  take  every  precaution,  in  case  you  were 
watched  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  they  would  think  you  had  lost  your  way,  and  were  a  stranger  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  As  a  matter  of  fact,  you  were  not  a  stranger.  Did  you  meet  Mr. 
Jasper  ? 

Witness  :  I  made  an  excuse,  and  I  went  up  and  asked  him  if  he  could  tell  me  any- 
thing as  to  the  respectability  of  the  Tope  family. 

Mr.  Walters  :  So  that  you  bearded  the  lion  in  his  den.  Did  he  recognise  you  ? 

Witness  :  No  ;  he  did  not  know  the  mouse. 

Mr.  Walters  :  There  are  other  ways  of  detecting  people  than  by  appearance. 
Jasper  is  a  musician  with  a  very  delicate  ear.     What  about  your  voice  ? 

Witness  :  Mr.  Jasper  had  only  heard  it  once,  and  that  was  months  ago,  and,  besides, 
I  can  change  it  {changing  her  voice) — change  the  tone  of  my  voice,  and  speak  like  a  man. 

37 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr,  Walters  :  You  can  disguise  it,  Miss  Landless,  so  that  people  would  really 
think  it  was  a  man's  voice  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Tell  us  what  you  discovered  as  to  Mr.  Jasper's  movements  at  this  time. 

Witness  :  He  absented  himself  from  the  Cathedral  every  now  and  then,  and  made 
periodical  disappearances. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Where  did  he  go  ? 

Witness  :  To  London. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Were  you  in  correspondence   with  Mr.   Grewgious,  the  family 
solicitor,  in  London  ? 
Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  he  tell  you  he  had  seen  Jasper  ? 
Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  So  that,  between  you,  you  knew  all  about  him  ? 
Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  In  the  character  of  Datchery,  did  you  meet  people  ? 
Witness  :  Yes. 
Mr.  Walters  :  Durdles  ? 
Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  The  old  opium  woman  ? 
Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Mr.  Sapsea,  the  Mayor  ? 
Witness  :  Yes. 
Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  talk  to  them  familiarly  ? 

Witness  :  Yes.  I  really  knew  their  idiosyncrasies — everyone  of  them — so  I  fooled 
them  to  the  top  of  their  bent,  and  got  everything  out  of  them. 

Mr.Walters:  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  you  asked  the  old  opium  woman  some  questions  ? 

Witness  :  She  had  been  following  Jasper  to  the  Gate  House,  and  she  asked  me,  in 
a  whisper,  would  I  mind  telling  her  who  he  was,  his  name,  and  where  he  lived. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  said  it  was  John  Jasper  ? 

Witness  :  Yes.  She  asked,  would  I  give  her  three-and-sixpence  to  buy  some  opium. 
She  said  that  on  Christmas  Eve  a  young  gentleman  gave  her  three-and-sixpence,  and  he 
said  that  his  name  was  Edwin.  And  she  said  where  could  she  see  Jasper  ?  And  I 
told  her  in  the  Cathedral. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  she  go  to  the  Cathedral  next  morning  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;  I  saw  her  behind  a  pillar,  shaking  her  fist  at  him. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  think  she  knew  something  about  him  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;  that  she  knew  more  about  his  character  than  anybody  else  suspected. 

Mr.  Walters  :  May  I  take  it  that  the  results  of  your  investigations  led  you  to  the 
conclusions  about  John  Jasper — that  they  increased  your  suspicions  ? 

38 


Evidence  of  Helena  Landless 

Witness  :  I  had  my  suspicions  from  the  first. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  keep  a  record  of  your  successes  at  the  time  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  How  ? 

Witness  :  In  chalk  marks. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Why  in  chalk  marks  ? 

Witness  :  I  like  the  old  tavern  way  of  keeping  scores.  You  may  make  a  little  mark, 
and  nobody  but  the  scorer  knows  what  it  means  :  a  small  mark  for  a  small  success, 
and  a  big  mark  for  a  big  one. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Was  another  reason  that  you  did  not  wish  your  woman's  hand- 
writing to  be  discovered  ? 

Witness  :  That  would  never  have  done. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  adopt  any  device  to  bring  Jasper  into  your  presence,  or  not  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;  Mr.  Grewgious  had  told  me  that  he  had  given  a  ring  to  Edwin  Drood. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  did  you  use  that  ring  in  any  way  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;  it  was  this  ring  that  I  used  to  lure  him. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  then,  when  you  confronted  Jasper,  you  felt  that  you  had 
sufficient  to  go  upon  to  accuse  him  openly  of  murder  ? 

Witness  :  I  did.  His  appearance  and  agitation  were  sufficient. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  so  he  was  accused  of  murder  ;  and  your  motives  throughout 
were  disinterested  motives  for  the  protection  of  Rosa  Bud  and  your  brother  ? 

Witness  :  That  is  so. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  knew  Edwin  Drood  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  think  that  if  he  had  voluntarily  disappeared  while  all  this 
trouble  was  going  on,  he  would  have  communicated  with  his  friends  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  he  was  a  kind-hearted  lad. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  cannot  understand  him  being  silent  while  Rosa  was  in  danger  ? 

Witness  :  I  am  sure  he  would  not  be. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  think  that,  wherever  he  was,  he  would  have  spoken,  if  alive  ? 

Witness  :  I  do. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Thank  you,  that  will  do. 

[Helena  Landless  Cross-examined.] 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Miss  Landless,  you  say  you  knew  the  prisoner  to  some  extent 
before  the  disappearance  of  Edwin  Drood  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  When  did  you  learn  that  the  prisoner  was  addicted  to  opium 
smoking — or  have  you  learned  it  ? 

•  Witness  :  Mr,  Tope  told  me  of  a  seizure  he  had  in  the  Cathedral, 

39 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  When  was  that,  approximately  ? 

Witness  :  As  far  as  I  can  remember,  about  a  few  weeks  after  I  came  to  Cloisterham 
as  Dick  Datchery.  Rosa  told  me  how  frightened  she  was  of  him  after  he  had  had  a  dream  ; 
that  he  used  to  go  into  a  peculiar  kind  of  dream,  and  a  film  came  over  his  eyes,  and  then 
she  was  more  terrified  of  him  than  before. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  But  you  are  putting  two  very  different  dates.  I  want  to  know 
when  you  realised  he  was  addicted  to  opium  smoking. 

Witness  :  It  takes  a  little  time  to  realise  anything.  We  hear  this  and  that,  and  we 
put  two  and  two  together. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  When  Rosa  gave  you  that  information,  did  you  suspect 
opium  smoking  ? 

Witness  :  I  had  a  faint  suspicion. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  It  occurred  to  you  that  it  was  probably  opium.  You  knew  Edwin 
Drood,  Miss  Landless  } 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Was  he  a  conspicuous  person— a  person  to  notice  very  much  ? 

Witness  :  Not  very  much,  with  the  exception  of  this  :  that  he  was  rather  patronising, 
and  had  the  air  of  a  lad  who  was  very  much  at  home  with  himself. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  He  dressed  like  ordinary  young  men  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Wore  trousers  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  certainly,  I  believe  so. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Do  you  understand  that  the  ring  was  found  in  the  quicklime  ? 

Witness  :  I  believe  so. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Oh  !   you  believe  so  ! 

Witness  :  It  was  found  there. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Were  any  buttons  found  there  ? 

Witness  :  No,  I  believe  not. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  I  suppose  Mr.  Drood  would  presumably  have  on  either  a  belt 
or  braces.  Was  a  buckle  or  a  belt  or  braces  found  in  the  quicklime  ? 
Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Nothing  was  found  in  the  lime  except  this  ring  .'' 
Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Thank  you. 
Witness  :  I  could  throw  some  light  on  that. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Your  Counsel  will  no  doubt  re-examine  you.  Now,  I  want  to 
know  about  this  disguise  of  yours.  You  told  us  that  it  was  no  new  thing  to  disguise  your- 
self, because  you  dressed  up  as  a  boy  in  Ceylon.  Would  you  kindly  tell  me  how  old  you 
were  the  last  time  you  did  it  ? 

Witness  :  Thirteen. 

40 


Evidence  of  Helena  Landless 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Do  you  really  suggest  that  a  little  girl  of  thirteen  dressing  up 
as  a  little  boy— dressing  up  as  a  boy  of  thirteen— is  any  sort  of  qualification  for  a  young 
lady  of  21  dressing  up  as  an  "  old  buffer  living  idly  on  his  means  "  ? 

Witness  :  Yes ;  the  girl  is  mother  to  the  woman,  as  the  boy  is  father  to  the  man. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Well,  now,  you  have  told  us,  Miss  Landless,  that  in  dressing  up 
as  Datchery,  you  wore  a  white  wig,  blue  coat,  buff  waistcoat,  and  so  on.  Did  you  do 
anything  to  your  face  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  did  not  paint  your  face  at  all  ? 

Witness  :  I  always  have  enough  colour  in  my  face  without  paint. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  did  not  make  up  your  face  in  any  way  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Do  you  ask  the  Jury  to  believe  that  you  had  been  going  about 
Cloisterham  as  Helena  Landless  for  more  than  six  months— ever  since  you  came  to 
Canon  Crisparkle's— that  you  had  been  going  about  as  Miss  Helena  Landless  ;  that 
you  did  not  alter  your  face  in  any  way,  and  went  about  as  Dick  Datchery,  seeing  the 
same  people  ?   Do  you  ask  the  Jury  to  believe  that  you  were  not  recpgnised  ? 

Witness  :  I  ask  them  to  believe  it,  because  it  is  the  truth. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Very  well ;   the  Jury  will  decide  that  for  themselves.  You  say 
you  went  to  Cloisterham  and  put  up  at  the  Crozier  ? 
Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  also  told  us  that  you  ordered  a  certain  meal— a  fried  sole, 
a  veal  cutlet,  and  a  pint  of  sherry.  When  my  learned  friend  asked  you,  you  said  you 
would  leave  it  to  us.  I  must  ask  you  :  did  you  consume  that  meal  ? 

Witness  :  I  am  a  healthy  young  woman,  but  I  did  not  eat  it  all.  I  had  a  little  of  the 
fish,  some  of  the  cutlet,  and  some  of  the  sherry. 
Mr.  Chesterton  :  How  much  sherry  ? 
Witness  :  I  had  a  glass. 

Judge  :  It  is  important  to  insist  whether  the  glasses  were  ordinary  wine  glasses. 
A  Juryman  (Mr.  Edwin  Pugh)  :  I  think  it  is  not  a  fair  question. 
Judge  :  Any  question  is  fair  that  tends  to  bring  out  the  truth.  We  have  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  all  the  people  in  the  Court  are  not  lying— nay,  even  are  not  supporting 
fictitious  characters  ! 

The  Juryman  :  But  a  sherry  glass  might  be  a  tumbler. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Miss  Landless,  I  press  you.  You  say  you  only  drank  one  glass. 
The  remainder  of  the  pint  you  left  in  the  bottle. 
Witness  :  I  did  not  say  that. 
Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  did  you  do  ? 

Witness  :  If  I  must  say,  there  were  receptacles  in  the  room  used  by  smokers.  Some 
went  that  way,  some  I  left  in  the  bottle,  and  some  I  drank. 
Mr.  Chesterton  :  Were  not  people  present  ? 
Witness  :  Not  all  the  time.  Only  part  of  the  time. 

41 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  They  retired  simultaneously  ? 

Witness  :  No  ;  there  were  not  many  there  when  I  went  in.  Some  left  at  once ; 
some  finished  their  dinners  and  went  away. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  the  fortunate  moment  arrived  when  you  could  pour  out 
the  sherry  .'' 

Witness  :  There  are  such  things  as  fortunate  moments. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Your  taste  in  food  and  drink  interests  me  a  little.  I  shall  return 
to  the  Crozier.  But  later  on,  when  staying  at  Tope's,  you  used  to  have  an  evening  meal 
prepared  for  you,  consisting  of  bread  and  cheese  and  salad  and  ale  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Was  that  the  sort  of  meal  you  were  accustomed  to  at  Miss 
Twinkleton's. 

Witness  :  But,  you  see,  I  was  not  at  Miss  Twinkleton's. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  But  there  would  not  have  been  anything  eccentric  about  coffee  or  tea? 

Witness  :  I  think  it  would  be  a  very  feminine  beverage. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Very  well.  You  told  my  learned  friend  that  you  did  not  really 
lose  your  way  from  the  Crozier  to  Tope's  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  The  truth  of  your  story  you  are  prepared  to  stake  on  that  being  so  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Will  the  Jury  look  at  page  191  of  the  book  ?  *  There  it  states 
"|he  soon  became  bewildered,  and  went  boggling  about  and  about  the  Cathedral  tower, 
whenever  he  could  catch  a  glimpse  of  it  .  .  .  "  {To  the  witness)  You  could  catch  a 
glimpse  of  it  when  you  liked  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  There  was  no  question  of  catching  a  glimpse  of  it.  You  could  go 
straight  to  it  if  you  w^anted  to  ? 

Witness  :  If  you  are  quoting  from  the  book. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  We  are  quoting  from  something  that  is  admitted  as  evidence. 
Every  statement  made  here  must  be  taken  as  being  true. 

Witness  :  But  that  was  a  blind. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  I  want  to  carry  you  further.  Miss  Landless — "  with  a  general 
impression  on  his  mind  that  Mrs.  Tope's  was  somewhere  very  near  it."  Is  that  the 
general  impression  on  your  mind  ? 

Witness  :  I  knew  exactly  where  to  go  to  Mrs.  Tope's. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  this  "  general  impression  on  your  mind  "  goes  on — "  and 
that,  like  the  children  in  the  game  of  hot  boiled  beans  and  very  good  butter,  he  was  warm 
in  his  search  when  he  saw  the  tower,  and  cold  when  he  didn't  see  it."  Is  not  that  a 
definite  statement  as  to  the  condition  of  your  mind,  and  not  as  to  your  external  actions, 
and  does  it  not  assert  that  you  did  not  know  where  Tope's  lodgings  were  ? 

*  Each  Juryman  had  been  supplied  with  a  copy  of  the  book  in  the  is.  edition. 

42 


Evidence  of  Helena  Landless 

Witness  :  I  take  it  as  a  blind. 

Judge  :  I  draw  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  the  fact  that  the  conditions  of  anybody's 
frame  of  mind  have  been  paid  perhaps  too  Httle  attention  to,  and  if  Miss  Landless 
chooses  to  say  that  the  original  literary  person  from  whom  I  believe  we  procured  most 
of  this  information  was  not  quite  accurate,  one  can  only  say  she  has  probably  gone 
outside  the  rules. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  My  Lord,  I  would  direct  your  attention  to  the  third  paragraph 
of  the  "  Conditions." 

Judge  {ajter  perusing  the  paragraph  referred  to)  :  Yes,  I  see  :  that  is,  on  the  face 
of  it,  it  is  quite  clear  that  a  statement  does  appear  to  be  made  to  that  effect.  The  rest 
falls  into  the  deplorable  abyss  of  literature. 

Mr.  Chesterton  {to  witness) :  Now,  after  you  had  been  "  bogghng  about "  in  search 
of  a  pk^e  which  you  knew  perfectly  well  already,  you  met  a  small  boy,  I  think  ? 

WnT^JiSS  :  I  did. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  I  need  not  trouble  you  with  the  conversation,  but  that  boy  agreed 
to  conduct  you  to  Tope's  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Now  he  brought  you  to  a  place  from  which  the  arched  passage 
was  visible  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  you  said,  "  That's  Tope's  "  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  he  answered,  "  Yer  lie  ;  it  ain't.  That's  Jarsper's."  Is 
that  so  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  you  said,  "  Indeed  ?  "  And  you  gave  a  "  second  look,  of 
some  interest."  What  was  the  meaning  of  that  ? 

Witness  :  Well,  of  course,  I  knew  it  was  Jasper's,  but  when  Jasper's  house  or  any- 
thing connected  with  him,  was  brought  to  my  mind,  I  always  thought  it  was  interesting, 
and  gave  a  look  for  that  reason. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  But  you  knew  you  were  going  to  Jasper's  house  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  But  why  did  you  give  it  a  second  look  ? 

Witness  :  Because  I  was  so  interested. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  knew  it  was  Jasper's,  because  the  boy  said  it  was  Jasper's, 
and  you  gave  it  "  a  look  of  some  interest  "  ! 

Witness  :  We  know  that  dinner  is  ready,  but  we  look  with  interest  at  it  before  we 
sit  down  to  it. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  knew  it  was  Jasper's,  and  gave  "  a  second  look  of  some  in- 
terest "  when  told  it  was  Jasper's.  Now  you  went  to  Tope's,  and  you  met,  as  you  told  us, 
Jasper  and  Mr,  Sapsea,  and  other  people.  Novv^  you  kept  your  record,  you  told  us,  in 

43 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

chalk,  and  you  told  us  that  one  of  your  reasons  for  doing  that  was  that  you  must  evade 
discovery  of  your  handwriting  ? 

Witness  :  That  is  so. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Had  it  not  been  for  the  fact  that  you  were  a  woman,  I  take  it 
you  ask  us  to  believe  that  you  would  have  written  up  in  ordinary  writing  all  that  you 
thought  and  speculated  about  Jasper  on  the  cupboard  door  ? 

Witness  :  I  do  not  ask  you  to  believe  anything  of  the  kind,  for  I  should  not  have 
been  so  foolish.  I  could  have  written  some  words  if  I  had  wished  to,  but  I  would  not 
write  at  all. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  used  the  old  tavern  way  of  keeping  scores.  Where  did  you 
learn  that  ? 

Witness  :  In  Ceylon. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  is  the  Cingalese  tavern  way  ? 

Witness  :  I  have  not  been  brought  up  in  a  drawing-room,  but  among  a  very  rough 
set  of  people.  My  step-father  was  a  low,  common  man,  and  frequented  taverns,  and  we 
children  could  go  inside  and  outside  or  anywhere. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Are  there  taverns  in  Ceylon  ? 

Witness  :  I  don't  know  that  they  call  them  taverns. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Do  you  suggest  that  the  phrase  "  old  tavern  way  of  keeping 
scores  "  refers  to  Ceylon  ? 

Witness  :  My  chalk  marks  revert  to  the  time  when  I  was  there. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  How  did  you  keep  scores  in  Ceylon  ? 

Witness  :  I  did  not  keep  scores  there,  but  I  saw  other  people. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  How  do  you  know  how  they  were  kept  ? 

Witness  :  I  did  not  say  I  did  know  exactly,  but  I  learned  that  a  little  mark  meant  a 
certain  quantity,  a  bigger  mark  more,  and  so  no, 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  like  the  old  tavern  way  of  keeping  scores,  but  do  not  know 
how  it  is  done  ? 

Witness  :  I  know  that  a  man  that  had  quarts  had  large  strokes,  and  a  man  that  had 
pints  smaller  ones. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  swear  that  was  done  in  Ceylon  ? 

Witness  :  I  swear  that  sort  of  thing  was  done  there. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  sort  of  drinks  do  they  have  there  ? 

Witness  :  I  never  had  their  drinks.  I  saw  them  drinking,  but  I  did  not  know  what 
it  was.  But  I  saw  the  scores  being  kept  on  the  back  of  the  door. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Do  you  know  what  they  were  drinking  at  all  ? 

Witness  :  I  took  it  for  spirits,  and  beer,  and  so  on. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  So  you  knew  little  about  the  drinking,  but  a  great  deal  about 
the  scoring  } 

Witness  :  That  interested  me  as  a  child.  My  brother  and  I  used  to  talk  about  it. 

44 


Evidence  of  Helena  Landless 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  was  the  purpose  of  the  scores  ? 

Witness  :  The  tavern  keepers  would  do  it  to  know  what  was  due  from  Tom  Scott, 
or  Jim  Price. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  told  us  that  you  undertook  the  Datchery  impersonation, 
so  to  speak,  in  collaboration  with  Mr.  Grewgious  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  May  I  take  it  you  know  him  well  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Frequently  correspond  with  him  ? 

Witness  :  I  correspond  with  him. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Receive  letters  from  him  ? 

Witness  :  I  have  had  letters  from  him. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  know  his  profession  ? 

Witness  :  A  lawyer. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  sort } 

Witness  :  I  don't  know. 

Judge  :  He  is  a  lawyer,  and  I  think  that  covers  it.  He  is,  indeed,  a  particular  kind 
of  solicitor,  but  I  think  a  lady  might  well  be  excused  for  not  knowing  that. 

Mr.  Walters  :  A  lawyer  covers  everything. 

Judge  :  I  think  that  is  fair. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  is  he  ? 

Witness  :  A  lawyer. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  sort  of  business  does  he  carry  on  ? 

Mr.  Walters  :  She  doesn't  know. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  I  submit  she  knows  nothing  about  Mr.  Grewgious,  and  that  she 
has  not  had  correspondence  with  him. 

Mr.  Walters  :  The  official  record  says  she  did  know  Mr.  Grewgious,  and  saw  him 
in  his  Chambers. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  She  might  know  Mr.  Grewgious,  but  have  no  correspondence 
with  him.  I  am  asking  what  sort  of  business  he  carries  on. 

Witness  :  I  know  he  is  a  lawyer. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  nothing  more  ? 

Witness  :  Women  don't  interest  themselves  very  much  in  these  things. 

Judge  :  No,  I  think  that's  fair. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Now,  the  next  time  we  hear  anything  of  the  official  records. 
Miss  Landless,  you  were  back  again  in  London.  How  was  that  ? — in  your  own  proper 
person,  and  ceased  to  be  Datchery. 

Witness  :  I  went  up  in  the  evening. 
Mr.  Chesterton  :  In  the  evening  ? 

45  D 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Witness  :  By  the  last  'bus  and  train. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  time  ? 

Witness  :  The  'bus  that  leaves  the  Crozier. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  time  ? 

Witness  :  I  forget  exactly,  but  I  think  about  six. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Had  you  any  reason  for  going  up  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  was  it  ? 

Witness  :  I  wanted  to  see  my  brother. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  There  was  no  particular  reason  why  that  day  more  than  any 
other  day  ? 

Witness  :  No,  I  think  not. 

Mr.  Chesterton:  I  suppose  you  will  admit  you  were  running  a  certain  risk  of  discovery? 
Witness  :  Yes,  there  was  some,  but  I  thought  I  should  be  able  to  avoid  it. 
Mr,  Chesterton  :  Anybody  might  follow  you  ? 
Witness  :  Might. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You   were   a  stranger  in   Cloisterham.   Anybody   might  have 
followed  you  to  London.  You  were  running  that  risk  for  no  particular  reason  at  all  ? 

Witness  :  Oh  !  but  I  knew  my  brother  was  very,  very  unhappy,  and  I  knew  I  could 
cheer  him  and  comfort  him,  and  he  was  very,  very  dear  to  me. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Your  visit  had  nothing  to  do  with  Rosa's  visit  to  London  ? 
Witness  :  I  did  not  know  she  was  there. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Mr.  Grewgious  had  not  written  and  asked  you  to  go  ? 
Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  No  reason  ? 
Witness  :  Yes  ;  the  reason    I  have  given  you. 
Mr.  Chesterton  :  But  there  was  no  particular  reason  ? 

Witness  :  Is  it  not  particular  to  go  and  cheer  one  who  is  closely  bound  to  you  } 
Judge  :    I  think  the  witness's  remark  is  quite  clear.  She  says  she  had  an  impulse  in 
an  avowedly  emotional  atmosphere  to  go  and  see  somebody. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Very  well.    {To  witness.)  You  met,  you  have  told  us,  an  opium 
woman  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  you  had  a  conversation  with  her,  and  afterwards   made  a 
mark  on  your  score — your  Cingalese  score  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  A  moderate  mark  ;   then  you  saw  her,  in  the  Cathedral,  shake 
her  fist  at  Jasper  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

46 


Evidence  of  Helena  Landless 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Then  you  made  a  big  mark.  What  was  the  meaning  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  am  not  sure  that  she  is  bound  to  answer  that  question.  It  is  sufficient 
that  she  made  the  mark. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  I  am  endeavouring  to  show  that  this  story  is  not  true,  as  I  shall 
represent  to  the  Jury,  and  my  motive  for  asking  the  question  is,  that  I  suggest  it  was  not 
Miss  Landless  who  made  the  mark.  The  witness  who  did  make  the  mark  will  be  sum- 
moned later,  and  asked  why  he  made  it. 

Witness  :  You  ask  why  I  made  the  long  mark  ? 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Yes. 

Witness  :  Because  I  thought,  when  she  shook  her  fist  at  Jasper,  and  putting  with 
that  the  fact  that  she  had  followed  him,  I  concluded  that  she  knew  something  against 
him,  and  I  thought  I  had  scored,  and  scored  heavily. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Is  that  all  ? 

Witness  :  I  had  learned  more  than  that.  I  had  learned  that  Edwin  Drood  had  given 
her  money  for  opium  on  Christmas  Eve. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  did  that  prove  ? 

Judge  :  We  must  not  go  into  what  that  could  prove.  The  witness  has  given  a  per- 
fectly clear  and  definite  account  of  her  proceedings,  and  I  strongly  suggest  that  unless 
there  is  some  particular  point  to  be  made,  she  should  now  be  released  from  the  witness- 
box,  because  the  other  point  whether  she  knows  anything  about  the  scoring  at  inns,  or 
whether  such  practices  are  common  in  Ceylon,  must  be  left  to  later  discussion. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  That  is  not  the  point  I  am  trying  to  make  ;  but  that  there  was 
no  reason  why  she  should  make  the  score,  and  I  asked  why  she  made  it.  I  believe  she 
did  not. 

Judge  :  But  if  she  replies  that  she  makes  long  or  short  chalk  marks,  in  accordance 
with  the  ebullitions  of  her  emotional  nature 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  She  is  entitled  to  do  so. 

Judge  :  That  would  be  an  answer,  and  the  only  answer  to  which  you  will  be  entitled 

at  the  moment. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  If  she  likes,  she  may. 

Judge  :  She  has  told  you  that  she  made  a  long  stroke  because  she  thought  she  had 
made  a  great  score  in  her  own  mind  against  Jasper,  and  that  she  made  a  shorter  mark 
before  because  she  had  not  made  a  big  score.  That  is  all  that  could  be  expected  to  be  got 
out  of  her,  without  a  self-contradiction  which  would  amount  to  perjury. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  I  have  very  little  more  to  ask,  and  shall  get  through  very  quickly. 
{To  zoitness.)  Now,  you  tell  us  that  your  motives  were  very  compelling.  You  didn't 
care  much  about  Edwin  Drood,  did  you  ? 

Witness  :  No,  there  was  nothing  particular  about  him.  I  thought  he  was  a  nice 
young  fellow. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  did  ?  You  did  not  call  him  "  base  and  trivial  " .? 

Witness  :  When  he  acted  as  he  did  to  my  brother,  I  felt  angry,  and  naturally  said 
things  I  should  not  have  said. 

47 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Your  feelings  were  not  very  strong  ? 
Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Your  motive,  you  say,  was  care  for  your  brother  and  for  Miss 
Rosa  Bud  ? 

Witness  :  That  is  so. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Do  you  consider  those  motives  adequate  to  induce  you  to  take 
the  course  you  say  you  took  ? 

Witness  :  I  do. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Enough  to  make  you  take  all  risks  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  To  go  all  lengths  ? 

Witness  :  To  the  risk  of  my  life. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Your  life  ? 

Witness  :  He  was  all  I  had. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Enough  to  compel  you  to  do  anything  ? 

Witness  :  Anything  that  was  right  and  true.  You  can't  catch  me  that  way. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  I  put  it  to  you  that  the  whole  of  your  story  is  a  romance. 

Witness  :  You  put  it  to  me  ? 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  I  put  it  to  you,  in  fairness. 

Witness  :  Will  you  please  consider  that  I  am  here  on  my  oath  ? 

Mr.  Chesterton  {to  Judge)  :  Your  Lordship  knows  I  am  bound  to  put  that. 

Witness  :  I  can  only  answer  that  every  word  I  have  spoken  is  true. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Suppose  every  word  you  have  spoken  is  true :  is  there  a  single 
word  you  have  spoken  that  proves  that  Edwin  Drood  was  murdered  .'' 

Witness  :  I  don't  know  that  you  have  asked  questions  to  elicit  that. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  It  is  not  my  business.  Is  there  a  word  in  the  whole  of  the  testi- 
mony you  have  given  to  your  own  Counsel  or  to  me  that  proves  that  Edwin  Drood  was 
murdered  ?    Did  you,  for  example,  see  Edwin  Drood  murdered  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Do  you  know  anyone  who  saw  the  murder  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Have  you  seen  his  body  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Do  you  know  anyone  who  has  seen  it  ? 

Witness  :  I  don't  think  his  body  could  be  seen. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Then  you  really  have  no  evidence  to  produce  to  prove  that 
Edwin  Drood  is  dead  ? 

Witness  :  I  have  the  ring. 

48 


Evidence  of  Helena  Landless 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  That  is  all  the  evidence — your  whole  case  ?  I  want  to  press  this 
point  very  much.  On  that  ring  your  case  rests.  Is  that  so  ? 

Witness  :  I  am  not  a  woman  who  understands  very  much  about  legal  proceedings. 
It  is  the  first  time  I  have  been  in  court.  It  is  a  hard  thing  for  a  clever  man  like  you  to 
put  a  question  like  this  to  an  unsophisticated  witness, 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  But  you  are  the  person  who  has  worked  out  the  whole  scheme 
against  Jasper.  Does  not  the  whole  case  for  the  death,  not  for  the  plan  or  the  under- 
taking, but  for  the  death  having  taken  place,  rest  on  the  finding  of  that  ring  ? 

Witness  :  Well,  perhaps  the  case  for  incriminating,  bringing  it  home  to  Jasper, 
rests  on  the  ring. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  x\nd  if  that  ring — the  presence  of  that  ring — could  be  satisfactorily 
explained — the  presence  of  the  ring  in  the  quicklime  could  be  satisfactorily  explained 
in  any  other  way — you  would  have  nothing  to  produce  to  show  that  it  was  a  murder  ? 

Witness  :  I  might  have  no  evidence,  but  I  should  be  morally  certain. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  would  hold  your  opinion,  we  know,  but  you  would  have 
no  evidence  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Judge  :  I  think  we  must  be  careful  not  to  get  into  argument. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  My  Lord,  I  am  finishing. 

Witness  :  What  you  and  I  think  is  evidence  might  be  two  different  questions. 

Judge  :  That  is  indeed  very  probable. 

Witness  :  I  don't  think  it  fair  to  ask  questions  like  that. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  I  will  take  her  answer. 

Mr.  Walters  {re-examining)  :  It  does  not  require  particular  affection  for  any 
particular  person  to  wish  that  he  should  not  be  murdered  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Although  you  might  not  be  violently  enamoured  of  Edwin  Drood, 
you  might  want  to  bring  his  murderer  to  justice  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  It  has  been  suggested  that  your  story  is  entirely  romance.  If  you  had 
been  acting  a  part,  would  you  not  naturally  have  been  disgraced  for  ever  in  the  eyes 
of  all  who  know  you  ? 

Witness  :  I  should  indeed. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Have  you  not  a  particular  reason  at  present  for  wishing  to  stand  high 
in  the  esteem  of  certain  people  ? 

Witness  :  I  have. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Don't  you  think  you  would  forfeit  that  esteem  if  you  stood  there 
on  your  oath,  and  told  a  tissue  of  falsehoods  ? 

Witness  :  I  should. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Is  there  not  every  reason  why  you  should  tell  the  truth  ? 

Witness  :  There  is. 

49 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Walters  :  Have  you  anything  to  gain  by  telling  lies  ? 

Witness  :  I  have  all  to  lose. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Have  you  not  been  working  entirely  for  others  throughout  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  would  not  have  taken  this  part  if  you  could  have  helped  it  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  when  you  were  making  these  investigations  you  did  not  want 
to  go  to  everybody  and  ask  his  definite  business — "  What  sort  of  lawyer  are  you  ?  "  ? 

Witness  :  No  ;   I  never  thought  about  it.  He  was  a  lawyer,  and  that's  all  I  knew. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Have  you  ever  written  a  tragedy  that  nobody  will  bring  out  ? 

Witness  :  No,  indeed,  I  have  not. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  so  you  have  no  particular  reason  for  standing  in  the  limelight 
and  making  yourself  a  heroine.  Thank  you. 

Judge  :  The  Court  will  now  adjourn  for  about  ten  or  fifteen  minutes. 

The  Court  accordingly  adjourned.  On  the  resumption  of  the  proceedings,  Mr. 
Walters  announced  that  the  evidence  of  Miss  Helena  Landless  had  completed  his  case. 

[The  Case  for  the  Defence.] 

Mr.  Crotch,  in  opening  the  case  for  the  defence,  said — 

My  Lord,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury — 

I  am  not  going  to  follow  the  example  of  my  learned  friend,  but  I  am  merely  going 
to  outline  the  defence  as  briefly  as  possible.  I  am  going  to  say  at  once  that  we  are  not 
out  to  attempt  to  dispute  in  any  way  that  the  prisoner  desired  the  death  of  Edwin  Drood 
or  that  he  intended  to  murder  him,  nor  that  he  planned  to  murder  him,  nor  that  he 
actually  attempted  to  murder  him,  nor  indeed,  my  Lord,  that  at  one  time,  and  for  some 
time,  he  did  believe  that  he  had  actually  murdered  him.  What  we  do  say,  however,  is 
that  no  murder  took  place.  For  any  murder  there  must  be,  not  only  a  murderer,  but  a 
murdered  man.  Now,  granted  for  a  moment  that  in  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  you  have  a 
potential  murderer,  where  is  the  murdered  man  ? 

Mr.  Walters  :  This  is  strictly  against  all  agreements. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  I  will  put  my  statement  in  another  way,  my  Lord. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  draw  your  attention  to  this  fact  :  it  is  agreed  that  the  legal  point 
that  no  conviction  can  take  place  since  no  body  has  been  found,  shall  be  raised  only  after 
the  retirement  of  the  jury.  This  ought  not  to  have  been  introduced  at  all. 

Judge  :  But  we  may  assume,  what  is  apparently  the  fact,  that  no  murdered  body 
has  been  found  ? 

Mr.  Walters  :  But  he  went  further,  and  said.  "  Where  is  the  body  ?  " 

Mr.  Crotch  :  May  I  placate  my  friend  and  say,  have  we  a  murdered  man  ?  We 
say  John  Jasper  did  not  murder  Edwin  Drood  on  the  Christmas  Eve  of  i860.  We  have 
every  reason  to  believe  that  Edwin  Drood  is  still  alive,  and  in  that  case,  of  course,  it 
follows  that  you  cannot  legally  convict  John  Jasper  for  murder.  Now,  it  will  naturally 
be  asked  how,  if  a  murder  was  admittedly  attempted,  it  can  have  failed,  and  still  more, 

SO 


Evidence  of  "  Princess  Puffer  " 

that  if  it  failed,  how  the  supposed  murderer  could  have  believed  that  it  had  succeeded. 
Those  questions  will  be  probably  solved  :  we  hope  they  will  be  solved  by  the  evidence 
which  we  shall  put  before  you.  All  I  think  it  is  at  the  moment  necessary  to  say  is,  that 
the  key  to  the  story  will  be  found  in  the  opium  habits  to  which  the  prisoner  undoubtedly 
was  addicted.  My  Lord,  there  is  a  story  told  of  an  Irish  priest,  who,  warning  his  con- 
gregation against  the  evils  of  intemperance,  said,  "  What  makes  you  shoot  at  your 
landlord  .''  "  And  the  reply  came,  "  It's  the  drink."  "  And  begad,  what  makes  you  fail 
to  shoot  him  ?  "  The  same  reply — "  It's  the  drink."  My  Lord  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Jury,  we  submit  that,  in  a  word,  is  the  story  of  John  Jasper.  Now  John  Jasper  is — 
presumably  my  friend  will  admit  it — he  has  tried  to  prove  it — I  don't  think  he  has 
demonstrated  much  by  it — he  has  tried  to  get  out  of  his  witnesses  that  this  man  was  an 
opium  smoker.  From  our  point  of  view  that  is  excellent.  We  say  that  John  Jasper  had, 
on  the  night  previous  to  this  murderous  attack  on  Edwin  Drood,  indulged  in  a  gross 
opium  debauch,  and  because  he  did,  in  the  midst  of  the  commission  of  his  crime  he  had 
one  of  those  sudden  seizures  to  which  he  was  subjected,  and  that  under  the  influence  of 
opium  he  failed  to  complete  the  crime,  but  still  believed  that  he  had.  Because  he  was 
under  the  influence  of  opium,  he  completed  it  in  imagination,  and  then  afterwards  imagined 
that  he  had  completed  it  in  fact ;  and  because  his  victim — and  this  is  the  point  that  I 
want  to  draw  your  attention  to  especially— because  his  victim  also  was  under  the  influence 
of  opium,  having  been  drugged  by  Jasper,  he  failed  to  give  any  connected  or  reasonable 
and  rational  account  of  what  had  happened  in  these  circumstances.  That,  I  submit,  my 
Lord,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  is  the  outline.  The  details  will  be  presently  filled  in 
by  witnesses,  who  will  testify.  You  will  perceive  that  if  it  is  true — and  we  shall  prove  it 
to  be  true — then  John  Jasper,  whatever  his  intention,  however  great  his  moral  obliquity, 
cannot  be  legally  convicted  of  murder. — Eliza  Lascar,  alias  the  "  Princess  Puffer." 

[Evidence  of  the  "  Princess  Puffer,"] 
Usher  :  Eliza  Lascar,  alias  "  Princess  Puffer  "  ! 
[The  witness  entered  the  witness-box,  and  was  duly  sworn.] 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Are  you  sworn  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  deary. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Your  name,  I  believe,  is  Eliza  Lascar  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  deary.  Oh,  my  lungs  is  so  weak  ! 

Mr.  Crotch  :  My  dear  lady  ! 

Witness  :  Oh,  my  lungs  ! 

Mr.  Crotch  :  You  are  known  as  "  Princess  Puffer  "  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  deary.  I  got  Heavens-hard  drunk  for  sixteen  year  afore  I  took  to 
this  ;  but  this  don't  hurt  me,  not  to  speak  of. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  You  keep  an  opium  den  in  the  East  End  of  London,  I  believe  ? 

Witness  :  I  do  ;   but  business  is  slack. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Do  you  know  the  prisoner  ? 

Witness  :  Know  him  !  Better  far  than  all  the  Reverend  Parsons  put  together  know  him. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  He  is  a  customer  of  yours,  I  believe  ? 

Witness  :  When  he  first  came  to  me  he  was  quite  new  to  it,  but  after  a  while  he  could 
take  his  pipe  with  the  best  of  'em,  deary. 

51 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Crotch  :  I  conclude  from  that  he  was  a  heavy  opium  smoker  ? 

Witness  :  He  was,  deary. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Do  you  remember  his  being  in  your  place  on  the  night  of  the  twelfth 
of  December  ? 

Witness  :  He  was,  dear}'.  I  see  him  coming  to,  and  I  says,  deary,  "  Get  him  another 
ready  when  he  wakes,  and  he  will  remember  the  market  price  of  opium  is  very  high." 

Mr.  Crotch  :  What  was  the  date  he  next  visited  you  ? 

Witness  :  December  23,  my  deary  dear. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  You  need  not  be  so  affectionate.  What  happened  next  day  ? 

Witness  :  I  followed  him  to  his  home. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  What  happened  ? 

Witness  :  I  lost  him  where  the  omnibus  he  got  into  nigh  his  journey's  end  plies 
betwixt  the  station  and  the  place. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Did  you  meet  anybody  else  ? 

Witness  :  I  met  a  dear  gentleman  named  Edwin. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  What  did  you  say  to  him  ? 

Witness  :  I  said  to  him,  "  My  lungs  is  weak,  my  lungs  is  bad  " — and  the  dear 
gentleman  he  put  three-and-sixpence  in  my  hand. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  And  when  did  you  next  meet  the  prisoner  ? 

Witness  :  Oh,  my  poor  head  !  In  186 1.  He  comes  to  me  all  over  like  for  the  want 
of  a  smoke.  I  says,  "  You  have  come  to  the  right  place.  This  is  the  place  where  the 
all  overs  is  smoked  off." 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Then  what  happened  ? 

Witness  :  Then  what  happened,  deary  ?  I  follows  him  to  Aldersgate  Street,  the 
place  where  he  puts  up,  and  I  finds  out  where  he  comes  from,  and  I  says  to  my  poor  self 
"  I  missed  you  the  first  time,  and  I  swore  my  oath  I  will  not  lose  you  again,  my  gentle- 
man from  Cloisterham.  I'll  go  there  first,  and  bide  your  coming."  And  I  did.  I  goes  to 
Cloisterham,  and  I  waits  outside  the  Nun's  House,  just  where  the  omnibus  goes,  and 
he  gets  down,  and  I  follows  him  up  a  bystreet  till  he  disappears  under  a  archway  to 
the  left.  I  turns  round,  and  he  was  gone. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Did  you  see  any  one  ? 

Witness  :  A  white-haired  gentleman  who  told  me  that  his  name  was  Datchery. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Did  you  go  to  the  Cathedral  next  morning  ? 

Witness  :  I  did,  deary. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Did  you  see  the  prisoner  there  ? 

Witness  :  I  see  him  from  behind  a  pillar. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  You  recognised  him  ? 

Witness  :  I  recognised  him,  deary. 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Did  you  afterwards  meet  the  white-haired  gentleman  you  have  spoken  of.? 

Witness  :  I  did,  deary. 

52 


Evidence  of  "  Princess  Puffer  " 

Mr.  Crotch  :  Did  you  tell  him  you  knew  the  prisoner  ? 
Witness  :  I  told  him  that  I  knew  him. 
Mr.  Crotch  :  Yes  ? 

Witness  :  I  said,  "  I  know  him.  I  know  him  better  than  all  the  Reverend  Parsons 
put  together  knows  him. 
Mr.  Crotch  :  Thank  you. 

["  Princess  Puffer  "  Cross-examined.] 
Mr.  Walters  :  Just  one  question.  When  you  met  Edwin  Drood,  I  think  you  told 
him  "  Ned  "  was  a  threatened  name  ? 
Witness  :  Yes,  deary. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  did  you  mean  by  "  threatened  "  ? 
Witness  :  It  was  a  bad  name. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  think  a  man  threatened  is  in  danger  ? 
Witness  :  It  sounds  like  it,  deary,  don't  it  ? 

Mr.  Walters  :  It  does.  I  want  you  to  agree  with  me.  I  think  you  were  in  the  habit 
of  listening  to  Mr.  Jasper  when  he  had  a  httle  opium  ? 
Witness  :  That  is  so. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Ever  hear  him  say  the  word  "  Ned  "  ? 
Witness  :  I  can't  recollect.  I  should  think  he  did. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  made  you  hit  upon  the  name  "  Ned  "  as  a  threatened  name  ? 
Witness  :  He  talked  about  him  in  a  very  unkind  way. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  say  the  man  threatened  was  in  danger.  Did  you  think  "  Ned  " 
in  danger  ? 

Witness  :  I  heard  what  he  said.  Shall  I  tell  you  ? 

Mr.  Walters  :  Not  what  he  said.  It  doesn't  matter.  But  I  want  to  know  that "  Ned  " 
was  a  threatened  name. 

Witness  :  That's  right,  deary. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Were  you  giving  warning  to  anybody  of  the  name  of  Ned  "  ? 

Witness  :  I  told  him  it  was  a  threatened  name. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  know  he  was  called  "  Ned  "  ? 

Witness  :  I  asked  him. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  know  who  called  him  "  Ned  "  ? 

Witness  :  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Walters  :  If  I  told  you  that  Jasper,  and  Jasper  alone,  called  him  "  Ned  "  ? 

Witness  :  I  should  believe  you,  deary.  I  should  believe  you. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  would  therefore  also  believe  that  Jasper  was  threatening  him  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  deary. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  that  he  meant  it  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  deary. 

53 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Walters  :  So  you  think  there  was  murder  in  the  mind  of  John  Jasper  ? 

Witness  :  I  think  he  wanted  to  do  him  harm. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  love  John  Jasper  ? 

Witness  :  No,  I  don't. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  suppose  you  don't  love  any  of  your  customers  ? 

Witness  :  I  don't  care  much  about  'em. 

Mr.  Walters  :  But  you  don't  turn  them  away  ?  When  they  come  to  you  you  take 
their  money  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  always  follow  your  customers  down  to  their  private  residences  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Why  this  one  ? 

Witness  :  He  had  money. 

Mr.  Walters  :  What !  A  poor  man  in  a  choir  had  got  money  ? 

Witness  :  He  had  money. 

Mr.  Walters  :  It  was  worth  all  your  while  to  go  all  the  way  to  Cloisterham  after 
one  customer  .'' 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  He  had  such  a  lot  of  money  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;  to  me  he  had.  I'm  only  a  poor  woman. 

Mr.  Walters  :  He  was  richer  than  all  your  other  customers  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  think  so  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  don't  know  where  all  this  money  came  from  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  hated  him  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  wanted  his  money  ? 

Witness  :  Yes.  He  was  always  a-listening. 

Mr,  Walters  :  I  thought  it  was  you  listening  ? 

Witness  :  Sometimes  I  would  listen,  and  once  he  spoke  to  me  of  a  hazardous 
journey,  and  he  said,  "  I  did  it  a  hundred  million  times  ;  I  did  it  so  often,  that  when 
it  came  to  be  really  done,  it  was  not  worth  the  doing,  it  was  done  so  soon,  and  when  it 
comes  to  be  real,  it  was  so  short  that  for  the  first  time  it  seemed  to  be  unreal.  No  struggle, 
no  sign  of  danger,  no  consciousness  of  peril  !  I  never  dreamt  that  before."  That's 
what  he  said,  my  deary  dear. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Well,  he  said,  when  it  came  to  be  done  it  was  so  short  it  was  not 
worth  doing  } 

54 


Evidence  of  Thomas  Bazzard 

Witness  :  He  said  it  was  not  real  for  the  first  time. 

Mr.  Walters  :  He  talked  about  a  real  thing  ? 

Witness  :  He  says,  deary,  "  When  it  comes  to  be  real  it  seems  to  be  unreal  for  the 
first  time,"  my  deary  dear. 

Mr.  Walters  :  He  said,  "  when  it  comes  to  be  real  "  ? 

Witness  :  "  It  seems  unreal  for  the  first  time,"  my  poppett. 

Mr.  Walters  :  But  when  a  man  says  "  a  real  thing,"  he  means  a  real  thing  ? 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  My  Lord  ! 

Judge  :  There  is  some  element  of  paradox  involved  here.  I  cannot  consent  to  allow 
the  witness  to  be  attacked  merely  because  a  criminal  says  that  that  which  seemed  real 
before  it  happened  appeared  unreal  when  it  happened,  because  I  suppose  most  of  us  in 
this  room  have  committed  crimes  at  some  time  or  other,  and  that  is  a  possible  state  of  affairs. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  will  not  ask  any  more  questions,  my  Lord. 

Mr.  Chesterton  (re-examining)  :  When  you  say  that  you  imagined  the  prisoner 
was  rich  as  compared  with  your  other  clients — they  would  be  Chinamen  and  sailors 
and   Lascars  ? 

Witness  :  They  was  very  poor,  deary. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  He  was  a  different  class  of  man  ? 

Witness  :  He  was,  my  poppett. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  The  other  question  I  want  to  ask  you  is  this  :  When  you  told 
Mr.  Drood  that  "  Ned  "  was  a  threatened  name,  what  did  Mr.  Drood  say  ? 

Witness  :  He  says,  "  But  threatened  men  live  long." 
Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  did  you  say  ? 

Witness  :  "  Then,"  I  says  to  him,  "  Ned,  so  threatened  is  he,  whoever  he  be, 
while  I'm  a  talking  to  you,  that  he  should  live  to  all  eternity." 
Mr.  Chesterton  :  Thank  you.  Call  Thomas  Bazzard, 
Usher  :  Thomas  Bazzard  ! 
[That  gentleman  entered  the  witness-box  and  was  duly  sworn.] 

[Evidence  of  Thomas  Bazzard.] 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Your  name  is  Thomas  Bazzard  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  is  your  profession  ? 

Witness  :  I  am  a  clerk  and  investigator  to  Mr.  Grewgious,  of  Staple  Inn. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Mr.  Grewgious  is  not,  as  he  is  wrongfully  described  I  believe, 
in  the  indictment,  a  solicitor  ? 

Witness  :  No  ;  Mr.  Grewgious  is  a  member  of  the  Bar,  but  is  not  practising.  He  is 
Receiver  and  Manager  of  two  large  estates. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  what  sort  of  work  do  you  do  ? 

Witness  :  I  believe  the  work  that  I  am  at  present  engaged  in  is  colloquially  known 
as  that  of  a  "  noser."  That  is  to  say,  I  am  engaged  partly  in  collecting  the  rents,  and 

55 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

partly  in  inquiring  what  is  going  on  with  his  tenants — whether  they  are  stealing  the 
game,  and  improperly  dispersing  the  stock.  Largely  work  of  investigation  outside  the  ofRce. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  When  did  you  enter  his  employment  ? 

Witness  :  Ten  years  ago. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Where  were  you  born  ? 

Witness  :  I  am  the  son  of  a  Norfolk  farmer,  I  am  sorry  to  say. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  If  your  employer  said,  "  It  would  be  extremely  difficult  to  replace 
Mr.  Bazzard,"  that  would  refer  to  your  inquiry  work  ? 

Witness  :  I  think  that  would  refer  to  my  inquiry  work.    Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Mr.  Grewgious  treats  you  rather  respectfully  ? 

Witness  :  Mr.  Grewgious  is  extremely  kind  to  me,  and  as  he  values  my  work  outside, 
he  allows  a  great  deal  of  latitude  as  to  my  behaviour  inside. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Now,  when  did  you  first  see  Edwin  Drood  ? 

Witness  :  I  think  I  saw  him — by  the  way,  I  should  like  to  point  out  that  Mr.  Grew- 
gious was  not  the  legal  adviser  to  Edwin  Drood. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  might  explain  that  to  the  Court. 

Witness  :  I  noticed  in  the  copy  of  the  Agreement  that  he  was  the  legal  adviser  to 
Edwin  Drood.  So  far  as  I  know,  that  is  not  the  case.  I  first  saw  him  some  time  before 
Christmas  i860,  at  the  office  of  Mr.  Grewgious. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Did  Mr.  Grewgious  tell  you  about  Mr.  Drood's  coming  ? 

Witness  :  He  did.  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  what  was  the  general  instruction  that  Mr.  Grewgious  gave  you  ? 

Witness  :  These  instructions  :  he  said  he  was  going  to  have  a  private  conversation 
— more  or  less  private  conversation — with  Mr.  Drood,  and  if  I  appeared  to  be  very 
interested  in  it,  it  might  embarrass  Mr.  Drood,  and  that  therefore  I  should  not  pay  any 
particular  attention  to  it. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  did  you  do  } 

Witness  :  What  happened  was  this  :  I  think  we  all  had  dinner,  and  then  Mr.  Grew- 
gious had  the  private  conversation  in  question.  I  understood  that  what  happened  was 
that  he  admonished  Mr.  Drood  as  to  his  proper  feelings  towards  his  future  bride. 

Judge  :  You  did  not  hear  that  ? 

Witness  :  No  ;  I  didn't  hear  that.  I  took  the  opportunity  to  have  a  snooze.  Waking 
up.  Mr.  Grewgious  said  to  me,  "  I  have  handed  a  ring  of  diamonds  and  rubies  to  Mr. 
Drood."  Mr.  Drood  handed  a  case  and  said,  "  You  see  ?  "  I  said,  "  I  follow  you  both, 
sir,  and  I  witness  the  transaction." 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  was  the  next  occasion  you  saw  him  ? 

Witness  :  The  next  occasion  I  saw  Mr.  Edwin  Drood  w'as  Jan.  ist,  1861 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  That  was  a  week  after  you  first  met  him  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Where  did  you  meet  him  ? 

Witness  :  At  a  hotel  in  Holborn. 

56 


Evidence  of  Thomas  Bazzard 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Did  you  hear  what  happened  to  him  after  that  ? 

Witness  :  After  that,  I  was  informed  that  he  was  very  seriously  ill  with  rheumatic 
fever,  and  was  sent  abroad  to  the  South  of  France  to  get  his  health  back. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Did  Mr.  Grewgious  ever  tell  you  how  he  came  across  Edwin  Drood  ? 

Witness  :  What  he  told  me  was  this  :  that  on  Christmas  Eve,  i860,  he  received 
very  late  at  night,  a  letter  from  Miss  Rosa  Bud,  his  ward,  to  whom  he  was  very  much 
attached,  and,  if  I  may  be  allowed  to  remark,  to  whose  mother  he  was  very  devotedly 
attached  also.  This  letter  was  written  by  Miss  Bud  immediately  following  her  conversa- 
tion with  Mr.  Edwin  Drood,  which  is  in  the  Official  Record,  I  think,  and  it  entreated 
Mr.  Grewgious,  in  very  strong  terms,  to  be  with  her  in  Cloisterham  on  Christmas  Day. 
The  letter  reached  Mr.  Grewgious  very  late  in  the  evening,  and  owing  to  the  defects 
of  the  railway  system,  some  of  which,  I  am  glad  to  learn,  have  been  altered  since,  it  was 
impossible  for  Mr.  Grewgious  to  get  to  Cloisterham  except  by  posting  down,  which  he 
accordingly  did. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  There  was  no  train  after  eight  o'clock  ? 

Witness  :  At  that  time  no  train  after  eight  o'clock — from  Victoria. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  He  posted  down,  and  what  do  you  understand  he  did  when  he 
arrived  at  Cloisterham  ? 

Witness  :  He  told  me  that  he  drove  into  Cloisterham  somewhere  about  5.30. 
Passing  the  Postern  Gate,  he  stopped  his  carriage,  and  asked  it  to  wait  a  minute. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Why  ? 

Witness  :  He  wanted  to  walk  through  the  gate  into  the  Churchyard,  a  few  yards 
— some  40  or  50  yards,  I  think — in  order  to  put  some  flowers  on  the  grave  of  Miss 
Rosa  Bud's  mother,  as  I  think  it  is  stated  in  the  official  documents,  he  was  very  much 
attached  to  Miss  Bud's  mother. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  When  he  got  there,  whom  did  he  find  ? 

Witness  :  He  found  Edwin  Drood  lying  prone. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  what  did  he  do  ? 

Witness  :  I  believe  the  first  thing  he  did  was  to  pick  him  up.  He  then  shook  him 
together,  begged  him  to  speak  to  him,  and  questioned  him,  and  Edwin  Drood  entreated 
him  to  take  him  out  of  Cloisterham  without  any  delay. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  I  understand,  Mr.  Bazzard,  from  your  narrative,  that  Mr.  Drood 
could  give  practically  no  coherent  account  of  what  had  happened  ? 

Witness  :  None  whatever,  beyond  the  fact  that  somebody  had  tried  to  strangle 
him,  as  he  thought. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  When  you  saw  him,  what  sort  of  memory  had  he  of  that  night  ? 

Witness  :  Vague  and  unsatisfactory. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  He  could  not  have  sworn  that  either  Neville  Landless  or  Jasper 
had  attacked  him  ? 

Witness  :  He  could  not  swear  anything,  except  that  he  had  been  attacked. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  His  sympathies  leaned,  of  course,  to  Jasper  rather  than  to 
Landless  ? 

57 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Witness  :  He  was  very  loath  indeed  to  think  that  his  uncle,  whom  he  had  cherished 
with  very  great  respect  and  esteem,  had  been  concerned  in  the  attempt  to  murder  him. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  If  he  could  have  given  evidence  then,  I  take  it  he  would  have 
given  evidence  rather  in  favour  of  Jasper  than  of  Landless  ? 

Witness  :  That  depends  on  the  Jury. 

Judge  :  I  was  going  to  remark  that  the  question  goes  a  little  outside  anything  the 
witness  is  called  upon  to  answer. 

Witness  :  He  was  more  inclined  to 

The  Foreman  :  On  this  point  the  witness  has  made  a  very  remarkable  statement ; 
that  Mr.  Grewgious  shook  Mr.  Drood  together.  May  I  ask  how  many  pieces  Drood 

was  in  .'' 

Judge  :  I  think  the  question  should  be  answered. 

Witness  :  I  was  not  there,  my  Lord,  at  the  time.  I  merely  repeat  what  Mr. 
Grewgious  told  me. 

Judge  :  You  attribute  it  to  a  violent  metaphor  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Grewgious  ? 

Witness  :  It  is  right  that  I  should  put  the  Jury  in  possession  of  all  matters. 

A  Juryman  (Mr.  William  Archer)  :  May  I  ask  where  Mr.  Grewgious  is  in  the 
meantime  ?  Met  with  a  violent  death  ? 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  If  the  Jury  will  look  at  the  Official  Record 

The  Foreman  :  I  am  sorry  to  explain,  my  Lord,  that  all  our  documents  have  gone, 
covered  with  our  autographs.  (Further  copies  of  the  Official  Documents  were  handed 
to  the  Jury  by  the  Clerk  of  Arraigns.) 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  If  the  Jury  have  the  Document,  they  will  see  the  last  paragraph 
but  one  explains  the  matter,  {To  Witness.)  You  then  saw  Mr.  Grewgious.  What  did 
Mr.  Grewgious  say  ? 

Witness  :  What  he  said  was  this  :  that  he  personally  very  strongly  suspected 
Jasper,  but  that  Drood 's  recollections  as  to  what  happened  on  that  evening  were  so 
confused  and  incoherent  that  any  testimony  he  might  have  to  give  would  not  either 
clear  Landless,  or  incriminate  Jasper.  He  therefore  said  this  :  that  if  Landless  were 
committed  for  trial  it  would  be  necessary  to  produce  Drood,  but  failing  that,  he  had 
better  keep  his  continued  existence  a  secret  until  matters  had  died  down  at  Cloisterham, 
and  until  Jasper  thought  he  was  entirely  secure. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  therefore,  what  was  Mr.  Grewgious's  plan  ? 

Witness  :  His  plan  was  this  :  that  if  I  went  down  to  Cloisterham  prosecuting 
inquiries  there,  I  should  detect  Jasper. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  you  did  so  ? 

Witness  :  I  did  so.  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  When  you  went  down,  how  did  the  case  present  itself  to  you 
as  a  problem  ? 

Witness  :  I  thought  from  what  Mr,  Grewgious  told  me  about  the  case,  that  there 
were  three  cardinal  mysteries.  One  was  why  Drood,  if  he  had  been  murderously 
assaulted,  could  give  no  clear  account,  as  to  who  had  assaulted  him  ;  the  second  was 

58 


Evidence  of  Thomas  Bazzard 

why,  if  the  prisoner  was  the  author  of  that  murderous  assault,  he  had  not  effected  it ; 
and  in  the  third  place,  why,  having  failed  to  kill  Drood,  he  obviously  thought  he  had 
killed  him. 

Mr,  Chesterton  :  Having  put  those  three  things  to  yourself,  you  went  down  to 
Cloisterham  and  disguised  yourself  ? 

Witness  :  I  went  to  a  costumier. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  did  not  make  up  your  face  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  were  not  known  there  ? 

Witness  :  As  far  as  I  know,  no. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  But  there  might  be  an  off  chance,  and  so  you  put  on  a  costume  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  went  to  the  Crozier,  and  ordered  a  veal  cutlet,  a  mutton 
chop,  and  a  pint  of  sherry  } 

Witness  :  Yes — and  I  drank  the  sherry  ! 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  asked  the  waiter  about  lodgings  ? 

Witness  :  I  did. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  asked  for  something  Cathedrally  ? 

Witness  :  I  thought  I  ought  to  get  something  near  the  Cathedral,  so  as  to  be  near 
to  Jasper. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  They  recommended  you  to  Mr.  Tope's  ? 

Witness  :  They  did. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  you  set  out  to  go  there  ? 

Witness  :  I  did. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  happened  ? 

Witness  :  I  was  told  I  should  find  the  house  on  the  right-hand  side.  It  was  so  obvious 
that  I  went  past  it.  I  went  on  up  a  lane  called  Crow  Lane,  I  believe,  into  the  Vineries, 
and  somewhere  about  there  I  met  the  boy  named  Deputy.  I  asked  him  to  take  me  to 
Tope's,  which  he  did. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  He  took  you  to  within  sight,  didn't  he  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;  I  beg  pardon. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  He  pointed  out  a  window  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  said,  "  That's  Tope's  "  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;   I  thought  it  was. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  He  said  it  was  Jasper's  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;  and  I  looked  at  it  with  some  interest. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  saw  Jasper  subsequently  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

59 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  called  on  him  to  inquire  about  the  Topes  ?  You  made  that 
opportunity  to  call  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  walked  about  the  Cathedral ;  met  Sapsea  and  Durdles  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  met  Deputy  again  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  there  was  a  conversation,  I  think,  between  you  and  Deputy, 
in  which  you  said  he  was  to  take  you  to  Durdles's  house  when  you  wished  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  After  you  installed  yourself  in  the  Tope's  lodgings,  how  did 
you  propose  to  keep  a  record  of  your  successes  ? 

Witness  :  I  rather  amused  myself  by  opening  the  cupboard  door  in  my  room,  and 
chalking  it  up  as  is  done  in  taverns  which  on  occasions  I  have  visited  in  Ceylon — I  mean 
Norfolk. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  were  brought  up  as  a  boy  in  Norfolk  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  they  keep  chalk  scores  there  ? 

Witness  :  They  used  to  chalk  it  up  by  means  of  long  or  short  lines. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Generally  according  to  the  date  of  the  week  ? 

Witness  :  The  big  lines  at  the  end  of  the  week. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  kept  this  record  in  this  fashion  } 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Will  you  carry  your  mind  back  to  one  evening,  I  think  in  July, 
when  Jasper  came  home  comparatively  late,  and  went  under  the  archway,  and  passed 
up  the  staircase  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Do  you  remember  an  old  woman  following  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  passed  between  you  ? 

Witness  :  I  asked  her  if  she  was  looking  for  anybody,  and  she,  in  substance,  said 
that  she  would  like  to  know  the  name  and  address  of  that  gentleman.  Then  we  had 
some  further  conversation,  and  she  asked  me,  first  of  all  for  money  for  her  lodgings, 
and  then  she  asked  for  money  for  what  she  described  as  opium,  which  I  gave  her. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  She  also  mentioned  an  interview  with  a  young  gentleman  on  the 
previous  Christmas  Eve  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  she  told  me  she  had  been  to  Cloisterham  before  on  Christmas  Eve, 
and  that  she  had  met  a  youth  named  Ned,  I  think  it  was,  who  had  also  given  her  money. 
I  took  it  she  had  been  down  on  the  same  business  as  that  night — following  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  When  you  had  done  that,  you  went  to  your  score  ? 

60 


Evidence  of  Thomas  Bazzard 

Witness  :  When  I  had  done  that,  I  met  Deputy,  and  he  told  me  that  "  'Er  Royal 
Highness  the  Princess  Puffer  "  was  staying  at  the  Travellers'  Tuppeny,  and  that  she 
kept  an  opium  den  in  the  East  End  of  London,  and  then  I  had  very  little  doubt  that 
that  was  the  place  from  which  she  had  followed  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  told  her  where  she  could  see  the  prisoner  next  morning  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  She  saw  him,  and  shook  her  fist  at  him  ? 

Witness  :  She  used  dreadful  language  which  is  not  even  in  the  Official  Records. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  When  she  came  out,  did  you  say  to  her, "  Have  you  seen  him  ?  ".'* 

Witness  :  I  did. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  did  she  say  that  she  had  seen  him,  and  knew  him  better 
than  all  the  Reverend  Parsons  put  together  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  You  then  went  to  the  cupboard  door,  and  what  did  you  do  ? 
Witness  :  I  made  a  great  score. 
Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  was  its  meaning  } 

Witness  :  That  my  interview  with,  and  observations  of  the  opium  woman  had  settled 
the  three  main  questions  as  to  which  I  had  gone  down  to  Cloisterham  to  decide. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Let  us  take  them  seriatim.  First,  how  was  it  Drood 

Witness  :  From  my  conversation  with  her  I  gathered  that  Jasper  took  opium,  and 
having  opium,  I  had  no  doubt  at  all  that  he  drugged  Drood's  wine,  and  that  Drood 
was  so  affected  as  not  to  be  able  to  give  any  clear  account  as  to  the  event. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  The  second  question — How  was  it  that,  if  the  prisoner  was  the 
author  of  the  assault,  he  had  not  achieved  his  purpose  ? 

Witness  :  My  views  as  to  that  also  were  clear.  He  had  been  at  the  opium  den  on  the 
night  before  the  Christmas  Eve,  when  she  last  visited  Cloisterham,  and  I  have  no  doubt 
at  all  that  he  failed  because  he  had  an  opium  seizure — such  a  seizure  as  Mr.  Grewgious 
saw  him  in,  and  as  his  nephew  Drood  saw  him  in. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  The  third  question — How  came  it,  that  having  failed  to  kill 
Drood,  he  obviously  thought  he  had  done  so  ? 

Witness  :  That,  I  thought,  was  obvious,  because  he  would  have  completed  the 
murder  in  an  opium  trance,  such  a  trance  as,  later,  the  "  Princess  Puffer  "  described  to  me, 
as  Jasper  having  experienced  inside  the  opium  den. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  We  have  already  heard  from  the  "  Princess  Puffer  "  about  its  being 
unreal  for  the  first  time.  That  would  fit  in  with  your  theory  ? 

Judge  :  I  am  afraid  the  witness  must  have  no  theory.  As  soon  as  the  examination 
has  put  its  main  point,  we  must  go  on. 

Mr.  Chesterton  {to  witness) :  Then,  did  you  get  any  confirmation  of  that  view 
from  Mr.  Grewgious  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Grewgious,  and  he  told  me  of  the  seizure  on  Boxing 
Day — I  think  it  was  Boxing  Day — when  he  had  an  interview  with  Jasper,  the  prisoner. 

6i  e 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  And  also  did  he  tell  you  that  Edwin  Drood  remembered  his 
uncle  in  a  seizure  ? 

Witness  :  I  remember  that  also. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Did  you  gather  that  Drood  had  had  his  wine  drugged  on  a 
previous  occasion  ? 

Witness  :  I  gather  that  from  the  Official  Records. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Then,  did  you  claim  your  promise  from  Deputy  ? 

Witness  :  I  did. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  We  have  been  told  in  evidence  that  a  ring  was  put  in  the  crypt. 

Witness  :  Yes  ? 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Does  that  surprise  you  ? 

Witness  :  Not  in  the  least. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Why  ? 

Witness  :  Because  I  put  it  there. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  What  was  your  object  in  pursuing  that  course  ? 

Witness  :  This  was  the  ring,  I  may  say,  that  I  had  seen  pass  from  Mr.  Grewgious 
to  Drood,  of  the  existence  of  which,  I  may  perhaps  point  out,  it  is  obvious  from  the 
study  of  the  Official  Records,  Jasper  knew  nothing  at  all  ;  and  acting  under  instructions 
from  Mr.  Grewgious,  who  had  received  the  ring  back  from  Drood,  I  obtained  with  the 
assistance  of  my  friend  Durdles  access  to  the  Sapsea  vault,  and  therein  I  placed  the 
ring.  My  object  in  doing  that  was,  that  subsequently,  when  Mr.  Grewgious  offered 
a  reward  for  the  discovery  of  the  ring,  the  prisoner  could  be  entrapped  into  a  visit  to 
the  vault. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  I  take  it,  Mr.  Grewgious  would  plaster  Cloisterham  with  the 
description  of  the  ring  as  believed  to  be  on  the  person  of  Edwin  Drood  ? 

Witness  :  That  is  what  he  did. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  It  would  be  a  large  placard  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Rather  like  this  ?  {Handing  to  the  zvitness  a  reproduction  of  the  original 
cover  design  for  the  book.) 

Witness  :  Very  like  the  second  illustration  from  the  top  on  the  left-hand  side. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Very  well  :  that  was  your  plan — that  Jasper  should  be  caught 
taking  the  ring,  and  thus  be  convicted  of  attempted  murder  ? 

Witness  :  Quite. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Of  which  you  believed  him  to  be  guilty  ? 
Witness  :  Beyond  doubt. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  It  is  not  my  business  to  ask  you  what  happened,  but  I  suppose 
somehow  or  other  he  got  arrested  for  actual  murder.  Is  that  correct  ? 

Witness  :  Quite  right. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  Thank  you. 

62 


Evidence  of  Thomas  Bazzard 

[Thomas  Bazzard  Cross-examined.] 

Mr.  Walters  {cross-examining) :  I  think  you  have  said  several  times  that  you  come 
from  Norfolk  ? 

Witness  :  I  was  born  in  Norfolk. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Is  that  the  country  where  the  dumplings  come  from  ? 

Witness  :  Some,  no  doubt. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Where  you  come  from  also  ! 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Curious  coincidence  !    You  are  a  farmer's  son  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  very  ambitious  ? 

Witness  :  I  have  not  said  so. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Don't  you  want  to  get  on  ? 

Witness  :  I  don't  think  that  is  very  ambitious.  I  think  being  very  ambitious  is 
more  than  wanting  to  get  on. 

Mr.  Walters  :  In  order  to  get  on  you  came  to  London  from  Norfolk  ? 

Witness  :  A  good  many  people  have  done  that  before,  I  am  afraid. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  wanted  to  give  London  the  benefit  of  any  genius  you  had  ? 

Witness  :  Thank  you  very  much  indeed.  I  wanted  to  be  usefully  employed. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  became  professionally  engaged  to  Mr.  Grewgious  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  occupied  the  responsible  and  honourable  position  of"  Noser  "  ? 

Witness  :  Quite  right.  The  best  position  I  could  get. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  he  treated  you  with  great  respect  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Remarkable  respect  from  a  barrister  to  his  clerk  ? 

Witness  :  That  is  due  to  the  fact  that  he  is  a  man  of  exceptional  graciousness. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  treated  him  with  great  respect  ? 

Witness  :  I  worked  for  him,  I  think,  very  hard,  and  with  very  great  fidelity. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  said  you  treated  him  with  great  respect.  I  did  not  ask  about  your 
fidelity. 

Witness  :  You  will  forgive  my  mentioning  it,  won't  you  ? 

Mr.  Walters  :  Now  do  you  mind  replying  to  the  question  ?  You  treated  him  with 
very  great  respect  ? 

Witness  :  I  hope  so. 

Mr.  Walters  :  If  you  ever  gave  him  a  surly  answer,  would  that  be  respectful  ? 

Witness  :  I  don't  know.  It  would  depend  on  the  degree  of  surliness. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  took  his  money  as  a  good  and  faithful  servant  ? 

Witness  :  I  hope  so. 

63 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  were  absolutely  devoted  to  his  interests  ? 

Witness  :  I  hope  so. 

Mr.  Walters  :  So  that  on  one  occasion  you  fell  asleep  while  he  was  talking  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;  but  in  pursuance  to  his  instructions.  He  told  me  that  a  conversation 
was  going  to  take  place  which  was  no  affair  of  mine,  and  that  he  was  not  particularly 
anxious  for  me  to  overhear  it.  But  he  was  very  anxious  that  I  should  witness  the  trans- 
action at  the  end  of  the  conversation. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Would  it  not  have  been  more  respectful  to  walk  out  of  the  room  ? 

Witness  :  I  think  not.  It  would  place  him  in  an  extremely  awkward  position. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  preferred  to  fall  asleep  and  snore  ? 

Witness  :  May  I  answer  ?  If  I  had  gone  out,  Mr.  Grewgious  would  have  had  to 
come  for  me,  and  to  have  told  Edwin  Drood  that  he  required  a  witness. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  preferred  to  fall  asleep  and  snore  in  the  presence  of  a  client  ? 

Witness  :  I  had  forty  winks  after  dinner. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  had  forty  winks,  as  you  call  it,  while  your  employer  was 
engaged  with  an  important  client  ? 

Witness  :  In  a  conversation  which  I  was  not  supposed  to  hear. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  frequently  fall  asleep  ? 

Witness  :  No ;  I  have  no  desire  to  slumber  at  present. 

Mr.  Walters  :  No  ;  I  think  we  shall  wake  you  up  presently.  Do  you  usually  sleep 
when  respectable  cHents  enter  your  office  ? 

Witness  :  No ;    I  don't  usually  receive  such  instructions. 

Mr.  Walters  :  That  was  the  only  respectful  way  of  treating  your  master  and  client  ? 

Witness  :  I  have  had  no  remonstrance  from  Mr.  Grewgious  for  it.  I  am  still  in  his 
employment.  He  thought  it  was  worth  his  while  to  go  on  employing  me. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Mr.  Bazzard,  the  story  you  have  told  proves  to  me  that  you  have 
rather  a  strong  imagination.  Am  I  right  ? 

Witness  :  If  it  proves  it  to  you,  my  good  sir,  by  all  means.  I  prefer  to  answer  questions. 

Mr.  Walters  :  But  probably  you  have  also  convinced  the  Jury  that  you  are  a 
gentleman  of  some  imagination  } 

Witness  :  It's  not  for  me  to  say — only  to  tender  my  evidence. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  believe  you  have  written  a  Drama  ? 

Witness  :  Once,  many  years  ago,  when  a  young  man,  I  did  write  a  Tragedy.  A 
dreadful  admission  !   I  hope  no  other  witness  whose  veracity  is  challenged 

Mr.  Walters  :  What  was  the  name  of  that  Tragedy  ? 

Witness  :  It  is  "  The  Thorn  of  Anxiety." 

Mr.  Walters  :  Has  it  ever  come  out  .'* 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  It  is,  I  suppose,  a  work  of  great  genius  ? 

Witness  :  I  should  not  like  to  say. 

64 


Evidence  of  Thomas  Basizard 

Mr.  Walters  :  But  all  plays  are  ! 

Witness  :  Do  you  think  so  !   If  you  would  like  to  read  it,  I  should  be  delighted. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  don't  wish  you  to  be  modest.  Dramatists  usually  are  not.  I  suppose 
there  are  such  things  as  good  dramas  and  bad  dramas  ? 

Witness  :  There  are  certainly  bad  dramas. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Just  to  give  us  your  opinion  :  do  you  think  yours  was  good  or  bad  ? 

Witness  :  I  don't  know.  I  am  naturally  impressed  in  its  favour,  but  several  people — 
some  people  to  whom  I  submitted  it — -they  rather  doubt  it. 

Mr.  Walters  :  They  don't  think  there  is  any  "  Magic  "  in  it  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  don't  want  you  to  think  for  a  moment  that  all  dramatists  are  bad 
people.  I  only  mean  that  you  may  possibly  have  written  a  bad  drama. 

Witness  :  There  are  several  dramatists  on  the  Jury,  and  they  can  take  their  impression. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  would  not  give  a  reason  why  it  has  not  come  out  ? 

Witness  :  I  don't  think  it  is  up  to  me.  If  I  am  asked  for  a  reason,  one  is  I  have  had 
very  little  time  to  push  its  merits. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  suppose  though,  that  even  bad  plays  are  produced  sometimes  ? 

Witness  :  No  doubt. 

Mr.  Walters  :  It's  not  only  the  bad  ones,  though,  that  are  accepted  } 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  It  must  be  a  bad  play  that  does  not  get  accepted  in  these  days  ? 
When  a  man  of  genius  such  as  you 

Witness  :  Please  ;   if  you  don't  mind. 

Judge  :  It  is  not  in  evidence  that  this  man  is  a  genius. 

The  Foreman  :  I  respectfully  submit  that  it  is  in  evidence  that  he  has  written  a  play- 

Judge  :  Very  true. 

Mr.  Walters  :  When  a  man  of  your  ability,  of  some  little  ambition,  cannot  get 
his  play  accepted,  he  sometimes  resorts  to  other  means — other  than  the  ordinary  means  ? 
Witness  :  I  could  not  tell  you.  I  have  only  tried  the  ordinary. 
Mr.  Walters  :  You  are  a  legal  gentleman  ? 
Witness  :  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  are  connected  with  the  law  ? 
Witness  :  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Not  connected  with  a  lawyer  ? 
Witness  :  No,  sir. 
Mr.  Walters  :  Know  nothing  about  the  law  ? 

Witness  :  I  wouldn't  say  that.  I  thought  all  Englishmen  were  supposed  to  under- 
stand the  Statutes  under  which  they  live.  I  am  in  the  office  of  a  barrister  who  is  not 
acting  as  a  barrister,  but  as  Receiver  and  Manager  of  two  large  estates. 

65 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  therefore  no  lawyer. 

Witness  :  It  is  not  for  me  to  say  that. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  think  you  can  give  a  straightforward  answer  to  any  plain 
question  ? 

Witness  :  I  think  I  have  done  so. 

Mr,  Walters  :  You  have  probably  heard  that  unsuccessful  authors  and  dramatists, 
when  they  cannot  get  their  plays  or  books  accepted  by  ordinary  means,  adopt  little 
devices  ? 

Witness  :  I  don't  think  I  have. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  have  never  heard  of  an  actress  losing  her  jewels,  or  an  author 
pretending  to  commit  suicide  ? 

Witness  :  I  have  heard  of  them  actually  doing  it. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Ever  heard  of  an  author  saying  he  has  been  to  the  North  Pole,  and 
writing  a  book  }  Would  it  not  be  absolutely  providential  if  something  occurred  to  you 
to  bring  you  into  notoriety  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  It  would  not  relieve  your  "  Thorn  of  Anxiety  "  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  In  other  words,  would  it  not  rather  be  to  your  advantage  to  be  talked 
about  as  a  hero. 

Witness  :  I  have  never  seriously  considered  the  proposition. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  are  rather  fond  of  theatricals,  are  you  not  ? 

Witness  :  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Fond  of  the  Drama  ? 

Witness  :  I  am  rather  too  busy  to  be  interested  in  it.  As  I  have  told  you,  I  am 
too  busy 

Mr.  Walters  :  Yes  or  no  ? 

Witness  :  You  ought  to  take  my  answer.  I  say  I  have  been  too  engaged  in  looking 
after  my  livelihood  to  take  a  lively  interest  in  the  British  Drama. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  do  take  an  interest  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Does  your  employer  know  it  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  He  has  seen  your  play  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  It  rather  interested  him  ? 

Witness  :  I  think  what  interested  him  was  my  work  for  him. 

Mr.  Walters  :  He  is  a  keen  man,  you  know. 

Witness  :  I  know.  I  can  tell  you  he  is  not  interested  in  the  Drama. 

66 


Evidence  of  Thomas  Bazzard 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  have  a  few  friends  who  are  interested  in  the  Drama  ?  Do  you 
meet  a  few  fellow  Dramatists  ? 

Witness  :  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Walters  :  But  it  is  in  the  Official  Records  that  you  do  ! 

Witness  :  Then,  I  must  be  wrong,  and  I  do.  I  was  told  to  answer  "  yes  or  no."  I 
meet  a  few  people  who  are  interested  in  the  Drama,  having  attempted  plays  as  I  have. 
I  meet  them  at  rather  long  but  happy  intervals. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  suppose  they  would  like  their  plays  produced  ? 

Witness  :  I  dare  say. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Once  more  I  ask  you — and  do  please  give  a  straightforward 
answer — 

Witness  :  With  great  respect,  I  very  much  resent  that. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  think  it  would  be  to  your  advantage  to  be  a  little  famous  ? 

Judge  :  I  must  interpose,  because  I  don't  think  I  know  any  human  being  in  the  world 
who  would  not  think  it  to  his  advantage  to  be  rather  famous.  Also  I  must  remind  the 
Court  that  two  speeches  have  to  be  made  on  both  sides,  and  we  are  all  in  high  hopes  of 
hanging  somebody,  and  it  really  ought  to  be  abbreviated  if  possible.  I  don't  think  anyone 
can  say  that  the  answers  of  the  present  witness  have  been  such  as  in  any  way  to  expose 
him  to  discredit,  but  if  the  barrister  examining  desires  to  ask  a  few  more  questions,  by 
all  means  let  him  do  so,  and  then  I  think  we  should  pass  on  as  quickly  as  possible. 

Witness  :  I  could  achieve  very  great  notoriety  if  I  were  hanged. 
Judge  :  Yes  :  live  in  hopes. 

Mr,  Walters  (continuing  his  cross-examination) :  Datchery  is  rather  a  famous 
person  at  present  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  I  suppose  you  consider  it  an  honour  to  be  considered  Datchery  } 

Witness  :  I  am  proud  to  have  worked  down  there. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  knew  a  little  about  the  Drood  case  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  knew  a  little  of  it  from  Mr.  Grewgious  ? 

Witness  :  I  have  stated  that  it  was  Mr.  Grewgious's  idea  that  I  should  go  down 
there  and  investigate  in  character. 

Mr.  Walters  :  It  was  not  a  dramatic  inspiration  ? 

Witness  :  The  inspiration  was  Mr.  Grewgious's. 

Mr.  Walters  :  When  you  fell  asleep  on  that  occasion,  were  you  pretending  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  were  not  preparing  for  the  part  of  Datchery  in  advance  ? 

Witness  :  Datchery  never  snored,  did  he  ? 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  were  not  preparing  a  part  ? 

Witness  :  I  had  no  idea  that  Mr.  Drood  was  going  to  be  murdered. 

67 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  were  not  pretending,  therefore  ? 

Witness  :  I  was  not. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  are  a  man  of  short  sentences,  according  to  the  Official  Record  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Very  abrupt  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Have  you  given  us  only  two  or  three  words  to-night  in  your  sentences  ? 

Witness  :  I  have  been  answering  under  some  provocation. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  your  Counsel  provoke  you  to  your  long  sentences  ? 

Witness  :  I  trust  not. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Were  you  pretending  when  you  gave  those  short  sentences  in  Mr. 
Datchery's  character  ? 

Witness  :  No  ;   but  a  man  in  the  witness-box  is  not  a  good  criterion. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  suppose  you  can  write  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  suppose  your  professional  standing  teaches  you  to  keep  correct 
records  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  did  not  keep  the  usual  records  making  your  investigations  in 
Cloisterham  ? 

Witness  :  What  are  the  usual  records  ? 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  put  it  to  you  that  you  did  not  write  anything  down  ? 

Witness  :  I  did. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Why  did  you  use  the  chalk  marks  ? 

Witness  :  Merely  as  a  matter  for  my  own  amusement. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Were  they  to  be  used  in  any  way  ? 

Witness  :  I  should  say  not. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  valued  your  time  so  much  that  you  wasted  it  by  putting  chalk 
marks  on  a  door  ! 

Witness  :  The  amount  of  time  would  not  be  much. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  were  not  going  to  take  the  cupboard  door  to  London  as  evidence  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  It  was  all  a  waste  of  your  time  ? 

Witness  :  Yes  ;   but  harmless.  Even  a  rejected  dramatist  is  entitled  to  have  some 
hobby. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  know  John  Jasper  ? 
Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Did  you  ever  see  him  take  opium  ? 
Witness  :  Never. 

68 


Evidence  of  Thomas  Bazzard 

Mr.  Walters  :  Do  you  know  how  long  an  opium  fit  lasts  ? 

Witness  :  No.  I  imagine  it  rather  depends  on  the  amount  of  opium  taken,  and 
various  other  circumstances. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Suppose  a  man  was  in  the  habit  of  having  a  particular  smoke  of 
opium — mixing  it  in  a  particular  way  ;  do  you  think  it  would  be  over  in  a  few  minutes  ? 

Witness  :  I  could  not  tell  you.    Nor  do  I  know  whether  he  had  those  habits. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  don't  think  it  would  take  a  few  hours  ? 

Witness  :  No  idea. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Would  it  surprise  you  to  know  that  after  an  orgy  he  would  be  clear- 
headed in  the  morning  ? 

Witness  :  Nothing  would  surprise  me,  I  think,  from  the  little  I  have  read  of  their 
literature. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  know  nothing  about  it  ? 

Witness  :  As  a  matter  of  experience,  that  is  the  exhilarating  fact. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  never  saw  Jasper  taking  opium  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  And  you  watched  him  in  Cloisterham  ? 

Witness  :  In  the  street.  He  never  took  any  there. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  believe  that  possibly  he  made  a  desperate  attack  on  Edwin 
Drood  ? 

Witness  :  Yes,  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Walters  :  He  would  possibly  make  an  attack  on  someone  else  ? 

Witness  :  Yes. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Don't  you  think,  therefore,  you  were  in  some  danger  ? 

Witness  :  I  don't  think  I  was. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  don't  think  you  were  in  danger  from  a  man  who  might  make 
an  attack  ?  Are  you  a  man  of  very  great  nerve  ? 

Witness  :  It's  not  for  me  to  say. 

Judge  :  I  don't  think  you  have  any  right  to  ask  him  that.  That  is  a  matter  of  personal 
knowledge.  It  might  be  settled  in  a  fight  outside. 

Mr.  Walters  :  One  or  two  more  questions.  Have  you  a  great  affection  for  Edwin 
Drood  ? 

Witness  :  I  have  not. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Nor  for  Neville  Landless  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  No  interest  in  Miss  Helena  Landless  ? 

Witness  :  No. 

Mr.  Walters  :  No  interest  whatever  in  any  of  the  parties  ? 

Witness  :  Business  interest  only. 

69 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

Mr.  Walters  :  Then,  why  did  you  risk  your  valuable  life  ? 

Witness  :  In  the  first  place,  I  don't  think  I  exposed  my  life,  valuable  or  otherwise, 
to  any  great  risk.  Why  I  went  down  there  was  because  Mr.  Grewgious  asked  me  to  do  so, 
and  because  he  had  been  a  very  generous  and  considerate  employer  to  me,  and  I  also 
thought  that  if  I  had  good  results  he  would  reward  me  suitably. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Can  you  give  me  any  explanation,  if  Drood  has  disappeared,  why  he 
has  not  communicated  with  his  friends  ? 

Judge  :  That  is  surely  a  point  for  final  discussion  in  abstract  debate  ? 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  only  ask  if  he  can  offer  any  explanation.  {To  witness.)  Should  you 
expect  a  man  who  has  disappeared,  and  finding  all  his  friends  in  danger,  to  communicate 
with  his  friends  } 

Witness  :  On  that  hypothetical  case,  I  think  I  should.  But  that  has  no  reference  to 
the  Drood  question. 

Judge  :  I  think  we  should  confine  ourselves  as  sharply  as  we  can  to  bringing  out  the 
actual  facts,  and  not  to  abstract  argument. 

Mr.  Walters  {to  witness)  :  Can  you  give  us  any  reason  why  he  should  not  com- 
municate ? 

Witness  :  I  cannot :  but  he  has  communicated  with  his  friends. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Are  you  going  to  produce  any  evidence  ? 

Witness  :  That  is  in  the  hands  of  Counsel. 

Mr.  Walters  :  Don't  you  think  the  white  wig  would  give  you  away  ? 

Witness  :  I  can't  tell  you.  I  was  in  the  hands  of  a  costumier. 

Mr.  Walters  :  You  can  go  back  to  Norfolk,  Mr.  Bazzard. 

Witness  :  Thank  you,  I  am  going  back  to  the  City. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  I  have  no  intention  of  cross-examining  this  witness.  That 
concludes  my  case. 

[Speech  for  the  Defence.] 

Mr.  Chesterton  proceeded  to  address  the  Court  for  the  defence.  He  said  : 

My  Lord,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury  : 

I  rise  to  speak  in  defence  of  the  prisoner  in  circumstances  in  many  ways  difficult 
and  even  unfortunate.  This  is  a  case  which  has  unfortunately  been  very  much  discussed, 
and  very  much  written  about,  on  which  many  people  have  preconceived  opinions. 
I  had,  indeed,  almost  thought  of  appealing  to  your  Lordship  to  commit  at  least  one 
well-known  man  of  letters  for  Contempt  of  Court,  for  a  very  improper  article  which 
appeared  in  yesterday's  Daily  Mail.  But,  as  I  say,  this  is  a  case  which  we  cannot  pretend 
that  any  of  us  comes  fresh  to.  Probably  you.  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  have  some  of  you 
read  about  it,  but  I  want  to  point  out  to  you  that,  situated  as  you  are  to-day,  you  are 
bound  by  your  oath  to  give  us  your  decision  quite  irrespective  of  any  previous  opinions 
which  you  may  have  held,  quite  irrespective  of  anything  that  you  may  have  read,  or 
written,  or  heard  ;  that  you  are  bound  to  give  your  opinions  on  the  evidence,  on  the 
evidence  which  has  been  off'ered  to  the  Court  to-day.  And  on  that  evidence  I,  without 
a  moment's  hesitation,  claim  an  acquittal. 

70 


Speech  for  the  Defence 

What  is  the  situation  ?  Now,  apart  from  the  formal  witnesses,  whose  evidence  is 
not  much  disputed  on  either  side,  but  to  whose  evidence  I  shall  have  to  refer  in  some 
detail  in  a  moment — apart  from  this,  we  have  had  two  principal  witnesses  in  the  box 
to-day.  Now  it  is  obvious  that  one  or  other  of  them  is  not  telling  the  truth.  That  is  clear 
and  unmistakeable.  One  of  the  questions  you  have  to  put  yourselves  is,  Which  of  them 
was  telling  the  truth,  and  which  was  telling  falsehoods  ?  You  can  test  that  in  a  good 
many  ways,  but  whichever  way,  you  will  come  to  the  same  conclusion — that  if  there 
was  a  witness  who  was  telling  the  truth  it  was  Thomas  Bazzard— if  there  was  a  witness 
who  was  romancing,  it  was  Miss  Helena  Landless.  What  do  we  know  about  these  two  ? 
Mr.  Thomas  Bazzard  is  a  clerk  in  the  office  of  a  well-known  business  man  ;  Miss  Helena 
Landless  is  a  young  lady  from  Ceylon.  Very  much,  no  doubt,  comes  from  there,  but 
we  have  learned  this  evening,  as  one  of  the  most  amazing  bits  of  her  evidence,  that  the 
old  English  tavern  scores  come  from  there  ! 

Now,  let  us  consider  first  of  all.  What  about  the  motives  ?  Here  is  Bazzard.  Bazzard 
has  no  motive — no  motive  whatever — for  attempting  to  secure  the  release  of  the  prisoner. 
Miss  Helena  Landless  has  admitted  in  that  box  on  her  oath  that  her  hatred  of  Jasper 
had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  assassination  of  Edwin  Drood.  Her  hatred  of  Jasper 
does  not  rest  on  the  fact  that  Jasper  has  killed  Edwin  Drood  at  all.  It  rests  on  the  fact 
that  Jasper  has  treated  in  an  unfortunate  way  her  brother,  and  her  friend,  Miss  Rosa 
Bud.  So  there  you  have  her  confession  that  she  had  a  very  real  motive  for  hunting  down 
the  prisoner.  Miss  Helena  Landless  has  told  her  story.  She  says  she  was  Datchery. 
What  is  the  first  thing  that  strikes  us  about  that  extraordinary  story  ?  I  asked  her  whether 
she  made  up  her  face,  and  she  said  she  did  not.  Now,  had  she  said  that  she  made  up  her 
face,  had  she  said  she  had  painted  herself  wrinkles,  it  might  have  been  just  possible  to 
ask  a  sane  man  to  believe  that  she  could  go  about  Cloisterham,  where  she  was  well 
known,  and  not  be  recognised  :  but  how  can  she  have  the  effrontery  to  go  into  that 
box  and  ask  the  Jury  to  beheve  that  she  went  about  the  town  where  she  had  been  living 
for  nine  months,  and  where  she  was  perfectly  well  known — round  the  Nuns'  House 
where  she  had  been  at  school  ;  round  Canon  Crisparkle's  house  where  she  had  been  a 
visitor  ;  and  round  the  Cathedral — and  that,  with  her  face  absolutely  unchanged,  and 
merely  a  white  wig  and  a  blue  coat !  And  she  asks  you  to  believe  that  she  did  that,  and 
that  she  called  on  the  people  who  knew  her  best,  and  that  they  did  not  recognise  her  ! 
Really,  after  that,  can  we  be  expected  to  believe  one  word  of  her  evidence  ?  Really, 
that  is  so  strong  and  so  monstrous  an  attempt  on  our  credulity,  that  I  am  willing  to 
waive  all  the  other  nonsensical  parts  of  her  story.  There  is  her  way  of  avoiding  suspicion. 
She  wishes  to  pass  as  an  old  buffer.  Her  idea  is  to  order  with  a  gargantuan  meal  an 
enormous  quantity  of  wine  and  not  to  drink  it !  When  I  pressed  her,  she  said  she 
poured  it  away.  Is  it  reasonable  }  It  is  not  necessary  to  the  character  of  an  old  buffer 
that  she  should  drink  a  pint  of  sherry.  But  her  whole  story  !  I  asked  her  where  she 
learned  to  keep  tavern  scores.  Gentlemen,  you  know  what  the  way  of  keeping  tavern 
scores  means.  It  is  the  notorious  old  English  custom  of  "  scoring  a  man  up."  As  many 
of  you  may  know,  and  as  Mr.  Bazzard  has  sworn,  in  evidence,  it  is  a  custom  par- 
ticularly of  Norfolk.  That  is  a  perfectly  natural  action  for  Bazzard.  Had  Miss  Landless 
said  a  Norfolk  man  or  a  countryman  had  told  her,  we  might  have  believed  her.  But 
she  said  she  learned  it  in  Ceylon  !  I  am  rather  surprised  she  did  not  say  it  was  an 
accomplishment  taught  at  Miss  Twinkleton's  !  Her  theory  that  she  could  act  as  an 

old  buffer  is  so  absurd because  when  she  was  thirteen  years  old  she  put  on  her 

brother's  knickerbockers.  It  is  absurd.  As  if  that  would  help  a  woman  of  21  to  pass  as 

71 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

an  old  buffer  !  So  I  unhesitatingly  ask  you  to  accept  the  evidence  of  Bazzard,  and 
reject  that  of  Miss  Helena  Landless. 

Another  important  aspect  of  the  matter.  If  you  believe  the  testimony  of  Bazzard, 
which  is  unshaken — it  has  not  been  shaken  on  one  point  by  my  learned  friend,  and  not 
challenged  in  one  single  point — if  you  believe  the  evidence  of  Bazzard,  you  must  acquit 
the  prisoner.  You  must  find  the  prisoner  Not  Guilty,  because  Bazzard  has  sworn  that 
he  has  seen  the  alleged  murdered  man  since  the  attempted  murder.  If  you  believe  that, 
you  must  acquit  the  prisoner.  But  it  does  not  follow — and  this  point  I  want  particularly 
to  emphasise — it  does  not  follow  that  if  you  believe  the  story  of  Miss  Helena  Landless 
you  ought  to  convict  the  prisoner.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Miss  Helena  Landless  has  not 
produced,  if  her  story  is  true,  one  Httle  rag  of  evidence  in  favour  of  the  guilt  of  John 
Jasper.  She  has,  indeed,  produced  a  certain  amount  of  evidence  suggesting  that  he 
planned  an  attempt  on  Edwin  Drood's  life,  but  the  defence  admit  that.  She  has  produced 
a  certain  amount  of  evidence  that  John  Jasper  thought  he  had  murdered  him  ;  but  she 
has  produced  no  rag  of  evidence  that  the  murder  took  place.  I  ask  you  to  believe  the 
evidence  of  Bazzard,  and  I  point  out  that  my  learned  friend  has  not  challenged  the 
evidence  of  Bazzard. 

I  took  Miss  Landless  through  the  whole  of  her  story.  She  was  a  wonderfully  good 
witness,  but  at  every  point  she  had  to  give  some  extravagant  explanation  to  cover  herself. 
My  learned  friend,  able  Counsel  as  he  is,  did  not  ask  Bazzard  one  question  hardly 
about  his  story.  He  devoted  the  whole  of  his  cross-examination  to  trying  to  suggest 
that  Bazzard  was  a  great  fool,  that  he  had  written  a  bad  tragedy  which  is  not  in  evidence, 
and  that  it  has  not  been  produced.  Suppose  he  had  produced  a  bad  tragedy,  and  was 
vain  of  it.  My  learned  friend  may  have  heard  of  Frederick  the  Great,  who  was  very  vain 
of  very  bad  verses.  My  learned  friend  has  confined  himself  to  saying  that  he  must  be 
telling  lies  because  he  is  a  fool.  That  is  self-contradictory.  We  have  seen  him  in  the  box 
subjected  to  cross-examination  by  one  of  the  ablest  Counsel  at  the  Bar,  and  I  ask  you 
who  saw  him  to  say  whether  he  is  a  Har  or  a  fool.  If  he  be  lying  it  is  impossible  to  believe 
that  he  is  not  a  man  of  very  remarkable  ability.  The  fact  that  he  is  a  man  of  low  ability 
is  my  friend's  only  reason  for  calling  him  a  har  1  I  ask  you  to  beheve  the  testimony  of 
Bazzard  ;    and  you  must  then  acquit  the  prisoner. 

But,  as  I  was  saying  just  now,  Miss  Helena  Landless  does  not  produce  any  evidence ; 
nor  does  Durdles  ;  nor  Canon  Crisparkle ;  not  a  shred  of  evidence  to  show  that  the  murder 
took  place.  I  had  Miss  Landless — an  able,  determined  witness— and  I  challenged  her, 
could  she  produce  one  tittle  of  evidence,  other  than  the  ring,  to  prove  that  Drood  was 
murdered  ?  and  she  had  to  admit,  unwillingly,  that  she  could  produce  none.  She  said 
she  still  retained  her  opinions.  I  am  sure  she  would  !  We  can  perfectly  estimate  the 
attitude  of  mind  of  Miss  Landless  as  one  of  bitter  hatred  of  the  prisoner  and  readiness 
to  believe  anything  against  him.  I  have  no  doubt  that  if  Edwin  Drood  walked  into  court, 
she  would  still  think  Jasper  murdered  him.  The  only  thing  she  can  produce  is  the  ring. 
If  you  believe  Bazzard's  evidence,  there  is  no  mystery  about  the  ring.  It  was  put  there 
by  him.  But  suppose  you  don't  believe  it  :  there  are  a  hundred  ways  by  which  it  might 
have  got  there.  I  could  give  you  half  a  dozen  straight  away.  Jasper  might,  in  going  through 
Edwin's  pockets  to  take  out  the  watch  and  chain,  have  dropped  the  ring  in  the  trance. 
Drood  himself  might  have  taken  out  the  ring  and  dropped  it.  There  are  a  hundred  possible 
explanations  of  the  presence  of  the  ring,  but  there  is  no  possible  explanation  of  the 
absence  of  everything  else  except  the  ring.  Quicklime  will  destroy  the  body,  but  I  do  ask 
whether  it  is  conceivable  that  Edwin  Drood  had  absolutely  no  metallic  objects  about  him 

72 


Reply  for  the  Prosecution 

of  any  kind.  I  suggest  that  he  might  have  had  metal  trouser  buttons — unless  he  was  a 
member  of  some  extraordinary  religious  community,  or  some  hygienic  body  which 
disapproves  of  anybody  wearing  anything  of  the  kind  ! 

My  friend  has  made  a  great  deal  of  the  question  of  the  enormous  risks.  Miss  Landless 
flouted  her  enormous  risks,  and  Mr.  Walters  flouted  the  enormous  risks  in  Bazzard's 
face.  Mr.  Bazzard,  who  is  supposed  to  be  a  boaster,  did  not  see  that  he  had  run  such 
risks.  Nor  do  I.  One  of  the  propositions  of  the  prosecution  is  that  Jasper  was  an  extra- 
ordinarily brilliant  criminal.  Of  course,  he  was  the  reverse.  What  is  admitted  by  the 
prosecution  itself  is  ample  for  my  purpose.  We  say  that  Jasper  bungled  the  whole  thing 
and  did  not  kill  his  man  ;  but  supposing  he  did  kill  him,  there  is  no  doubt  he  bungled. 
Just  think.  This  clever  criminal,  who  kills  a  man,  is  content  with  his  own  memory  that 
that  man  had  nothing  on  him  but  a  watch  and  chain  and  pin  ;  drags  them  out ;  never 
thinks  he  might  have  some  money,  although  he  is  staking  his  neck,  or  chance  of  survival, 
entirely  on  the  assumption  that  everything  will  be  destroyed  by  quicklime.  He  never 
takes  the  ordinary  precaution  to  see  if  there  is  anything  else.  It  is  so  amazingly  absurd 
that  it  would  be  incredible  if  we  did  not  know,  as  we  do  know,  that  he  was  under  the 
influence  of  a  drug  and  was  not  master  of  his  faculties  when  the  crime  was  being 
committed. 

I  conclude  by  just  saying  this  :  I  am  aware  that  I  appear  in  one  sense  at 
a  great  disadvantage  because  I  am  unable  to  claim  any  sympathy  for  my  client.  I 
cannot  put  it  to  you  that  my  client  has  been  wronged  morally  by  the  accusation. 
I  cannot  claim  your  sympathies  for  him.  Undoubtedly  he  hated  his  nephew,  and  planned 
his  murder  ;  undoubtedly  he  is  morally  guilty  of  this  murder  ;  but,  Gentlemen  of  the 
Jury,  those  things  are  not  within  your  province.  You  are  not  here  to  judge  the  soul  of 
John  Jasper.  You  are  here  to  decide  whether  he  has  committed  the  legal  crime  of  murder. 
Unless  that  is  proved,  and  proved  up  to  the  hilt,  you  have  no  right  to  find  him  guilty. 
And  I  would  just  say  this  :  if  you  go  beyond  your  rightful  province  of  pronouncing 
on  that  simple  matter  of  fact,  you  are  perhaps  thwarting  some  purpose  higher  than  we 
know  of. 

It  may  not  be  for  nothing  that  this  man  has  been  reserved  for  this  very  strange 
destiny,  to  have  the  moral  guilt  of  murder  on  his  head,  to  have  all  the  remorse  for  murder 
in  his  heart,  and  yet  by  a  strangely  marvellous  fate  to  keep  his  hand  actually  free  from 
human  blood.  Perhaps  He  who  created  John  Jasper  intended  for  him  a  destiny  more 
terrible  than  human  punishment,  some  expiation  more  terrible  than  the  gallows  ;  and 
I  ask  you  to  give  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  to  the  prisoner  in  the  dock.  Respect  upon  his 
brow  the  sign  of  that  mysterious  immunity.  Let  Cain  pass  by,  for  he  belongs  to  God. 

[Reply  for  the  Prosecution.] 

Mr.  Walters  then  replied  for  the  Prosecution  in  the  following  terms  : 

May  it  please  you.  My  Lord,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury — 

Although  this  case  has  many  complications,  the  issue  itself  is  an  extremely  simple 
one.  Was  Edwin  Drood  killed  ?  If  so,  was  Jasper  the  murderer  ?  The  defence  has 
made  one  amazing,  and  I  think  fatal  admission.  It  admits  that  John  Jasper  attacked  Drood, 
attacked  him  with  the  intention  of  murdering  him,  and  by  that  admission  it  consents 
that  John  Jasper's  character  has  gone — that  he  is  a  monster,  that  he  is  a  hypocrite,  that 
he  is  a  man  of  no  moral  pretension,  that  he  is  a  scheming  criminal,  and  that  murder  was 
actually  in  his  heart.  A  stranger  defence  could  scarcely  be  conceived,  and  yet  there  is 

73 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

something  in  it,  because  it  tries  to  ride  off  upon  a  side  issue,  and  says  that  "  Whereas 
you  may  convict  this  man  of  a  certain  attempt,  we  say  that  half  way  there  he  failed." 
It  is  our  duty,  therefore,  to  try  to  prove  to  you  that  this  man  must  inevitably  have 
succeeded,  and  that  he  knew  he  had  succeeded,  and  acted  as  if  he  had.  What  are  the 
facts  that  demonstrated  to  you  most  conclusively  that  John  Jasper  committed  the 
murder,  and  that  Edwin  Drood  could  not  escape  ?  Our  contention  is  that  he  was  the 
victim  of  a  most  carefully  and  elaborately  prepared  plot,  carried  out  systematically, 
arranged  most  carefully,  of  such  a  character  that  there  was  no  loophole  by  which  he 
could  possibly  escape.  John  Jasper  interviewed  the  right  people,  chose  the  exact  spot, 
arranged  the  very  hour  when  he  would  have  all  his  material  together  for  the  compacting 
of  that  dreadful  task  to  which  he  had  given  himself.  He  had  decided  that  his  rival  must 
be  removed — that  secret  rival  who  was  between  him  and  the  great  passion,  the  all- 
absorbing  passion  of  his  life  ;  having  once  made  up  his  mind,  he  was  inexorable.  He 
knew  nothing  whatever  of  pity  ;  he  was  a  complete  criminal ;  and  all  his  acts  show  that 
his  crime  was  carried  out  with  a  sort  of  hideous  triumph. 

But  you  are  asked  to  believe  that  he  failed,  after  making  all  these  arrangements,  and 
failed  because  he  was  dazed  by  opium,  and  only  dreamed  of  the  particular  act  which  he 
thought  he  had  committed.  First  remember  the  nature  of  the  attack — the  double  nature 
of  the  attack.  It  included  strangling  with  a  silk  scarf,  and  that  was  to  be  followed  by  the 
use  of  quicklime.  If  Drood  escaped  the  one,  surely  it  was  nothing  short  of  a  miracle 
that  he  escaped  the  other  ?  And,  in  any  case,  if  he  escaped  why  should  he  obligingly 
disappear  to  the  convenience  of  the  man  who  attacked  him,  and  to  the  very  great  in- 
convenience of  all  the  friends  who  loved  him  .''  John  Jasper  was  a  lasting  danger  to  all 
who  remained  behind.  Edwin  Drood  could  not  so  entirely  disappear  from  the  realm.s  of 
civilisation  that  he  would  not  possibly  know  what  was  going  on  in  Cloisterham,  and  yet 
you  are  asked  to  believe,  Gentlemen,  that  this  man  upon  whom  a  murderous  attack  had 
been  made,  went  away  at  a  convenient  moment,  leaving  his  friends  to  the  persecution 
of  the  man  who  had  assailed  him,  and  leaving  the  way  clear  for  the  assailant  to  pursue 
his  own  evil  courses  !  I  should  say  it  is  almost  inconceivable — or  I  should  if  my  learned 
friend  had  not  so  ingeniously  conceived  it ;  but  that  it  is  believable  I  don't  think  you 
will  for  a  moment  agree. 

And  what  definite  evidence  has  been  produced  to  show  that  Jasper,  who  had  arranged 
all  this  for  a  definite  period— Christmas  Eve — was  suflFering  from  opium  at  about  that 
time  ?  You  have  the  evidence  of  Canon  Crisparkle  that  on  the  very  morning  of  that  day, 
when  he  met  him,  he  was  in  wonderfully  fine  voice,  clear-headed,  cheerful,  in  a  good 
temper.  All  this  is  absolutely  proved  by  the  direct  and  unimpeached  testimony  of  Canon 
Crisparkle.  Where  are  the  traces  of  opium  ?  There  are  no  traces  of  opium.  The  supreme 
moment  had  come,  and  Jasper  was  supremely  ready  for  it.  There  were  no  traces  of  opium 
on  him  when  those  two  young  men  departed  from  his  home.  He  could  not  have  soaked 
himself  in  opium  during  their  short  absence,  and  then  have  recovered  in  time  to  make 
his  accusation  against  Neville  Landless  by  the  morning.  But  you  are  asked  to  believe 
that  in  that  short  interval  he  had  time  to  recover — that  he  was  in  a  trance  so  deep  that 
he  really  thought  he  had  committed  a  murder  which  he  had  not,  and  yet,  early  the  next 
morning  was  so  clear-headed,  so  resolute  in  purpose,  so  ready  with  a  connected  story 
which  would  fix  the  crime  on  another  person.  And  why  should  he  have  been  eager  to 
give  the  alarm  if  he  had  the  slightest  doubt  ?  A  man  risen  from  a  trance  of  opium  might 
have  some  doubts  :  but  he  had  none,  and  within  a  few  hours  he  was  setting  things  in 
motion  himself,  giving  the  alarm.  He  had  Neville  called  back,  a  course  he  had  decided 

74 


Reply  for  the  Prosecution 

on  from  the  first ;  he  was  going  to  fix  the  crime  on  Neville  Landless  ;  and  within  those 
few  hours  he  had  carefully  and  deliberately  carried  out  the  entire  scheme.  Why  this 
immediate  suggestion  of  murder  ?  Why  not  a  little  lapse  of  time  ?  Because  he  was 
confident  that  the  murder  had  been  committed  and  that  the  body  would  not  be  re- 
covered ;  and  therefore  he  could  be  resolute  and  speedy  in  his  actions,  and  proceed  at 
once  to  the  second  part  of  the  crime  which  had  been  the  motive  for  the  original  crime. 

What  did  he  do  ?  Not  only  did  he  pursue  Neville  Landless  remorselessly,  but  he 
set  about  persecuting  Rosa  Bud,  whom  he  could  afford  to  threaten,  because  he  was 
aware  it  was  safe — that  the  one  rival  who  had  been  in  his  path  had  been  swept  out  of 
his  way,  and  that  his  way  was  clear.  Does  a  man  dazed  with  opium  act  in  this  decisive, 
rational  fashion  ?  He  carefully  robbed  the  corpse  of  those  particular  jewels  of  which 
he  had  an  inventory.  My  learned  friend  makes  the  point — Why  did  he  not  feel  in  his 
pockets  ?  Why  did  he  not  do  this,  that,  and  the  other  ?  He  had  inquired  of  Durdles 
what  quicklime  would  do.  He  knew  that  it  would  not  destroy  metal.  He  had  told  a 
jeweller  in  Cloisterham  that  he  knew  exactly  what  jewellery  Edwin  had.  It  consisted  of 
the  watch  and  chain  and  the  scarf  pin.  It  was  exactly  those  things  which  disappeared 
and  were  found  in  the  weir  by  Canon  Crisparkle.  What  a  curious  coincidence  that  the 
very  three  things  he  had  an  inventory  of,  and  no  more,  should  disappear  !  And  why  did 
he  not  seek  further  ?  Coppers  and  buttons  are  no  means  of  certain  identification  ;  he 
could  afford  to  ignore  them.  Moreover,  a  murderer  does  not  linger  about  the  body  of 
his  victim  ;  besides,  he  was  already  convinced  that  having  removed  those  three  items 
of  jewellery,  by  which  Drood  could  be  identified,  he  was  secure,  and  the  quicklime  would 
do  the  rest ;  then  he  hastened  back,  for  he  had  to  get  home  again  in  order  to  be  prepared 
for  the  morning,  to  make  his  charge  against  Neville  Landless. 

But  there  was  one  article  about  Edwin  Drood's  person  of  which  Jasper  knew  nothing 
— the  ring,  which  Drood  was  to  return  if  his  betrothal  was  broken  off,  but  which  we 
say  Grewgious  never  received.  That  ring  would  hold  the  murderer,  and  bring  him  to 
his  doom.  It  would  not  be  destroyed  by  the  quicklime,  and  would  be  there  intact  and 
the  means  of  bringing  him  to  the  scene  of  his  desperate  crime.  Remember,  he  courted 
inquiry  immediately  after  Drood's  disappearance — a  sign  of  his  supreme  confidence 
and  his  colossal  audacity.  The  man  who  has  the  slightest  doubt  that  the  murder  may 
not  have  been  completed  does  not  at  once  set  the  law  into  motion,  go  to  the  magistrate 
and  bring  a  charge.  But  if  he  knows  it  is  completed  and  the  body  has  gone,  he  can  afford 
to  do  so.  Everything  he  had  designed  to  do,  he  did.  It  was  only  something  that  he  did  not 
know  of  which  caused  him  to  bungle.  He  was  not  by  nature  a  bungler.  He  was  one  of 
the  completest  types  of  criminals  that  you  can  imagine,  a  man  who  for  months  and 
months  had  been  meditating  on  the  closest  details  of  the  crime — been  to  the  crypt, 
talked  with  Durdles,  spoke  to  Mr.  Crisparkle,  started  his  theory  that  Neville  Landless 
was  the  person  to  be  charged — and  a  man  who  does  all  those  things  cannot  be  accurately 
described  as  a  bungler. 

Canon  Crisparkle  told  you  the  part  Jasper  played  in  fomenting  quarrels  between 
Drood  and  Landless.  It  is  exactly  the  course  that  a  calculating  murderer  would  pursue. 
And  you  have  heard  the  evidence  of  Durdles,  a  man  who  probably  scarcely  understood 
the  purport  of  his  own  remarks.  How  valuable  his  testimony  was  !  Jasper  had  spoken 
to  him  of  quicklime  and  of  tombs,  and  Jasper  had  gone  with  him  on  a  midnight  expedition. 
Was  all  this  vain  and  useless  ?  Was  the  expedition  at  midnight  merely  a  pleasant  little 
picnic  for  no  particular  purpose,  or  merely  for  fun  ?  Not  for  fun,  when  we  find  that  it 
all  fits  the  composite  scheme  of  murder  which  was  carried  out 

75 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

My  learned  friend  has  spoken  about  Helena  Landless.  I  say  she  is  a  witness  entirely 
beyond  reproach.  She  was  the  very  woman  framed  by  nature  to  carry  out  her  arduous 
part.  She  had  every  need  for  her  action  and  the  capacity  for  her  daring  work — every 
essential  qualification  for  that  difficult  part  was  possessed  in  advance  by  Helena  Landless. 
She  had  had  experience  ;  in  her  youth  she  had  dressed  as  a  boy,  and  shown  the  daring 
of  a  man  ;  she  was  the  leader  of  her  brother,  and  when  everything  else  had  failed,  when 
six  months  had  passed  by  and  she  was  able  to  do  nothing  by  ordinary  means,  she  adopted 
this  extraordinary  means  of  disguise  in  order  to  carry  out  her  work.  We  are  asked  why 
she  did  not  paint  her  face.  I  don't  know  whether  my  learned  friend  wanted  her  to  black 
her  face  or  what  he  wanted  her  to  do  ;  but  she  was  brought  up  in  a  warm  climate  with 
a  rich  dark  complexion  and  she  chose  the  part  of  the  "  old  buifer,"  which  means,  if 
it  means  anything,  something  of  the  sailor  type.  Her  complexion  was  ready  for  her. 
She  wore  a  large  white  wig  to  hide  her  luxuriant  tresses.  Why  Bazzard  should  wear  a 
large  wig  I  don't  know.  She  had  the  only  effective  disguise  for  her,  the  disguise  of  an 
elderly  man,  because  she  had  to  live  up  to  the  white  wig  to  conceal  her  woman's  figure. 
She  was  no  stranger  in  Cloisterham  and  was  perfectly  equal  to  the  task  of  conversing 
with  those  whom  she  had  already  met  before. 

One  word  on  Bazzard.  If  you  reject  Helena  Landless,  there  is  only  one  alternative. 
You  must  put  Thomas  Bazzard  in  her  place.  Is  this  Mr.  Bazzard,  the  man  who  fell  asleep 
while  his  employer  was  discussing  crucial  matters  with  a  client,  one  who  was  likely  to 
appear  as  the  elderly  Mr.  Datchery  in  Cloisterham  ?  This  man,  who  thinks  more  of  his 
drama  than  his  law  work,  is  he  a  likely  man  to  have  devoted  himself  to  confronting  a  man 
already  suspected  of  murder  ?  You  have  seen  a  Mr.  Bazzard  in  the  box,  and  I  put  it 
to  you  that  he  was  specially  got  up  to  produce  a  false  impression  upon  you.  The  Bazzard 
in  the  box  was  bright  and  alert  and  voluble.  The  official  record  says  that  he  was  "  a  pale, 
puffy-faced,  dark-haired  person  of  thirty,  with  big  dark  eyes  that  wholly  wanted  lustre, 
and  a  dissatisfied,  doughy  complexion  that  seemed  to  ask  to  be  sent  to  the  baker's." 
That  is  the  gentleman  who  was  to  act  the  part  of  the  brave  and  daring  Datchery  !  I  say 
it  is  impossible,  and  that  his  own  vanity  has  tempted  him  to  claim  these  honours.  He 
told  you  he  "  placed  "  the  ring  in  the  crypt  for  any  passer-by  to  pick  up,  and  that,  knowing 
Drood  was  alive,  he  still  allowed  Neville  Landless  to  be  accused  of  murder  and  Rosa  Bud 
to  be  persecuted  by  Jasper.  This  from  a  man  connected  with  law  !  It  is  an  absurd  story, 
and  utterly  incredible.  I  ask  you  to  reject  it. 

Gentlemen,  a  solemn  duty  rests  on  you  in  this  crisis  which  I  am  sure  gentlemen  of 
your  ability  and  intelligence  will  faithfully  discharge.  It  is  with  infinite  pain  that  I  have 
to  ask  that  this  man  shall  pay  the  penalty  of  his  sin.  But  John  Jasper  himself  showed  no 
mercy.  He  fondled  the  victim  whom  he  intended  to  butcher  ;  he  lured  to  his  doom  one 
who  he  had  made  to  feel  was  his  nearest  and  dearest  friend  ;  he  destroyed  a  life  full  of 
promise,  a  life  which  might  have  been  fruitful  and  happy.  I  do  not  ask  for  vengeance, 
but  only  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  law,  that  justice  may  be  trusted  to  maintain  the  sanctity 
of  human  life.  If  you  fail  in  your  duty  this  man  will  henceforth  be  free.  I  charge  you, 
in  the  name  of  humanity  and  human  rights,  to  quit  you  as  men,  to  act  on  the  facts 
which  have  been  placed  before  you.  This  mystery.  Gentlemen,  has  lasted  long  enough. 
It  is  in  your  power  to-day  to  elucidate  what  has  seemed  to  be  obscure,  to  solve  this  deep 
and  complex  problem.  Yours  is  an  enviable  opportunity,  and  to-day  you  may  strike  a 
very  great  blow  for  the  truth.  The  eyes  of  the  nation  are  upon  you,  the  whole  world  is 
anxiously  awaiting  your  decision.  I  beg  you,  Gentlemen,  resolutely  and  earnestly  to 
sweep  away  all  this  fantasy  which  has  been  placed  before  you  by  my  learned  friend,  to 

76 


The  Judge's  Summing  Up 

forget  his  extraordinary  story  of  a  half  murder,  which  I  think  I  have  shown  to  be 
impossible,  and  by  one  bold  and  emphatic  stroke  to  solve  for  ever  the  Mystery  of 
Edwin  Drood. 

[The  Summing  Up.] 

His  Lordship  then  proceeded  to  sum  up,  as  follows  : 
Gentlemen  of  the  Jury — 

You  will  not  be  the  first  Jury  empanelled  in  this  great  country  who  will  have  to 
come  to  your  decision  with  unreasonable  speed.  The  proceedings  have  been  so 
interesting  that  I  cannot  hope  to  do  them  justice  ;  but  I  will  merely  go  over,  as  far  as 
I  can,  the  main  features  of  the  case,  and  then  my  duty  will  be  to  leave  it  to  you.  First 
of  all,  it  should  be  remembered,  because  it  is  indeed  included  in  what  is  referred  to 
as  the  Official  Record 

A  Spectator  :  Louder,  please. 

Judge  :  I  am  speaking  to  the  Jury.  If  you  think  you  can  hang  that  man  for  us,  you 
are  mistaken. — I  say  it  is  included  even  in  the  Official  Record  by  an  indirect  admission 
that  we  owe  a  great  deal  of  information  that  we  have  heard  this  evening  to  a  man  of 
letters.  I  must  therefore  ask  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury  to  put  themselves  for  one  moment 
in  the  position  of  such  a  person.  You  must  forget  that  you  are  solid  and  good  citizens 
summoned  to  decide  a  serious  matter,  nay,  I  must  forget  that  I  am  an  experienced 
Judge  seated  on  this  Bench  for  many  years  ;  and  we  must  all  try  to  think— both  the  Jury 
and  myself — try  to  think  we  are  authors.  Supposing  that  to  be  the  case,  it  is  all  the  easier, 
of  course,  to  imagine  oneself  the  author  of  a  crime.  I  will,  therefore,  very  rapidly  divide 
up  the  evidence,  as  I  see  it,  on  the  two  sides,  and  then  leave  the  matter  to  you. 

I  need  not  tell  you  how  serious  is  the  issue  put  before  you.  If  it  were  only  the 
solemnity  of  ending  the  Mystery  of  Edwin  Drood  it  would  be  almost  as  solemn  as  that 
of  ending  a  human  life,  but  if  any  doubt  exists  in  your  minds  at  all  as  to  whether  the 
Mystery  of  Edwin  Drood  has  been  solved  by  the  prosecution,  you  must  permit  the 
prisoner  in  the  dock  to  go  forth,  even  if  from  a  merely  personal  study  of  his  countenance 
you  think  he  is  going  forth  to  murder  other  people.  Unless  the  prosecution  has  con- 
vinced you  that  the  Mystery  is  at  an  end,  you  have  no  right  to  convict  him,  and  he  has 
the  right  to  the  benefit  of  the  doubt. 

The  next  thing  necessary  clearly  to  distinguish  is  the  evidence  of  the  two  principal 
witnesses.  The  others  were  rather  entertainers  than  witnesses.  There  were  two  very 
genuine  witnesses,  one  of  whom  perjured  himself  or  herself — that  is  to  say,  would  have 
done  so  had  we  permitted  profanity  to  enter  into  these  proceedings.  I  want  to  say  one 
thing  about  that.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  and  in  that  point  the  Jury  ought  to  really  fairly 
balance  their  minds,  because  there  is  a  case  for  possible  perjury  in  both  instances.  So 
horrible  a  crime  as  perjury  can  only  be  committed  either  from  a  very  low  or  a  very  high 
motive.  The  character  of  Mr.  Bazzard,  as  revealed  by  himself  with  picturesque  clearness, 
appears  to  me  an  entertaining  and  attractive  but,  shall  I  say  ?  not  a  saintly  character, 
and  it  appears  to  me  to  be  arguable  that  he  might  possibly  tell  a  lie  from  general  amuse- 
ment at  the  absurd  way  in  which  the  world  is  run.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  admitted, 
I  think,  for  Miss  Landless  that  though  she  would  not  tell  a  lie  or  forswear  herself  for 
money,  she  might  conceivably  do  it  as  counting  religious  observance  beneath  some 
affection  she  had  for  her  brother.  I  therefore  put  it  to  the  Jury  as  possible  that  both  are 
liars.  But  I  should  distinguish  between  their  motives  if  I  were  writing  a  spiritual  treatise. 

77 


The  Trial  of  John  Jasper 

It  is  tenable  in  both  cases.  Undoubtedly  if  one  is  telling  the  truth  the  other  is  lying. 

About  the  wearing  of  a  wig,  I  think  the  point  has  been  somewhat  unduly  pressed 
on  one  side.  I  think  it  is  a  strong  argument  for  Datchery  being  Helena  Landless,  but 
not  a  very  strong  one  that  she  feels  the  weight  of  the  wig.  I  suppose  there  are  many  of 
us  here  this  evening  who  have  been  not  unconscious  of  the  discomfort  of  wearing  a  wig 
when  you  have  too  much  hair  already.  So  I  should  not  press  forward  the  argument  that 
it  must  have  been  a  woman's  hair — or  I  should  not  press  it  too  far.  Edwin  Drood  is 
represented  in  the  picture  as  having  monstrously  long  hair — but  that  does  not  concern 
us  here.  I  think  it  should  be  conceded  as  a  point,  but  not  a  very  great  point,  to  the 
prosecution.  We  come  to  the  second  broad  distinction  which  amounts  to  this  :  that 
very  few  of  the  witnesses,  and  I  daresay  very  few  of  the  Jurymen,  are  acquainted  with 
the  proper  use  and  enjoyment  of  two  substances,  one  of  which  is  opium,  and  the  other 
quicklime.  Most  of  us,  I  conceive,  indulge  in  these  things,  if  at  all,  in  great  moderation, 
but  anyhow,  a  great  deal  depends  upon  the  operation  of  these  two  things  ;  and  it  appears 
to  me  on  that  point  that  the  whole  of  this  Court,  not  having  called  any  expert  evidence, 
either  of  morphia  maniacs,  or  of  persons  partially  buried  in  quicklime,  (who  are,  I  imagine 
a  select  class) — as  the  trial  has  not  called  any  kind  of  technical  evidence  about  the  effects 
of  these  things,  I  think  it  my  duty  to  put  it  to  the  Jury  that  they  must  reserve  their  judg- 
ment and  allow  a  wide  space  for  human  ignorance  about  the  effects  of  these  things. 
I  certainly  do  not  know  how  quick  opium  confuses  the  mind,  or  how  quick  quicklime 
destroys  the  body,  and  if  the  Jury  know  it,  I,  in  the  best  traditions  of  the  Bench  and  Bar, 
command  that  they  dismiss  it  from  their  minds. 

We  have  placed  in  front  of  us  two  allegations.  On  the  one  side  it  is  alleged  by  the 
prosecution  that  there  is,  after  all  is  said  and  done,  a  very  strong  argument  for  the  death 
of  Drood,  in  the  fact  that  he  did  not  return  ;  it  is  alleged  by  the  defence  that  you  have 
an  even  stronger  argument  against  any  theory  of  the  murder  of  Edwin  Drood,  because, 
again,  he  did  not  return,  even  as  a  corpse.  "  If  he  is  dead,"  says  the  defence,  "  where 
is  the  corpse  ?  "  "  If  he  is  alive,"  says  the  prosecution,  "  where  is  he  ?  "  That,  I  think, 
is  a  fair  summary  of  the  arguments,  and  it  is  obvious  that  if  you  come  to  think  it  out, 
these  two  theories  depend  on  those  two  suppositions.  Is  it  possible  for  opium  to  make 
a  person  half  commit  a  murder  ?  or  Is  it  possible  for  quicklime  so  to  destroy  all  traces, 
including  buttons,  and  so  that  the  disappearance  of  the  body  is  evidence  of  the  murder  ? 
That  is  the  question  I  shall  leave  entirely  to  you — as  to  whether  there  is  enough  of  what 
I  may  truly  call "  quicklime  evidence  "  to  warrant  you  regarding  Jasper  as  a  real  murderer, 
or  enough  of  "  opium  evidence  "  to  warrant  you  saying  that  it  was  a  visionary  or  dream 
murder.  Those,  I  should  say,  would  be  the  broad  lines  on  which  you  have  to  decide. 
For  the  rest,  you  have  to  be  answerable  to  the  highest  conceivable  Authority  as  to  how 
you  deal  with  a  very  fascinating  romance.  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  you  will  retire  and 
consider  your  verdict. 

[The  Verdict.] 
Immediately  his  Lordship  had  concluded,  the  Foreman  of  the  Jury  rose  and  said  : 

My  Lord, — I  am  happy  to  be  able  to  announce  to  your  Lordship  that  we,  following 
the  tradition  and  practice  of  British  Juries,  have  arranged  our  verdict  in  the  luncheon 
inter\'al.  I  should  explain,  my  Lord,  that  it  undoubtedly  presented  itself  to  us  as  a  point 
of  extraordinary  difficulty  in  this  case,  that  a  man  should  disappear  absolutely  and 
completely,  having  cut  off  all  communication  with  his  friends  in  Cloisterham  ;    but 

78 


Verdict  of  the  Jury 

having  seen  and  heard  the  society  and  conversation  of  Cloisterham  here  in  Court  to-day, 
we  no  longer  feel  the  slightest  surprise  at  that.  Now,  under  the  influence  of  that  ob- 
servation, my  Lord,  the  more  extreme  characters,  if  they  will  allow  me  to  say  so,  in  this 
Jury,  were  at  first  inclined  to  find  a  verdict  of  Not  Guilty,  because  there  was  no  evidence 
of  a  murder  having  been  committed  ;  but  on  the  other  hand,  the  calmer  and  more 
judicious  spirits  among  us  felt  that  to  allow  a  man  who  had  committed  a  cold-blooded 
murder  of  which  his  own  nephew  was  the  victim,  to  leave  the  dock  absolutely  un- 
punished, was  a  proceeding  which  would  probably  lead  to  our  all  being  murdered  in 
our  beds.  And  so  you  will  be  glad  to  learn  that  the  spirit  of  compromise  and  moderation 
prevailed,  and  we  find  the  prisoner  guilty  of  Manslaughter. 

We  recommend  him  most  earnestly  to  your  Lordship's  mercy,  whilst  at  the  same 
time  begging  your  Lordship  to  remember  that  the  protection  of  the  lives  of  the  com- 
munity is  in  your  hands,  and  begging  you  not  to  allow  any  sentimental  consideration 
to  deter  you  from  applying  the  law  in  its  utmost  vigour. 

Mr.  Walters  :  I  should  like  to  urge  that  the  Jury  be  discharged  for  not  having 
performed  their  duties  in  the  proper  spirit  of  the  law.  We  have  heard  from  the  Foreman 
that  the  verdict  was  arranged  in  advance,  and  I  decline  to  accept  that  verdict,  and  ask 
for  your  Lordship's  ruling. 

The  Foreman  :  The  Jury,  like  all  British  Juries,  will  be  only  too  delighted  to  be 
discharged  at  the  earliest  moment :  the  sooner  the  better. 

Mr.  Chesterton  :  I  want  to  associate  myself  with  my  learned  friend. 

Judge  :  My  decision  is  that  everybody  here,  except  myself,  be  committed  for 
Contempt  of  Court.  Off  you  all  go  to  prison  without  any  trial  whatever  ! 

The  Court  rose  at  n.35,  the  actual  hearing  having  occupied  four  hours  and  twenty 
minutes. 


79 


HOME  USE 

CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

MAIN  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  due  on  tlie  last  date  stamped  below. 
1-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 
6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books" 

to  Circulation  Desk. 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior 

to  due  date. 

ALL  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  RECALL  7  DAYS 

AFTER  DATE  CHECKED  OUT. 


WAR 


% 


a 


l^SWcom 


MAR   12 '74  3(^ 


FEB2»MJ^^ 


1392 


JANTTm 


LD21-A30m-7,'73 
(R2275S10)476 — A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


CD311Db3fi3 


0-*^^'D>5"S 


^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  I^IBRARY