Page 78 of Out of His Wits (Pride and Prejudice Variation)

T he Crown’s barrister rested his case, and the barrister representing Wickham had no evidence. Immediately, the Judge delivered his charge, setting before the jury the course of their deliberations:

Gentlemen of the Jury,

I must first solemnly impress upon you the sacred duty of impartiality resting upon your shoulders. Your deliberations must be guided solely by the evidence before you, untainted by partiality, prejudice, or undue sympathy.

Gentlemen of the jury, three indictments are laid before you.

Upon the first, for the felonious attempt at murder, it is incumbent on the Crown to prove the charge to that degree of moral certainty which leaves no reasonable doubt upon your minds.

You are to consider, first, whether the prisoner did, with malice aforethought, form in his heart the intent to deprive the party of life; and, secondly, whether, in pursuance of that wicked purpose, he committed some overt act—plain, manifest, and tending directly to the execution of the crime.

The law makes a distinction betwixt idle design and the doing of a deed.

It is for you to judge whether his conduct passed from the one into the other.

Should your deliberations determine that his intent was to deprive the victim of life, you must determine whether his actions constituted a felonious assault and battery in furtherance of that offence .

Thus, you must determine whether the prisoner did unlawfully and maliciously endeavour to stab, cut or wound’ any person with intent to maim, disfigure or disable or to do some other grievous bodily harm provided that it would have been murder if death had ensued .

The second indictment charges the prisoner with burglary of a dwelling,.

The Crown is bound to establish to your satisfaction, beyond all reasonable doubt, the several particulars which constitute this offence.

That upon or about the day laid in the indictment, the prisoner did unlawfully endeavour to break and enter the dwelling-house of Netherfield Park, that such house or place was at the time an occupied structure within the meaning of the law, that the prisoner had no right, licence, or lawful authority so to break and enter and that such entry was effected with felonious intent—whether to commit theft, assault, or some other felony therein.

You must further consider whether, at the time of the offence, the prisoner was armed with a dangerous weapon, or with explosive or incendiary materials, or whether bodily harm did in fact ensue to any person therein; or, in the alternative, whether one or more persons were present within the said dwelling at the time of the breaking.

If, and only if, you are satisfied that the Crown hath made good proof of all these several matters, then, and not otherwise, you are bound to find the prisoner guilty of burglary.

The third indictment laid before you concerns the grievous crime of attempted poisoning—a crime inherently committed in secrecy and darkness.

Rarely, indeed, does direct eyewitness testimony accompany such crimes, as it is the very nature of perpetrators to shun observation.

Nevertheless, Providence, in its wisdom, often leaves traces sufficient for discovery of the guilty.

Thus, the law wisely permits conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone, provided it be compelling enough to leave no rational doubt of guilt.

You must, therefore, diligently examine the circumstances presented.

First, clearly ascertain the facts established to your satisfaction.

Having done so, consider whether these facts align consistently with the guilt of the prisoner.

If these facts are consistent with guilt, and no contradiction arises except a prisoner’s previously good reputation, you must then determine if these facts can reasonably be reconciled with innocence.

Counsel for the prisoner has argued that the law demands explicit proof—that the substance administered was indeed poisonous and given in sufficient quantity to cause death.

However, I must instruct you plainly that the law imposes no such stringent requirement.

It is not necessary to demonstrate the exact quantity administered or the precise manner of administration.

Rather, the law requires evidence sufficient to persuade your judgement that poison was intentionally caused to be administered by order of the prisoner, with the purpose of causing death or grievous bodily harm.

Should the circumstances persuade you beyond rational doubt that the prisoner caused poison to be administered deliberately and with criminal intent, you are duty-bound to render a verdict of guilty.

If, however, reasonable doubt remains, or the prisoner’s explanation appears credible, your verdict must be one of acquittal.

Remember, gentlemen, the gravity of your responsibility, and weigh the evidence impartially and with great care .

The twelve men huddled together on the open floor of the hall and began a murmured discussion.

Unlike one earlier case in which their voices were raised and clear disagreement apparent, they were subdued and seemed merely bored by the process.

After a few brief minutes, the gentleman identified as their foreman spoke to the bailiff, who signalled to the clerk.

The Judge looked up from his bench.

“Mr. Cranshaw, has the jury reached a verdict?”

“They have, My Lord.”

“Members of the jury, pray rise.”

“Mr. Foreman, has the jury reached a verdict upon the charges against the prisoner at the bar?”

“We have, Your Honour.”

“What say you, is the prisoner, George Wickham, also known as George Wilkins, guilty or not guilty of the charge of felonious assault and battery committed with intent to murder one Reginald Hurst, laid against him?”

“Guilty.”

“What say you, is the prisoner, George Wickham, also known as George Wilkins, guilty or not guilty of the charge of burglary, having unlawfully entered the premises of Netherfield Park with felonious intent there in to commit theft, assault, or some other felony?”

“Guilty.”

“What say you, is the prisoner, George Wickham, also known as George Wilkins, guilty or not guilty of the charge of attempted murder of Fitzwilliam Darcy, Charles Bingley and Reginald Hurst, by poison laid against them?”

“Guilty.”

Elizabeth’s stomach dropped. Whilst she knew Wickham to be guilty, the finality of hearing a verdict felt like a shock.

The barrister charged with defending the prisoner conferred briefly with Wickham, then said something to the Judge. Heaving a sigh, the Judge spoke again, “Do each of you individually confirm your verdicts?”

Each juror spoke, confirming their verdict.

“Having thus affirmed your unanimous agreement, your verdict is now recorded as delivered.” The Judge nodded once. Wickham, standing in the dock, slumped forward, his manacled hands to his face.

The Judge then proceeded:

“Prisoner at the bar, George Wickham, having been found guilty by the jury of your peers, it is now my solemn duty to pronounce the sentence of this Court:”

“You are hereby sentenced to transportation beyond the seas, to such place as His Majesty, with the advice of his Privy Council, may deem appropriate, for the term of seven years for each offence, to be served successively. May this sentence serve as both a solemn warning to others and an opportunity for penitence and reform for yourself.”

The Judge’s final pronouncement still echoed in Elizabeth’s ears as the courtroom began to take up the next trial.

Twenty-one years’ transportation—it was justice, though she was subdued rather than triumphant. Beside her, Tibby sat quietly, her hands folded in her lap, the strain of the day written in her pale complexion.

“Perhaps we might step outside, now,” Elizabeth said in a low voice, rising and offering her arm. “The courtroom has grown quite close.” Elizabeth held Tibby’s arm close as they rose. Mr Darcy rose with them.

They made their way through the crowd, Mr. Darcy’s tall figure clearing a path for them.

Elizabeth nodded politely to acquaintances as they passed.

The March afternoon was crisp but welcome after the stuffy atmosphere of the courtroom, and Elizabeth was grateful to step into the yard behind the Shire Hall where carriages waited and groups of people lingered to discuss the day’s proceedings.

“Tibby! Daughter!”

Elizabeth turned to see Mr. Morrison approaching, moving more surely than before and squinting in the afternoon light. The belligerence had drained from his manner, leaving him subdued and somewhat sheepish.

“Papa,” Tibby said softly, uncertainty in her voice.

Morrison stopped before them and removed his hat, bowing humbly. “Miss Bennet,” he said, his words more measured than before. “I … that is… what you did for my daughter…” He trailed off, seeming to struggle with his words.

“There is no obligation, Mr. Morrison. Miss Morrison’s own courage brought justice today.”

Mr. Morrison turned to his daughter, his eyes still somewhat bleary but now filled with what might have been shame.

“You did well, daughter. Better than your father has of late.” He cleared his throat roughly.

“The gentleman says the landlord at the Crown he keeps a fine cook, and I’ve a mind to take you there for a proper meal.

A father may treat his daughter when she has done well. ”

Tibby’s eyes widened. “Papa, surely we cannot—”

“We shall manage well enough,” Morrison said with quiet dignity. “Come, Tibby.”

Elizabeth turned to find Mr. Darcy approaching. Mr. Morrison doffed his cap and bowed to Mr. Darcy, then Elizabeth.

“I shall see my girl home. My thanks, madam, sir,” he said.

Elizabeth watched them walk away, Morrison’s hand upon his daughter’s arm.

“It appears Miss Morrison is in capable hands.” Darcy said.