In the House of Reason - part 3

Over the last few days it has been a challenge to keep going - not because I haven't enjoyed writing, but because I may not have been happy with what I have written. Like most writers, I struggle with perfectionism. When I feel something isn't up to scratch, it is my habit to scrap it and start again. Under normal circumstances, what you are about to read would never see the light of day.

Writing isn't easy and the hardest battle is always with yourself. The standards you set for yourself are something you frequently fall short of, and it can be a really dispiriting experience. Overcoming that disappointment needs determination to see things through, otherwise nothing can be achieved. I speak not as someone who consistently overcomes that hurdle, but as someone who needs to keep working on that stubbornness.

In the House of Reason

Part Three

The following morning found me back in a cab. I had telegraphed my office first thing, in the village’s tiny Post Office, to tell them I would not be returning as planned that day and asking the local register office for copies of papers from the funeral. I had dictated my message with Father Nichol in tow, refusing to give me a moment’s peace.

After his statement, we had sat up until late. It could not be described as a companionable time. He had failed to produce a drink until I developed a hacking cough from the dryness of my throat. Even then, he was more interested in his own bottle than he was in the teapot he produced, without a strainer. At times he would ramble. He spoke of his time in a seminary school in Ireland, how he had followed in the footsteps of saints, and of a time in Rome when he visited the catacombs of martyred early Christians. It was difficult to follow, and the impression I was left with was of a man who felt himself holy through his own justifications, not necessarily through his actions. This was a man for whom presentation and gesture was more important than quiet action and fellowship.

I spoke little. Partly, this was because I had little to speak of. My business is a private matter for the most part, dealing with the deceased and the bereaved. I have to discuss matters with other professionals, speak with doctors, sometimes take statements, but until I deliver my verdict in a court of law by business is private; it is of the business of others I speak, and that is confidential until it is required to be disclosed. I have few personal matters of my own to speak of; no wife, no family, just a quite, professional job that relies on discretion.

When we retired it was almost midnight. I heard the church bells strike several times while we sat and he talked in his seemingly never-ending stream of consciousness; we must have been within a hundred yards of the church itself. I asked about his time in the parish of St Luke’s, and about his congregation, but Father Nichol was vague and more concerned with the theory of Catholicism than its practise. I know more now of saints and their martyrdom than I ever wished to know. As he said, I am a man of reason and logic. I have little time for ingrained superstition.

Father Nichol remained with me the whole following morning, even after my visit to the village Post Office. He cut a frenetic figure on the footpath, sometimes waving hands as he expounded on a theory, his head sometimes darting this way and that as he saw members of his congregation or people he knew. More than once, people crossed the road rather than come into close proximity to Father Nichol. My mind continued to make notes on him, his character, his veracity. He pushed people away. Perhaps it should be no surprise now to find that he had estranged one person who may have been his friend, if not his parishioner.

The cab seemed to travel all the more slowly for the company I had. It wound through the country lanes for three miles, a distance I would have otherwise walked but for the fact I did not know where I was going and I wanted to spend as little time with the priest as I could. At least at the end of the journey I would have a chance to escape from him, for a time at least.

Halfhill House was still a fairly new building, its columned facade covered with vines and climbing roses. A gravel drive gave blessed relief from the ruts and potholes of the road that had jolted and jarred my poor back for the last half-hour. It was clear that we were not expected; there was no welcome for us as I knocked on the front door, and it was some time before a crack appeared and a sliver of a woman’s face appeared.

“Is the master of the house at home?” I asked, removing my hat and holding it to my chest politely. “We need to speak with him.”

The woman’s eye looked over my shoulder, to where Father Nichol was hanging back. “Mr Goodall won’t entertain the father.” There was an apology in her voice, but it was quite clearly intended for me and not for the priest.

I nodded, understanding. “I heard there had been a disagreement, but unfortunately I must speak with William Goodall. I am the Winchester coroner, and I have come to investigate the cause of his father’s death.”

“The master won’t be happy.” The reluctance in the woman’s voice came with the sound of a chain sliding from its mooring. The door opened more widely to show a young woman in a maid’s pinafore, most of her dark hair hidden under a cap. “I will give him a call, but I warn you that he’s studying papers and won’t like to be disturbed. So far as he’s concerned, all this sorry business came to an end with his father’s funeral, God rest his soul.”

I chanced a look at Father Nichol as we crossed the threshold. He wore an expression of incredulity, as though the woman had blasphemed and not offered a blessing. It was another useful piece of information about the priest.

We were not kept waiting for long, which was something of a pity. A man’s entrance hall said a lot about that man, or at least his family. This was a family of fairly new money. Old families had portraits and landscapes from centuries before dotted around the place. Here, there was a fairly new portrait of an older gentleman, moustached and severe in a red uniform. Medals adorned the breast of the man in the portrait; I assumed he was old Mr Goodall in his military days. Other than that, the entrance hall was bare, hardly a reflection of an opulent and ancient past.

The man who greeted me bore more than a passing resemblance to the man in the portrait, and proved my assumptions correct. The son was narrower in the shoulders than the father, but there was no mistaking the moustache and facial features as being anything other than descended from the man in the portrait. His handshake was perfunctory. He wore a twitch on his lips that his facial hair could not quite disguise. He came across as being just as stern as his father, perhaps without the discipline a military life provided. There were unmistakeable signs of hurriedly getting dressed about his person, such as the way his shirt was creased.

“William Goodall,” he said shortly, pushing the door open behind him to admit me to the inner sanctum of Halfhill House. “I hear you are a coroner. Let me tell you now, there is nothing more to discuss. He,” young Goodall added, throwing his spare hand out to block Father Nichol’s passage, “goes no further. He is not welcome in this house.” Goodall’s eyes flashed dangerously.

“I have no desire to enter your house of reason, as you put it,” Father Nichol said airily. “I merely wished to play my part in the investigation. For the good of Olivia.”

Goodall’s hand shot out and pushed the little priest back. “Don’t mention my sister.”

Watching the interplay between the two men was interesting. There was more going on than Father Nichol had mentioned in his statement. There were lingering, hostile looks passing between them. Goodall’s hand clenched into a fist, his knuckles white. In spite of myself, I felt a little sorry for the priest; surely he had done nothing to justify this young man’s hate? Father Nichol’s description of Goodall as an angry young man came back to me, and I found myself agreeing with the sentiment.

I was guided into young Goodall’s study. Compared to Father Nichol’s front room, it was Spartan. Empty bookshelves loomed over the small, clear desk. Goodall took his seat behind the desk; I sat in front of him. It was not dissimilar to sitting before a headmaster at school, only here the young man being asked the questions was behind the desk and not before it. From the way Goodall sat, leaning back, his legs crossed, I could sense his impatience for the interview to be over.

“I am Doctor Kincaid, and I have come about your father,” I said. I had come across many reluctant witnesses in my time; a slow, easy start was always better than opening hostilities. I was not their enemy. “Father Nichol wrote to me, asking for me to investigate his death. He feels it was caused by… unnatural events.” The pause was not deliberate or for effect.

“Doctor Kincaid.” Goodall sounded like he was tasting my name before spitting it out, finding it unpalatable. “I am sorry we have met in these circumstances. But there is nothing to investigate. My father became an old man. He died from maladies associated with his age. I see no reason to bring this up again.”

“A respected member of the community felt otherwise,” I said.

“Respected member of the community?” Goodall leaned forward, uncrossing his legs. “In his time here Father Nichol has been nothing but a stain on the village. My father entertained and encouraged him when he should not have done. That encouragement has given the good father an impression of himself that simply is not true.”

“You have been here throughout Father Nichol’s ministry?” I asked calmly. “I had been given to understand that you lived in London, with your family.”

There was a moment’s hesitation before Goodall answered. “It is true that I have not been physically present. Nichol arrived some years ago, I forget how long. He was disliked by many to start with because of his faith. I see no reason to dislike a man because of his faith myself,” he added. “He may be misguided. He may be wrong, but then so might I be and it is how a man composes himself that is his measure, far more than his beliefs. Had he composed himself differently, then I might have a very different view.”

I weighed up the next question carefully; for all this was interesting, it was hardly what I had come for and I had to get to the bottom of old Mr Goodall’s death. It would not to do alienate the old man’s son before he had said anything about his father. “How do you know all this?”

“I speak to people. People write to me. Unlike Nichol, I am a respected member of the local community. Just because I am away in London does not mean I do not have correspondents here.”

I reached into my bag and produced my pen and paper again. “I’m sorry I had to ask. It is my job to get to the bottom of this and weigh the evidence before I give my verdict. As this is an active investigation, I must treat you as I would any other witness. I must also ask who your correspondents are.”

“I’d prefer not to say. Is this all a matter of public record? I’d rather not have that strange man launching a vendetta against people I care for because I have been indiscreet with my statement.”

“My verdict is a matter of record. What is done with witness statements and my notes is up to my discretion. It depends on the relevance to the investigation and what may be in the public interest. Gossip is quite possibly not of relevance.”

“I see.” Goodall sat back again. “Let’s get this over with. I have no desire to be stuck discussing my father’s death all over again. It’s hardly something I relish.”

“I understand.” I licked the nib of my pen and tasted the copper hint of ink. “Can I have your full name for the record?”

“William Joseph Goodall.”

I pretended not to see Goodall’s eyes roll in irritation as we went through the formalities of date of birth, address and occupation. Challenging him would not put him in a good humour. He was the kind of man who, if indulged a little, would be more forthcoming when the more challenging questions arose. However, I hesitated on the final question. “Relationship to the deceased?”

“I’m his damn son, man.” Goodall’s outburst reminded me again of Father Nichol’s assertion that the new lord of the manor was an angry young man. “Do you need to ask these questions, or are you just testing my patience? I do have things to do.” He pointed at the bookcases. “They’re not empty because I like the look of empty shelves. This house needs stripping and its contents taking to London before it’s sold. There is some urgency to that.”

“I’m sorry,” I said, adopting a conciliatory tone. “Unfortunately we must follow certain forms, for appearance’s sake. I know full well your relationship to your father, but I need to ask as a part of this interview.”

Goodall snorted derisively. “Can we get on with it?”

“Certainly.” I paused for a second, framing my first question. “How was your relationship with your father?”

“What does that have to do with anything?”

“It establishes the quality of the information we can take from you,” I said, careful to keep any irritation from my voice. “If you were distant, we cannot discount your evidence but we may have to look elsewhere. If you were close, we may seek some confirmation of what you say, through letters or such.”

“We were fairly close, as close as you can be through letters.” A dark smile crossed his features. “There, I’ve given up one of my correspondents. It’s fortunate that Father Nichol cannot harass him beyond the grave, isn’t it?”

I chose to ignore the comment. “How often did you write to each other?”

“Once a week or so.”

“You kept the letters?”

“In London. There is a drawer in my desk there full of letters from home, from both my father and my sister.”

“I may ask you for them at a later date in the investigation if needed,” I said. “Please understand that my request will in fact be a legal requirement. We simply like to be polite in how we ask for documentation.”

“There’s nothing in those letters that’s objectionable,” Goodall said. “Although they are… personal. I prefer people not to look through them.”

“I understand. If we need to, we will handle them with sensitivity. When you say the letters were personal, what did they contain?”

Goodall hesitated for a moment, hardly long enough for someone unused to taking statements and gathering evidence to notice, but with my experience long enough to know how carefully he was weighing up what he was going to say. “News from here, mostly. My father would write about politics often. He also wrote about the church and what was happening there.”

The church. I made a note to return to the subject. “And your sister?” I prompted.

“More personal matters.”

“I do not wish to press, but I must.”

“Personal matters are personal, Doctor. Especially for a woman. I don’t want my sister being a part of any of this. She was upset enough as it was and she’s just starting to rebuild her confidence from her grief.” Goodall glared at me as he spoke.

“I’m afraid I must also take a statement from her,” I said quietly. “It would be for the best if I could hear what you had to say and what she had to say in full, then we can lay this sorry business to rest.”

“You may not.” Goodall slammed a fist onto his desk. “She is my sister, and I am her legal guardian. If I choose that she does not give a statement to you, it is my right and my prerogative.”

“Mr Goodall, this is a legal investigation,” I said evenly. “It would not help you to block my path through this investigation. I could only deliver a verdict that was not a reflection on the facts of the matter.”

“We have a verdict!”

“That is true, but after taking statements it has become my job to dig deeper. It may be that the original conclusions were correct.” I met Goodall’s blazing stare with my own level gaze. “However, until all the evidence has been taken I cannot make that conclusion. If somebody acts to obstruct the investigation then I have the full force of the law behind me, and I may draw conclusions that are not liked. Those conclusions will be final.”

Goodall considered me for a moment. “I fail to see how those letters are of relevance to why and how my father died,” he finally said. The anger was not gone.

“Inquiries such as this need more than the medical evidence, especially with the suggestions that have been made,” I said.

“What has that crackpot said to you?” Goodall’s voice had gone dangerously low.

“With this being an active investigation, I’m not at liberty to tell you,” I said smoothly. This was a familiar statement. “Anything I tell you could affect the evidence that you give to me, and prejudice the conclusions that I come to.”

“I tell you, you can’t trust a word the man says,” said Goodall.

“You have suggested as much. Tell me everything I need to know and I’ll be able to draw conclusions.”

Goodall took two deep breaths, calming himself. He nodded to himself, slowly. “If I tell you the full story, will you not interview my sister?”

“I cannot make a guarantee, but any evidence I get from her I will handle with discretion,” I promised. “That will have to be good enough.”

“That…” Goodall breathed again, bringing himself fully under control. The anger, so obvious moments before, dissolved. Lines on his face became shallower, his features much less drawn. The faint pink tinge in his cheeks subsided. “That will have to be good enough, I suppose. I will tell you.”

To be continued...
 

In the House of Reason - part 2

Yesterday we met Doctor Kincaid, a coroner put on the case of old William Goodall by Father Nichol, a somewhat chaotic priest. We heard whispers of something beyond this world, and heard Doctor Kincaid's scepticism about Father Nichol's attitude. Today, Father Nichol's story is revealed...

As part of this ongoing project, I'm aiming to write over successive days. I'm aware of mistakes being made - no Catholic priest would ever go by his last name, but for the sake of consistency I'm continuing as I started - but the most important thing is the continuation of the story. Let me know what you think. Your continued support is appreciated.

In the House of Reason

Part Two

The Sworn Statement of Father Michael Nichol, dated 18th October 188_

I first realised something was wrong when I called on the Goodalls at Halfhill Hall at the end of June. It had long been my custom to call on the deceased Mr Goodall on a Thursday evening. He was one of the first to greet me when I was given this parish, and had long been a friend to St Luke’s. I counted myself as not just his counsellor in Christ, but also as his friend. Despite this, it was rare to see him in the congregation on a Sunday morning as he did have some difficulties with his legs, having returned from the Crimea with wounds sustained in the course of battle.

On his return from the east, Mr Goodall met and married a local girl. Anna was not of his social status, and I am told by many locals that it was a minor scandal when he chose to marry the local shop-keeper’s girl. I did not bear witness to their early years together, but I am told they were very happy together. Their first child, a son called William, after his father, was born not long after the marriage took place, and some whispered that the marriage was one of duty that then grew into a lifelong affection. I know for certain that when Olivia, the couple’s second child, was born more than ten years later, Mr Goodall lamented the loss of his companion in life and has never truly recovered, although his daughter gave him great joy and you would not know the depths of despair he felt unless you truly knew him. In recent years I have been a friend and confidante to Mr Goodall, and he said to me that the loss of his wife was the greatest regret of his life, although he could not be blamed for it. I have given him many words of comfort down the years.

I have also become the confidante of Olivia Goodall. I have known her as a child and as a young woman, and I hope I do not exaggerate my influence on her life when I describe her as being the flower of modern youth. However, she is afflicted by the melancholy that her father never succumbed to, and she has had bouts of woman’s mania, taking to her bed for days at a time, locking herself away from the world. I have tried to encourage her out of these episodes, but to no avail. She has, at times, refused to see me and speak to me, but when we have spoken she has admitted her guilt over her mother’s death to me. For all my words, for all the times she has cried on my shoulder, I doubt she has ever taken consolation from anything I have had to say. Seeing Olivia like this was hard on her father, especially as some of her sadness also comes from her caring for him in his later days, when his wound prevented him from walking more than a few steps at a time, and particularly in his last days of madness. It is her own delicate mind that makes me worry this affliction has been passed on, particularly as she has been hidden away from my comfort by her brother since the father’s death.

When I called on the Goodalls at the end of June, I expected to find nothing out of the ordinary. It was our custom to take a late tea, and myself and Mr Goodall would sit up and talk while Olivia read in another room. I would take confession from Olivia - although she rarely attended Mass on a Sunday she would often insist on confessing what few sins she had - and discuss life in the village with Mr Goodall, who felt increasingly isolated from what he called ‘a normal life.’ On this evening, he was out of temper. He was usually of a calm disposition, but from time to time his leg would pain him and I believed at first that it was one of those nights. It was when Olivia took me to one side and whispered that her father had been muttering in his sleep that I started to become concerned.

“What has he been saying in his sleep?” I asked.

“He has been praying, I think, but not to God,” she responded.

A little more probing gave me answers. Many things he had been saying were incoherent, but at times he would cry out, as though in pain. Olivia was unable to sleep many nights while listening to his cries, pleading for mercy. For later, that is what he was doing. Whatever he was pleading for mercy from was unclear, but it was clear to her that her father’s prayers and pleas were not for our Lord and Saviour. She asked for secrecy from me until she had heard more. When I went away that night, my sleep was troubled and broken with visions of the old man’s pain.

On my next visit a week later, Olivia confided in me again. She spoke of fits. The Tuesday before my visit he had collapsed at breakfast and gone into spasms of agony. She spoke of how he screamed and spoke in tongues, and how a cold chill had taken her completely. She had sworn the servants who witnessed the fit to secrecy, and debated with herself what to do. It seems now this delay has had devastating consequences to her. It was on this day that Mr Goodall seemed most unlike himself. He was more than merely irritable; he was bad-tempered, and before long I found myself leaving his company. I regret this now. I never saw him alive again.

I missed my normal call the following Thursday, although my housekeeper begged me to go. It was no use ending old friendships over angry words, she said, and she was right. I heard nothing from Mr Goodall, however, and I assumed he was not sorry to have not seen me. With that in mind, I did not go the following week either. It was only when I received a message from a servant that I made my way up to Halfhill House again, for old Mr Goodall had passed away. I had no idea he was so ill.

When I arrived, he was still in bed. I could see quite clearly that he had been foaming at the mouth. There were tell-tale signs of spittle around his mouth and unshaven chin. His features were stretched as though in pain and I could see there was no rest in death. His mouth hung open slightly, giving him a surprised look. Olivia stood over him, in tears. She told me he had been speaking tongues and fitting regularly in recent days. My heart was torn in twain to see the girl like that, and I did something I would not normally do and took her in my arms to comfort her. It was then that William Goodall burst in.

He was an angry man, although he is not that young. He has a wife and family of his own in London, or so I am told, and he has left them for the time being to care for his blood relative in Halfhill Hall. I commend him for his attitude toward his sister, but not so for his actions towards myself. Within moments I found myself thrown out of the house, on his say-so. I tried to plead to be allowed to intercede for his father, the old friend of St Luke’s, but he told me that I had no place there. “In the house of reason,” he said, “there is no reason for your superstition.”

I returned the following day, only to be barred by the servants from entering. I was told that William had no time for the Catholic Church and that I was to stay away from the family. Old Mr Goodall would be buried in the Church of England churchyard after an establishment funeral. I felt nothing but despair at this news, for it was not what Mr Goodall would have wanted. Besides, I worried for his eternal spirit. In life I had, through my own arrogance, failed to find out whether his spirit had been possessed by a demon as I now suspect. If he had been so afflicted, the lingering remnants of the demon that killed him would stay in his soul, forever trapping him in Purgatory at best. No man of the Church of England would ever consider performing an exorcism of the spirit, and his soul could be lost forever.

More pressing is Olivia. She was present when he died, and the demon’s soul may have adhered to her. She is already delicate in her spirit, and I fear that any demon or devil would find her easy prey without her spiritual guidance. I have not heard how she is since her brother barred my passage into his so-called house of reason. Nor do I know what plans he has for her now their father is dead. The house has become his, and I hope he decides to leave it to her, but I fear he plans to take her to London with him and allow the house to moulder.

Over the last few months, I have been open around the village about my suspicions. My congregations have fallen off. My housekeeper has left. Many feel that I should not be investigating these matters, partly as I am a mere priest and William Goodall is the new lord of the manor, partly as it is meddling in forces that mere man should not touch. I object to this. It is my duty to protect the souls of St Luke’s whether the people wish to be protected or not. As a result, I have become something of a pariah around the village, with only a few prepared to speak to me when I make my way to the shop or when I pay a visit to one of my congregation.

So far as I am aware, no doctor performed a full post-mortem examination of old Mr Goodall. I have been told he died as a result of a fever brought on by old age and sadness, but I believe the physical signs of possession would not have been seen by any qualified doctor unless they knew what they were looking for under spiritual guidance. As I was not present, and Mr Goodall now fades to dust beneath the ground, this cannot be proven other than through taking the statements of those present at the end of his life.

Signed:

To be continued...

In the House of Reason - part 1

It has been a struggle to put pen to paper in recent times. Time, energy, and inclination have been lacking; also lacking has been the discipline to put the finishing touches to a story. In an effort to combat this, I'll be publishing my current project to my blog as I work on it. It'll be raw and unedited. The aim is simple: if people are reading it, then I have a reason to write and a reason to keep going on a daily basis. I'd love your feedback, but more than anything I'd love your time as you work through this first story I've written in months.

In the House of Reason

Part One

There are nights to make you believe in demons, and this was one. Wind howled and rain lashed down as the cab pulled up in front of the little vicarage, and I wasted no time in paying the driver and hurrying, bags in tow, to the front door of the house. My journey from Winchester into the rolling hills and villages of Hampshire was over, and not before time.

I was greeted by a little tonsured man. I could see his dog collar was stained and frayed even in the half-light spilling from the blessedly warm house as I tumbled over the threshold, keeping my hat pulled low to stop it from blowing away. The door closed behind me, I straightened to see a fat hand offered in greeting.

“Father Nichol,” the little priest said. In my rush to get into the house, I had not noticed the way the man’s belly pulled at his black cassock. I took his hand and shook it.

“Doctor Kincaid.”

“I know who you are.” Father Nichol gestured that I should continue into the vicarage’s front room. “I sent the letter. I am so pleased you could come.” He held out a hand again and I looked at it for a moment, puzzled. “Your hat and coat?”

The little priest seemed chaotic. Not just in his appearance, but in his manner. He was rushed, flitting from action to action without completion in each of his activities. As I unbuttoned my coat and handed both it and my hat to Father Nichol I felt dizzy, like a man made to look in several directions at once. Suddenly, I looked forward to sitting down. It was with the same sense of rush and havoc that I was chivvied into the front room, where a roaring fire warmed the chill in my bones almost instantaneously.

The front room was as chaotic as the impression I had been given of its inhabitant. One wall was occupied by a bookcase, filled haphazardly with peeling tomes, their covers absent, faded or otherwise damaged. In front of it, two patched seats sat at odd angles. Behind one, a collection of faded newspapers poked out. The rug on the floor was stained and tattered, and the floor was covered with odd papers and various articles. A cross was knocked on its side, leaning against the stone hearth. As I sat down wearily in the less skewed of the two chairs, I felt something digging into my leg and reached down to extract a set of rosary beads, strung together with string painted in a fraying gold.

“I usually have a housekeeper,” Father Nichol said, sitting in the chair opposite. In the flickering light of the fire, he looked to be around fifty, but tired. What remained of his hair was grey or white. His eyes were shadowed. My coat was still draped over his left arm, with my hat on his hand; he had forgotten to hang them up before coming to join me. I raised an eyebrow, encouraging him to continue. “These recent events seem to have scared God-fearing people away from me.”

“I read your letter asking for a coroner,” I said. I had taken the priest’s statement about not having a housekeeper as a sign that I was not about to be offered a drink after my ordeal travelling down rutted lanes on this wildest of nights. “You were vague about what has happened, other than the need to investigate the death of this man Goodall.”

Father Nichol looked into the fire. For the first time, he seemed to be trying to compose his thoughts. Staring into the pandaemonium of flames, where the devil himself makes a home, did not strike me as a good way. When he looked back, he wore the deadened look of a man who has forgotten what it is to sleep.

“There is madness in this death, Doctor. I have never seen anything like it.” So he had the hope that a man of law and medicine, whose life it was to discover the cause of death and place reason upon it, could answer his questions.

Never taking my eyes from him, I opened my bag and pulled out a pen and paper. “Start at the beginning.”

After a breath, Father Nichol spoke, in a low voice. “I have known - I knew - old Mr Goodall for many years. He had a voice for the Church and he used it at a time when it was not popular or the done thing. It cost him in the election when Gladstone lost Manchester.”

“Papism is not a vote-winner,” I said, before I could stop myself.

Father Nichol’s smile was small and sad “It took a strong man to speak for the Church when it was to his own personal cost. Mr Goodall was ever the friend of St Luke’s, even when his wife departed this world while delivering their second child. That was some twenty years ago. I prayed for him, but those prayers were not heard. Many would blame the Church, I have seen it many times, but Mr Goodall retained his faith and came ever closer to me, until recently. He was a good man, a good father to his two children. His son grew up and left the house many years ago, but his daughter remained to look after her father in his dotage.”

My notes so far were few; there was little on possible causes of death. “Was he a melancholy man?” I asked. From the vague letter I had, there was a chance that the cause of death was self-inflicted, although it would not explain why the priest had contacted the chief coroner of the area and insisted on his attendance.

“Surprisingly not, considering his losses.” Father Nichol brought his hands to his face. “His daughter is melancholy, but I would expect no less. She has sustained losses and blames herself. I have counselled her many times not to blame herself for her mother’s death, but there is a fault in her spirit that leads to her inflicting pain on herself for something she could have no control over. It was she who nursed Mr Goodall through his last weeks. But I jump ahead,” he said, flicking a hand out, as if to dismiss what he had said. “For your investigation you must know of the changes.”

“You referred to them briefly in your letter.” I pulled the letter from my notes and read. “You spoke of ‘changes sudden and violent in character and spirit, with no recognisable cause’.”

“There could have been a cause,” the little priest said. His face was dark. “I did not wish to alarm you or have you judge me mad by writing of them in a letter to a learned man such as yourself. The truth is I believe Mr Goodall to have been possessed. The changes were sudden. He had always been a friend of the Church, but he suddenly distanced himself from both myself and the parish. I heard whispers of a deeper madness that had afflicted him. Ravings and such. When I tried to speak to him or his daughter, I found the door slammed in my face.”

I raised a hand to stop Father Nichol speaking. “I am a man of reason, Father,” I said quietly. “I do not deal with superstition or belief. I deal with the cold facts of a case to establish a cause of death.”

“I understand, and this is why I did not mention it in my letter.” Father Nichol fixed me with his eye and I saw the steel underneath his doubt and worry. “If I had mentioned this you would have dismissed me as a madman. What sane man believes in possession by the devil and his forces? But I needed you here. You are a man of reason and logic. I understand you have no particular faith to cloud your thinking, and you would be able to prove what I have seen and felt. I, a man of a faith dismissed by so many, do not command that respect. Even, it seems, among those who would otherwise believe what I say. Together we can investigate, with my knowledge of scripture and belief and your reason and logic, to discover the truth of what I saw.”

“You said the door was slammed in your face, Father,” I said. Perhaps it was no surprise that the priest had forgotten to offer a cup of tea, if he had forgotten his own story. “How do you see through wood?”

Father Nichol gave another wan smile, shadows flickering across his features and making him look like a ghost. “I was permitted by the daughter to see Mr Goodall when the madness first set in. It has been the return of the son which has cast me out. I have attempted to see them several times, but when Mr Goodall died it became all the harder. I have not been allowed to see Olivia, to comfort her, or Mr Goodall, to perform my duties over him as he would have liked.”

“You say in your letter the funeral took place without further investigations, and in the other church in the village.”

The priest wrung his hands. “A lifelong Catholic should not have their funeral in a non-Catholic church, and nor should they be buried in unconsecrated ground. If I could I would move him from where he lies.”

My hand stopped making its brief notes. I did not trust myself to look at the little man. It was clear that what he felt was right and proper was at the forefront of his mind, and not the family’s wishes. He did the family a disservice that was in no way a credit to his Church. Dogma, when it guided belief beyond reason, was a reason to disbelieve anything being said.

“Burial in line with the family’s wishes is not enough of a reason to make an investigation into the death itself,” I warned. I was already impatient with Father Nichol. “Unless you tell me how an investigation is warranted. It will be especially difficult with Mr Goodall already being buried as I will not, without exceptional reason, be able to order an exhumation. I take it that the family is opposed to an investigation?”

“They are.”

“I do not see how I can investigate properly.”

“For this kind of investigation you will need to keep an open mind and speak with people. I do not think desecrating the body will avail you of anything.”

In a deliberate action I put my pen down on my lap, along with the letter and my notes. I had not taken kindly to Father Nichol telling me my job. “Father, I feel my time has been wasted here. I have travelled many miles on this wild night. I will need to stay here overnight as there is no way to get a cab, and that will affect my work tomorrow. There are families who need me to establish what happened to their kin.” I frowned, unable to conceal my displeasure. In a matter of minutes I had felt more frustration with a case than I had in many years. “My job is in Winchester, not in this small village. I came as you are well-respected, and you claimed real urgency, but from what you tell me there is little urgency other than in your own mind. Old men go mad, Father. There is no possession and no malignant influence from other planes of reality. The mind simply collapses under the weight of worry and years, and from what you tell me Mr Goodall had more worries and pains than many men.”

Father Nichol’s hands kneaded air like a baker kneading invisible dough. “This is what I feared. There is more at play and more at stake here than meets the eye, Doctor. You must believe me. What I saw when I was allowed to see him was the madness of damnation and Hell. I fear it has passed on to his next of kin.”

“His son?” I asked. Keeping my frustration from my voice posed a challenge to me, albeit one I had been well-trained in over my years of dealing with the bereaved and the bereft.

“Olivia. His daughter.”

I shook my head. “My realm is discovering the cause and means of death, not those still alive.”

“You deal with disease in Winchester, do you not? You can trace vectors of disease so those alive are not afflicted by the causes of death of those departed? Is that some part of your job.”

“It is. But for disease. For bacteria. Not for superstition, Father.” I tried to inject some sympathy into my voice, make it seem less that I was frustrated, and more that I had respect for his position but my own responsibilities prevented me from undertaking his request.

“This new scientific knowledge is beyond me.” Father Nichol waved the same dismissive hand. “Whatever causes disease, could it not also be here? If the daughter is afflicted then her life is in danger, and it is your responsibility prevent this demonic affliction from spreading.”

I took a moment to think. As the Winchester coroner, public health did form part of my role. Just the previous year I had traced a measles outbreak to an orphanage and prevented it spreading further. Although some had died from the disease, I had stopped others from meeting the same fate. Add to that, I was already in the parish of St Luke and any journey back could not begin until morning, when I could be making investigations. I felt myself giving in to Father Nichol, despite my misgivings.

“I doubt this is anything other than ordinary elderly dementia,” I said carefully, watching the priest’s face, “but tomorrow I will go to the home of the Goodalls. If, as you say, they are refusing your company, I shall open a formal investigation. I have my materials with me, and I can act as an officer of the law. I shall have to start,” I added, meeting Father Nichol’s eyes, “by taking your statement."

To be continued...

A Great Matter of Things

When I was at university, around the time my heart left legal practice, I studied a module called trials of dissenters. The focus was not on learning the ins and outs of the operation of law, but on its historical application where the law was used in part to persecute those beyond the pale of respectable society and what it showed us about jurisprudence. The list of trials studied was eclectic; it's not often you'd find the trial of Jesus Christ being studied and presented alongside the trial of Oscar Wilde.

Among those studied in the early days of the module was the trial - such as it was - of Anne Boleyn. We looked at procedure. We looked at the facts. We looked at the historical context of the time. We skipped the outcome; once convicted, it really was a case of burying the bodies so far as the sentence was concerned.

I have a question for my university professors now: why not study Thomas Cromwell's role in that trial and his eventual downfall? Was he a dissenter, in a broad definition? Is it significant that he had no real trial of his own other than bills of attaintment, considering what had happened with the woman he had installed as queen consort - and subsequently brought low with the harvested testimonies of others? Leaving aside matters of time, there's more in Cromwell and his rise and fall than there is in Anne Boleyn in any matter other than a trial itself.

Over the past year I've been working my way through Hilary Mantel's phenomenal Thomas Cromwell trilogy with those questions in mind. As I finished the trilogy this morning - with its inevitable tragic denouement - the questions resurfaced. Here was a common man, risen to the highest office in the land despite his birth, at a time when value was placed on blood far more than ability. Here was a man who stood against the Catholic Church and played his part in the English Reformation. Was he not, in his way, a dissenter, eventually brought down by that dissent?

There's no doubt that Cromwell was no typical figure of his age and Mantel's depiction of him shows him as such. The boy from Putney made good into the Lord Privy Seal, a baron of England despite his common birth. He was a soldier, a lawyer, a statesman. A man who relied on his prodigious wit and prudence to become King Henry VIII's right-hand man. Someone at the heart of schemes to promote England's interests - but also the interests of a new orthodoxy that challenged the status quo. Such a man - as shown by Mantel - challenges the establishment, who would wish that such a man be brought down. The end, when it comes - and I hope I'm not spoiling the ending for anyone, considering these events took place in 1540 - has a sense of inevitability to it, and not just because of the knowledge of Cromwell's real-life fate.

Cromwell can be said to be a dissenter in the sense that he transgressed from the norms of the time. He would have fit hand in glove with the trials of dissenters unit studied in the same way as Anne Boleyn and Jesus; a social and political misfit who rose and rose before being destroyed - in a physical way, at least - by those who took a position of social and political orthodoxy, damned by his own actions even as they progressed the interests of the place - and beliefs - he served.

I cannot recommend the trilogy - beginning with Wolf Hall - highly enough. It's possible to enjoy the ride, but it's also possible to read far more into the events and apply them to now. Vested interests face upstarts. The psychology of power and interplay of various interests. The darkness of humanity and the treachery of those who are only a misstep away from a slippery slope. Mantel's work is masterful. As for Cromwell himself, he continues to blaze a trail through history as a man both of his time and outside of it. A modern man in an early modern setting, who helped to shape modern England.

The Witness for the Defence

The atmosphere in court can be dry, but there is a buzz on the day a key witness gives evidence. Anticipation hangs in the air and speculation is whispered in the public gallery, passed between reporters and interested parties. 'What do you think they will say?' Normally, the courtroom itself is an island of calm throughout proceedings, regardless of what is going on outside; the media scrum around a Christine Keeler or Lord Archer doesn't penetrate the sanctuary of benches, barristers in wigs and gowns passing notes amidst piles of lever-arch files, all under the watchful eye of a stern judge. But on the day a key witness gives evidence, some of that excitement percolates through to the courtroom itself, giving a real buzz to the day's proceedings.

There was a similar feeling to the press conference held yesterday for the evidence-in-chief of Dominic Cummings. The political fall-out over it has already cost the government a great deal of trust, a commodity they cannot afford to lose in the midst of the biggest public crisis since the Second World War. So what would the chief SPAD say? What was his excuse for seemingly breaking regulations his government set to protect public health? Would this clear up the matter and allow people to regain their trust in government, assuring them that those who set the rules were subject to the same rules as the man in the street (or, if we keep our legal theme going, the socially-distancing man on the Clapham omnibus)?

Cummings should be pleased that this wasn't evidence being given in a courtroom setting and it was, strangely, in the Rose Garden at 10 Downing Street. Leaving aside the rather large issue of why it was deemed appropriate for an unelected advisor to give a press conference at all - in defiance of all political conventions - the press conference will have raised eyebrows as well as questions. Cummings' bizarre and contradictory explanation of his actions in March and April would, if given in court, have had cross-examining counsel drooling.

It's an exchange I would give money to see: the experienced silk, composed and polite, facing down the arrogant witness. The little smirk Cummings made at the very end of his unprededented media appearance would, transported into court, have been noticed. In all honesty, I'd love to be in the place of that silk; a story so full of contradiction and hubris is begging for rigorous cross-examination, and I'd be willing to bet that any half-trained bar student would be able to take the entire story to pieces with half-a-dozen targeted, precise questions - especially if they had done their homework on the writing that surrounds the whole case.

The big question would be how to approach a witness like Cummings. The barrister would have to measure a number of things - the mood and patience of the jury with the witness, the stage of the case, what other witnesses have said - when deciding how to deal with him. It is possible to imagine that defence counsel would have advised Cummings not to give evidence in the first place, taking the gamble of an adverse inference over the risk of his man tying himself in knots that could be unpicked by any competent legal professional. Depending on the mood, it could be possible for the cross-examining barrister to discredit the evidence with one or two swift questions, perhaps repeating some of the statements back to the witness before making an excoriating coup de grace.

"You say neither you nor your wife had symptoms?"

"You say you drove for five hours without a break, with a child in the back of the car?"

"You say you went for childcare, yet never received any assistance when you arrived?"

"You say you were ill, but you left the house to take your child to hospital?"

"You wrote the guidance, do you not understand what you were writing?"

"You say you wanted to check you were safe to drive?"

"Your way of checking eyesight was to drive a car? For thirty miles? With your wife and child in that car when you were uncertain?"

"The fact is that we can't trust a word you say, isn't it?"

Such an approach can really damage a witness. It's short, it's sharp, it makes the point. If a jury or panel of magistrates is already impatient with a witness it can make their minds up. There's very little subtlety to it and it gives rise to 'explosive exchange in court' headlines. It's the drama that television is made of. To an extent, it's a hack-and-slash, broadsword approach to cross-examination, but there is a risk attached to it. It can come across as rude and turn a case the wrong way if the advocate has read the room incorrectly. Sympathy for the witness - who is being bullied, after all - can override the evidence being presented, much as it shouldn't be. People making the factual decisions in the case are human.

Less dramatic, but for me more effective, is the approach of killing the witness with kindness. It won't create front-page headlines. There won't be gasps at revelations and fiery exchanges. Instead, it rewards patience on the part of the advocate and shows up the witness through politeness, building them up, then pointing out every inconsistency. All of this is couched in terms of getting to the bottom of the matter. The witness has two choices: they can provide explanations that further create inconsistencies and cast doubt on their veracity; or they can  agree with you and undermine their own case. Of course, there is the third option, when they blow up in your face and seem to the jury like they're unreasonable under polite questioning, which is also unhelpful.

This is an approach with Cummings that would be worth seeing. There would be a slow build-up of the original case. "Can you confirm..." "Just for the avoidance of doubt..." "You say that this was the case..." Then there would come the slow, gradual tearing down of everything that had been said. "If I can take you to your own witness statement, dated..." "Is this accurate..."

It would take hours. No doubt by the end of it reporters' hands would be aching and the court artist would have been absent for the entire afternoon session, creating their sketch for the evening news. But the jury would be left in very little doubt as the barrister's questions poke holes, rapier-like, in the witness's story. Each inconsistency would be exposed, along with its reasons. Where only reasonable doubt needs to exist to acquit, any doubt that the defence was a pack of lies just would not exist, even without those words being spoken.

This is a case that will never come to a court of law, but the court of public opinion should be able to convict Dominic Cummings. At a time when confidence in the government is essential, he has done more to undermine that confidence - and therefore public safety - than anyone. Those who make the rules cannot be exempt from them, and if caught flouting those regulations they need to have the integrity to resign as a point of principle. It is particularly important in those who are unelected as they are otherwise unanswerable to the people within a democracy.

As fun as it is to imagine a tense courtroom exchange between advocate and witness, there is a serious point here: we should not be being asked to believe Cummings. We should not be watching a government put the job of one man - a man who has previously said that 'if some pensioners die, too bad' - ahead of the lives of people. Nor should his job be placed above the sacrifices that people have made in order to protect people from this virus. People have been unable to see their loved ones, sometimes to the extent where they have not had the chance to say goodbye in their loved ones' final days. People have lost livelihoods. All too often - in no small part down to lax guidance and the government's overly laissez-faire attitude to lockdown - people have lost their lives. With the latest Financial Times estimates suggesting that 60,000 people have now died as a result of COVID-19 - 0.1% of the population between March and today - his continued presence in the highest echelons of government is a gross insult to the people of Britain.

I do hope to see him in a court of law one day. It will be interesting to see how he copes with being ripped to pieces when his arrogance and lies catch up with him.

The Coronavirus Law, Or How Not To Draft Legislation Unless You're Trying For Herd Immunity Via The Back Door

I'm going to hazard a guess that if you're reading this you're aware of the Prime Minister's address to the nation, regarding the loosening of lockdown restrictions. You may be searching for answers; it's hardly like the actual changes were made clear.

I can't provide those answers yet. I'll probably write something new on the restrictions once I've read the published guidance tomorrow. I already have a few thoughts on that - the main one being 'who on earth other than myself dives into the House of Commons library and Legislation.gov.uk in their free time to find out what they can and can't do?' - but they'll also have to wait for a later time.

The situation is as clear as mud. And, just to add further sediment to the water, I'd like to start at the end.

In his address, Johnson stated that fines for breaching lockdown will be increased. Good. Positive start. For me, the main problem with lockdown has been that it hasn't been properly enforced. At least, the main problem with lockdown that isn't the fact that it has been subtly and gradually loosened through contradictory advice from the government has been that it hasn't been properly enforce. A deterrence through proactive policing isn't a bad thing. It's worked in France and Italy, and it would work here.

The problem is the regulations themselves. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 are pretty clear when someone is allowed out of their home. A person may leave their home when:

• Shopping for basic necessities for themselves or the member of a vulnerable household;
• They are obtaining or depositing money witha business specified in a schedule of the Regulations;
• Exercising, either alone or with a member of the same household;
• Seeking medical assistance;
• Providing care to another;
• Donating blood;
• Travelling to or from work (don't get me started on the wording of this as it's accidentally rendered all work outside your place of residence illegal - a classic example of rushjob legislation written by an idiot) or volunteering;
• Attending a funeral of a close family member;
• Fulfilling a legal obligation (such as attendance at court);
• Accessing critical public services such as social services;
• Taking a child to or from the other parent with custody or access when the parents do not live together;
• Going to a place of worship if a minister of that religion;
• Moving house;
• Avoiding injury or illness.

In short, quite a list. They're not reproduced verbatim; you can access them yourself if you're interested. The problem is that frequency isn't specified. Nor are activities that qualify as exercise, seeking medical assistance, etc. Interpretation depends upon the individual. The police have been issued with guidance, but this guidance doesn't have force of law.

Interestingly, a big deal was made of the restriction on personal exercise when lockdown measures were first introduced. The law itself at no stage makes reference to not being allowed to exercise more than once a day; this was only ever guidance without legal force. And that guidance has been loosened as time has gone on and the government has taken an increasingly populist approach. Neither was there ever a legal restriction on going out elsewhere to exercise, nor a proscription on different types of exercise. You know those people who went for a wander with a picnic in the park? Lawful excuse. Complete idiots, but when the law has been rendered unenforceable by virtue of being thought up by people without a clue, there's no legal recourse.

Also loosened - quietly, without telling anyone - have been the restrictions on freedom of movement outside the home. Again, you may remember there being a big deal made of the main reasons you could leave home. Those haven't changed; in truth, nor have many of the activities listed above. They were always legal; the government just didn't tell you about it. The fact is that the lockdown has, in fact, only ever related to the restriction of business practice with a prescribed list of businesses who may and may not operate.

So what of today's proclamation? Legislation.gov.uk interestingly says that there are no pending amendments to the statutory instrument that manages the lockdown; whether this is true or not we'll see tomorrow. So in short: nothing has changed other than the guidance now being provided by the government being much more wooly; there's much more scope now for people to abuse those regulations, particularly employers who wish for their staff to come to work as they haven't provided home-working facilities in the past. In my former place of employment - unless things have changed with regards to hardware and setup - many of the secretaries and paralegals will find themselves back in the office as the government has pretty much mandated it. The scope of exercise is now so wide that it's impossible to police, and will prove a go-to excuse for people flouting any kind of guidance.

Has anything changed legally? It appears not, and this is a problem. The law was far too loose as it was, and was never enough to allow the police to get on top of any real issues that could arise. Add to that the inherent contradictions that have run throughout the legislation. It's fine to go to work with 100 other people on a construction site or in an office, who will all go to different households, but you're barred from seeing your parents or children, even when you can maintain physical distance from them. One of those appears to be a far more obvious vector for the disease than the other, yet it is the one being encouraged as of this evening by the government. If the latter is banned, then the former must also be banned.

We will see more tomorrow. It may be that with the publication of additional guidance all will become more clear and more logical. It may also be that the enforcement of what limited regulations there are will be made easier by amending the existing law. What it doesn't disguise is that the existing law was absolutely inadequate - another example of rushed legislation not being up to the task, either by accident or design - and that the revised regulations appear to be contradictory and geared towards money rather than health.

Stay safe. Stay home.

Lockdown: A Mental Health Post

Quick warning before you start: this is highly personal and probably a little confused. It's a sign of the times that I'm seriously struggling to express exactly what's going on. This is a bit of a stream of consciousness, a hopefully cathartic splurge that might help others as well as myself. Whatever happens, and as hard as it is to reach out or make feelings known, we are in this together.

*

If popular history is to be believed, Shakespeare wrote King Lear in the midst of an outbreak of the plague. While locked down, he turned his incomparable genius to one of his most enduring plays - albeit one where no main characters exit, persued by a bear. It's a parable some in the Twittersphere have put out: 'See, you can be productive in lockdown! Look at this!'

It's nice that some have tried to keep people upbeat and encourage creativity. On the other hand, telling people to measure themselves against one of the great historical literary geniuses is probably not that inspiring. 'Look, you can work on your first touch in lockdown. Even Lionel Messi is managing it!' Yes, and Messi is one of the best footballers ever with what is probably a small estate, while you have a back garden and a patio that needs weeding. Not to mention, you're not as good as him.

At least, that's what the voices say. Being creative in lockdown has been a futile task, made harder by one fundamental fact.

For the past six months I have been suffering from an episode of depression.

It's not been easy to deal with at the best of times. To help, I'm on a course of anti-depressants. It's likely I'll still be on them more than a year from now. I was on them before it became clear that COVID-19 was going to hit Britain, and hit Britain hard. There had been days before then when it was hard to get going, to say the least. When getting up on a morning was the hardest thing I could do.

Thankfully, I do a job to get up for. As stressful as it can be, as much of a workload as it has, as demanding as each day is, I enjoy teaching. There's a reason why I want to be in work for 7, an hour and a half before the school day begins. When I fell into depression, school took on an additional meaning: it was the reason to keep going. Seeing those kids every day, much as they can be the most irritating so-and-sos going, was a reason to get up. On the final day of regular school, some of my year 8s trailed me around when I was on duty to applaud me and say thank you; I can only say the feeling was mutual because they'd kept me going.

Then came lockdown.

I can't say I've struggled more than others although I'm also prepared to acknowledge that it's not an experience I've relished. A combination of medication and a constant, hard training regime have kept my head above water, at least for the moment.

One of the symptoms I've found in depression has been the bone-tiredness that comes from keeping going during the day. It was a symptom at school; constantly putting a face on to the kids was draining, even though I also got energy from the classroom and doing a job I love. By the end of a week I was on the point of collapse.

That same bone-tiredness is present now, but for different reasons. Keeping going, keeping working has needed me to stay disciplined. 8-4 most days, making lists of tasks to complete for school on a daily basis, keeping to a routine during each day. On one hand, it's kept me going. Knowing what I expect of myself and knowing what others expect is a motivator. At the same time, it's exhausting. It's artificial. There's a constant feeling of 'what's the point?' The motivation of seeing 30 kids staring up, wanting to know what's next (or, just as often, how they can avoid work and keeping me on my toes with tasks) just doesn't exist.

Today I started work at 8:55. I completed my list of essential tasks by 11:10. I can't do any more. I'm exhausted; physically from a demanding running regime, mentally and emotionally by a psychological millstone that hits every part of my life. The former keeps the latter in check and has kept me just about functioning.

That isn't to say I'm completely functioning. I was struggling socially before the lockdown. A few weeks before all this kicked off I had to force myself to two friends' wedding. I very nearly didn't go. It was nothing to do with not wanting to be there and celebrate their day. It was entirely to do with the tiredness I felt, and the absolute hopelessness seeping through every thought. Why would they want to see me? Wouldn't I just bring it all down? I left after a couple of hours of the evening do, completely shattered after putting a face on.

Equally, socialising in lockdown is a challenge. I've lost count of the number of times I've picked up a phone to speak to someone but decided against it. I'm too tired, too often, to entertain speaking to someone - at least that's what my conscious reasoning is. The result is an isolation that's deepening and counterproductive.

Truth be told, I am coping. Just. But I'm not coping to an extent where I can entertain the idea of being creative or doing more, for the time being, than the bare minimum that needs to be done to keep going.

Some might question why I've written this. Partly, it's as catharsis. I often feel better after explaining something. When I told my parents I was on anti-depressant medication I felt better than I had in weeks (perhaps helped further by a fantastic performance from Town that night - a 2-1 win against Bristol City that could have been 8 or 9). I've kept a lot of things quiet, either to not bother people or because I don't want people to think any the worse of me, or think that I'm incapable of doing what I need to do. I know that isn't a healthy attitude to have.