Produced by Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)










                       _Notable English Trials_




                            William Palmer




                        NOTABLE ENGLISH TRIALS.


     =The Stauntons.= Edited by J. B. Atlay, M.A., Barrister-at-Law.

     =Franz Muller.= Edited by H. B. Irving, M.A.(Oxon).

     =Lord Lovat.= Edited by David N. Mackay, Solicitor.

     =William Palmer.= Edited by Geo. H. Knott, Barrister-at-Law.

     =The Annesley Case.= Edited by Andrew Lang.

     =Dr. Lamson.= Edited by H. L. Adam.

     =Mrs. Maybrick.= Edited by H. B. Irving, M.A.(Oxon).

                    [Illustration: William Palmer.

                (_From a Drawing by Joseph Simpson._)]




                               Trial of

                            William Palmer

                               EDITED BY

                            George H. Knott

                           Barrister-at-Law

                       [Illustration: colophon]

                         EDINBURGH AND LONDON
                        WILLIAM HODGE & COMPANY

                              PRINTED BY
                       WILLIAM HODGE AND COMPANY
                         GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH
                                 1912

                                  To

                    SIR HARRY BODKIN POLAND, K.C.,

         WHO BEARS THE NAME, AND HAS CONTINUED THE REPUTATION,
        OF ONE OF THE DISTINGUISHED COUNSEL IN THE TRIAL HEREIN
     CONTAINED, AND WHO ALSO FOR MANY YEARS WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE
            FIGURE IN THE COURT WHERE THAT TRIAL WAS HELD,
                 THIS BOOK IS, BY HIS KIND PERMISSION,
                        RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
                            BY THE EDITOR.




PREFACE.


In preparing this report of a trial more than half a century ago, the
chief difficulty one might expect would be to obtain an accurate
contemporary account. A State trial one knows where to find; but how
could newspaper reports of a trial lasting twelve days, and involving
the most technical evidence on anatomy, physiology, and toxicology, be
relied upon for anything like accuracy? Fortunately, if this trial was
not a State trial in the ordinary sense, it so seized the minds of the
country at the time that a complete record is to be found in the
“Verbatim Report of the Trial of William Palmer, Transcribed from the
Shorthand Notes of Mr. Angelo Bennett, of Rolls Chambers, Chancery
Lane,” and published in 1856. A copy is not easily met with now-a-days.
Official verbatim reports of criminal trials, that is made by an officer
of the Court itself, were not then known. I suppose, though it is not so
stated, that Mr. Bennett’s notes were taken by him on the instructions
of the Treasury for reference each day by the Court and Counsel. They
are the basis of the following report. Medical and medico-chemical
evidence constitutes the greater part of this trial; it is also far the
most important part; and in dealing with it I have had the benefit of
the professional skill of Dr. William Robertson, of Leith, who has read
the proofs. Some of the evidence, as it stood, showed that it had been a
little too much for the erudition of the shorthand writer, and needed
editing. I hope that, with the aid of Dr. Robertson, this appears now as
it was intended to be by the experts who gave it.

The question of portraits has caused some difficulty. Photographs were
not common, to say the least, in 1856. Most woodcuts met with seemed not
worth reproduction. This accounts for the few portraits which appear;
though the number of Judges and Counsel was exceptionally large. Palmer
alone is shown more satisfactorily than any of the others in the
well-known figure at Madame Tussaud’s. Their modeller was present in
Court and I have seen his casts of Palmer’s head and face taken after
execution. The striking sketch of Palmer by Mr. Joseph Simpson, the
well-known artist, has been made from a photograph of this figure, and
from a contemporary print.

Palmer has the distinction of an article in the Dictionary of National
Biography. Many of the contemporary accounts cannot be relied on; they
are too evidently sensational and designed for excited and morbid
imaginations. By the kindness of Dr. George Fleming, J.P., of Highgate,
London, who is a treasury of Palmeriana and of Rugeley tradition, I have
been able to use his collection of “Jane” letters. The substance of
these letters appears in the Introduction. They reveal a sinister
episode in Palmer’s career not to be found related elsewhere. Moreover,
it was a real link in the chain of circumstances that led to Palmer’s
crime and his trial. The letter from Palmer to his wife was kindly lent
for reproduction by Dr. Kurt Loewenfeld, of Bramhall, Cheshire.

G. H. K.




CONTENTS.


                                    PAGE
Introduction,                                                          1
Table of Dates,                                                       18
List of Counsel,                                                      21
The Trial--


FIRST DAY--WEDNESDAY, 14TH MAY, 1856.

_Evidence for the Prosecution._

Ishmael Fisher,                                                       23
Thomas Jones,                                                         26
George Reid,                                                          26
William Scafe Gibson,                                                 26
Elizabeth Mills,                                                      27


SECOND DAY--THURSDAY, 15TH MAY, 1856.

_Evidence for the Prosecution (continued)._

Elizabeth Mills (cross-examined)                                      33
James Gardner,                                                        37
Anne Brooks,                                                          37
Lavinia Barnes,                                                       39
Anne Rowley,                                                          42
Charles Hawley,                                                       42
Sarah Bond,                                                           42
William Henry Jones,                                                  44
Elizabeth Mills (recalled),                                           49
Henry Savage,                                                         49
Charles Newton,                                                       49


THIRD DAY--FRIDAY, 16TH MAY, 1856.

_Evidence for the Prosecution (continued)._

Charles Joseph Roberts,                                               52
William Vernon Stevens,                                               52
Dr. John Thomas Harland,                                              55
Charles John Devonshire,                                              58
John Myatt,                                                           59
Samuel Cheshire,                                                      59
Samuel Cheshire (recalled),                                           60
Captain John Haines Hatton,                                           61
Samuel Cheshire (recalled),                                           61
George Herring,                                                       61


FOURTH DAY--SATURDAY, 17TH MAY, 1856.

_Evidence for the Prosecution (continued)._

George Bate,                                                          63
Thomas Blizzard Curling,                                              63
Robert Todd,                                                          64
Sir Benjamin Brodie,                                                  67
Henry Daniel,                                                         68
Samuel Solly,                                                         69
Dr. Robert Corbett,                                                   70
Dr. Watson,                                                           70
Mary Kelly,                                                           70
Caroline Hickson,                                                     70
Francis Taylor,                                                       71
Jane Witham,                                                          71
George Morley,                                                        72
Edward Duke Moore,                                                    74


FIFTH DAY--MONDAY, 19TH MAY, 1856.

_Evidence for the Prosecution (continued)._

Dr. Alfred Taylor,                                                    75
Dr. George Owen Rees,                                                 83
Professor Robert Christison,                                          84


SIXTH DAY--TUESDAY, 20TH MAY, 1856.

_Evidence for the Prosecution (concluded)._

Dr. John Jackson,                                                     89

SEVENTH DAY--WEDNESDAY, 21ST MAY, 1856.

_Speech for the Defence._

Serjeant Shee,                                                        91


EIGHTH DAY--THURSDAY, 22ND MAY, 1856.

_Evidence for the Defence._

Thomas Nunneley,                                                     161
William Herepath,                                                    174
Julian Edward Disbrowe Rogers,                                       176
Dr. Henry Letheby,                                                   176
Robert Edward Gay,                                                   181


NINTH DAY--FRIDAY, 23RD MAY, 1856.

_Evidence for the Defence (continued)._

John Brown Ross,                                                     183
Dr. Francis Wrightson,                                               184
Richard Partridge,                                                   186
John Gay,                                                            189
Dr. William M‘Donnell,                                               192
Dr. John Nathan Bainbridge,                                          200
Edward Austin Steady,                                                201
Dr. George Robinson,                                                 202
Dr. Benjamin Ward Richardson,                                        204
Dr. Wrightson (recalled),                                            207
Catherine Watson,                                                    207


TENTH DAY--SATURDAY, 24TH MAY, 1856.

_Evidence for the Defence (continued)._

Oliver Pemberton,                                                    208
Henry Matthews,                                                      208
Joseph Foster,                                                       208
George Myatt,                                                        209
John Sargent,                                                        210
Jeremiah Smith,                                                      211

The Attorney-General’s Address to the Jury,                          214


ELEVENTH DAY--MONDAY, 26TH MAY, 1856.

The Lord Chief-Justice’s Charge to the Jury,                         266


TWELFTH DAY--TUESDAY, 27TH MAY, 1856.

The Lord Chief-Justice’s Charge to the Jury (continued),             275
Verdict and Sentence,                                                285


APPENDICES.

I. Letter from Thomas Palmer, brother of William Palmer, to the
Lord Chief-Justice Campbell,                                         289

II. Short Account of the Judges and Counsel engaged in the Case,     316




LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.


William Palmer,                                            _Frontispiece_

Mr. Serjeant Shee,                                      _facing page_ 91

Note written by Palmer to his Counsel while in the
dock at the Old Bailey,                                         “    160

Sir Alexander Cockburn,                                         “    214

Lord Chief-Justice Campbell,                                    “    266

Mr. Baron Alderson,                                             “    316

Letter from William Palmer to his wife,                         “    320

Facsimile of page from the Diary of William Palmer,             “    324




WILLIAM PALMER.




INTRODUCTION.


Sir James Stephen, in his “History of the Criminal Law,” observes that
he was present at the trial of William Palmer, and that it made an
impression on him which the subsequent experience of thirty-four years
had only confirmed and strengthened. He considers that the trial, as a
whole, was one of the greatest trials in the history of English law, and
eminently deserving the attention of students of the law, and we may add
of students of human nature.

Palmer was convicted, but there has always been a certain amount of
doubt and mystery about the trial. We can hardly imagine a reader not
being satisfied morally as to the guilt of Palmer, but were he to take
the medical and chemical evidence alone, which forms so large a part of
the following report, we could at least imagine him holding his judgment
in suspense. He might well believe that Palmer administered poison to
Cook, whom he was charged with murdering, without admitting that the
poison was strychnia. And there remains the ambiguous language of Palmer
himself, who neither positively admitted nor denied his guilt, but
declared, “I am innocent of poisoning Cook by strychnia.” Sir James
Stephen, who will not allow that the defence was impressive, is yet
struck with this defect in the evidence, and suggests that Palmer may
have discovered a method of administering strychnia so as to disguise
its normal effects. If this is so, his secret has never been disclosed.
Perhaps it is equally probable that he selected some poison allied to
strychnia--bruchsia, for example--and that the medical and chemical
experts of sixty years ago were not sufficiently acquainted with the
strychnoid poisons to trace all their differences. The evidence of the
chemical witnesses suggests something of this kind, so inconsistent were
their opinions; and this remark applies even more strongly to the
evidence of the doctors as to the difference between the disease of
tetanus and the effects of strychnia. This is one of the great subjects
of interest in the report of the trial. A constant and alert attention
is needed in reading it, and it is a professional discipline for either
lawyer or doctor.

Our personal opinion is that, had it not been for one or two definitely
known cases of strychnia poisoning in the human subject, the prosecution
would have failed, in spite of all the experiments on animals from which
analogies as to Cook’s symptoms were attempted to be drawn. There had
been no trial for poisoning by strychnia before Palmer’s. But it
happened that while the Palmer case was pending Dr. Dove, of Leeds, was
accused of poisoning his wife by strychnia, and the symptoms of poison
were more certainly ascertained. Yet Dr. Nunneley, of Leeds, who made a
report on this case, was called for the defence, not for the
prosecution.

In this preliminary sketch I shall not attempt to convey any idea of the
chemical and medical evidence by a formal summary. It would be
impossible, as Sir James Stephen remarks, to treat satisfactorily such
an extensive, so technical, and so contradictory a body of testimony,
and only such a general statement will be made of the circumstances as
will enable the reader the easier to follow the case of the prosecution.

In the English procedure counsel’s speech for the prosecution begins the
proceedings. In the Scottish the evidence is led at once. The trial is
treated in this respect as if it were a Scottish trial on account of its
extreme bulk, as it extended over twelve days. Neither in the Scottish
series, which are already published, nor in the English series, now
beginning, is there a trial of equal length; nor do I know any other
murder trial so long, with the exception of that conducted by Browning
in “The Ring and the Book.” In this trial, as in every English trial,
the opening speech was intended to inform the jury merely of the facts
and prepare their minds for the evidence, and lucidity of statement, at
the most, is the only forensic effect aimed at. I accordingly omit the
Attorney-General’s speech _qua_ speech, and found this preliminary
statement on it. The point of interest as regards forensic oratory is
reached with the speech of Serjeant Shee, the leading counsel for the
defence. He analyses the evidence led for the prosecution, challenges
its cogency, outlines the case in reply which will be an answer to every
point made, appeals eloquently and pathetically for the prisoner, and,
we may add incidentally, asserts his absolute belief in his client’s
innocence, thus bringing on himself the presiding judge’s reproof for
transgression of the rules of advocacy. The culmination is attained in
the reply of the Attorney-General. Nothing, unless it is of the most
temporary interest, is omitted in these two speeches, and every
reference and argument in them will be intelligible in the light of the
examinations and cross-examinations as given, which, not less than the
speeches, are classic examples of the forensic art.

There is a tradition that Palmer, a racing man, expressed his sense of
the deadly effect of Sir Alexander Cockburn’s examination,
cross-examination, and speech in racecourse language, “It was the riding
that did it.”

With the Lord Chief-Justice’s summing up I have dealt freely. It
occupied two days, and the form of it, to a great extent, was this. Lord
Campbell would say to the jury, “Now, gentlemen, I will take the witness
So-and-So and read you his evidence. It is for you to say what the
effect of this evidence is.” Then would follow comments directing the
jury’s attention to this or that feature. What the jury thought is not
important now, but what the reader thinks with the evidence before him.
Where Lord Campbell made special comment on any particular evidence the
passages are given. Nothing material is omitted, and the general effect
of his address is preserved.

The events occurred in November, 1855, at Rugeley, in Staffordshire,
where Palmer, who was about thirty-one years of age, had been a medical
practitioner until two or three years previously, when he transferred
his business to the Mr. Thirlby mentioned in the report. He had
abandoned medicine for the turf, kept racehorses, attended race
meetings, and betted. By the year 1853 he was in pecuniary difficulties,
and was raising money on bills with moneylenders.

Mr. John Parsons Cook, whom Palmer was charged with poisoning, was a
young man of about twenty-eight who had been articled as a solicitor,
but he inherited some £12,000, and did not follow his profession. He
also went on the turf, kept racehorses, and betted, and it was in this
common pursuit that Palmer and Cook became acquainted.

Palmer’s pecuniary circumstances in 1854 are important. He had raised
money on a bill for £2000, and discounted it with Padwick, a notorious
moneylender and racing man of the day. He had forged his mother’s name
as acceptor, and, as she was wealthy, the bill had been discounted on
the security of her name. It was this bill and others similarly forged
which, according to the prosecution, led to the murder of Cook.

Previously to this Palmer had only been able to pay off debts to the
amount of £13,000 on bills which were in the hands of another
moneylender, Mr. Pratt, who figures so conspicuously in the trial, out
of money received on the death of his wife, whom he had insured for
£13,000.

At the close of 1854 he took out another policy for £13,000 on the life
of his brother Walter. This policy was deposited as security with Pratt
to cover a series of bills which began then to be discounted. These, by
November, 1855, amounted to £11,500. His mother’s name as acceptor had
also been forged on these bills by Palmer.

In the month of August, 1855, Walter Palmer died, but the office refused
to pay on the policy, and the question was still in dispute in November
when the death of Mr. Cook occurred. If the policy were not paid Pratt
would sue Mrs. Palmer, as Palmer himself had no means, so that Palmer
was in the same peril of being shown to be a forger both by Pratt and
Padwick.

This policy was never paid, and we may add that when Palmer was tried
for the murder of Cook there were two other indictments against him for
the murders of his wife and brother, but they were not proceeded with as
he was convicted on the Cook charge.

What happened about the bills was this. On the 6th of November Pratt
issued two writs for £4000 against Palmer and his mother, but withheld
them from service pending arrangements that Palmer might make. Pratt
wrote to him on the 13th of November, a memorable day in the history of
the case, when “Polestar,” Cook’s mare, won the Shrewsbury Handicap,
that steps would be taken to enforce the policy on Walter Palmer’s life;
so that Palmer’s problem was to keep paying portions of the bills until
the question of the policy was settled, and thus keep Pratt quiet.

The pecuniary position of Cook is quickly explained. He had practically
nothing but what came to him through the winning of “Polestar” at
Shrewsbury on the 13th of November. His betting book showed winnings
which amounted, with the stakes, to £2050. It was proved that he had
£700 or £800 in his pocket at Shrewsbury from the bets he actually drew
there, and £1020 remained to be settled at Tattersall’s on the following
Monday, the 19th November.

The evidence will show how Palmer obtained payment of the bets with the
exception of £120, and applied them to paying instalments on Pratt’s
bills.

We now come to the circumstances of the illness and death of Cook.
Palmer and Cook went together from Rugeley to Shrewsbury races, and
stayed at the Raven Hotel. On the night of the 14th of November, and the
day after “Polestar” had won the race, Cook was taken ill at the Raven
with severe retchings and vomitings in consequence of having taken a
glass of brandy and water into which the prosecution alleged Palmer had
put antimony in the form of tartar emetic. The only direct testimony as
to this was that of a Mrs. Brooks, who attended races. She knew Palmer,
and called on him at the Raven on some business connected with racing.
She swore that, as she turned into the lobby, she saw Palmer holding up
a tumbler to the light of the gas, looking at it “with the caution of a
man who was watching to see what was the condition of the liquid,”
according to the Attorney-General’s statement. Having looked at it so he
withdrew to his own room, and presently returned with the glass in his
hand, and then went into the room where Cook was, and where he drank the
brandy and water. There was much evidence from other witnesses as to
what happened in connection with the brandy and water incident.

The state of Cook’s health previous to the incident at Shrewsbury was of
the utmost importance. It was admitted by the prosecution that Cook was
delicate of chest, but otherwise he was asserted to be hale and hearty.
In May of 1855 he had consulted Dr. Savage for supposed syphilitic
symptoms. He suffered from his throat, and had some eruptions about his
mouth, and he had been taking mercury. Dr. Savage stopped this
treatment, and advised that the symptoms were not those of syphilis. The
post-mortem showed the cicatrised wound of an old chancre, but not of
anything recent. The defence sought to show that Cook’s death was
connected with his history of ill-health.

When the races were over Palmer and Cook returned together to Rugeley--a
curious fact, seeing that Cook had accused Palmer of putting something
into his glass. Cook stayed at the Talbot Arms, which was opposite to
Palmer’s house, and it was at this inn that Cook’s death occurred. Their
arrival was on the night of Thursday, the 15th of November. When asked
how he was Cook said that he was better than he had been at Shrewsbury.
Cook dined next day with Palmer, and nothing happened that night. Early
on Saturday morning Palmer saw Cook in his bedroom, and ordered him some
coffee, which was brought there by Elizabeth Mills, the chambermaid, who
gave most important evidence as to the various episodes of the illness
until the death on the night of Tuesday, the 20th November. The coffee
was given to Palmer, and he gave it to Cook, Mills having left.
“Immediately after that the same symptoms set in which had taken place
at Shrewsbury, and throughout the whole of that day and the next day”
(Saturday and Sunday) “the prisoner constantly administered everything
to Cook.” One incident was a bowl of broth being obtained by Palmer
through a woman named Rowley. She was sent for it to the Albion, an inn
in Rugeley. She took it to Palmer’s house and put it in a saucepan on
the kitchen fire to warm. Palmer, whilst she was absent in the back
kitchen, poured the broth into a basin, brought it to her, and told her
to take it up to Cook, and say Smith had sent it. This was Jeremiah
Smith, an attorney in Rugeley, a common friend of Palmer and Cook. A
spoonful of the broth made Cook sick. But the full significance of this
intended inference is not seen until we take the evidence of Mills that
she drank a spoonful and became sick in about half an hour, and had to
go to bed.

And here we may refer to the evidence of this Jeremiah Smith, who was
called as a witness on behalf of Palmer. His cross-examination was the
most dramatic scene of the trial. He was shown to have been concerned
with Palmer in the insurance schemes, and not a rag of his credit
remained. But Sir James Stephen remarks, “No abbreviation can give the
effect of this cross-examination. The witness’s efforts to gain time,
and his distress as the various answers were extorted from him by
degrees, may be faintly traced in the report. The witness’s face was
covered with sweat, and the papers put into his hands shook and
rustled.”

During Saturday and Sunday Cook was attended by Mr. Bamford, a medical
man in Rugeley. As Mr. Bamford’s age gave rise to some observation, I
may mention that he was eighty. He was told by Palmer on the Saturday
that Cook had had a bilious attack owing to having taken too much wine
at the dinner the day before, but when Mr. Bamford mentioned this Cook
replied that he had only two glasses of champagne, and Mr. Bamford, in
fact, found that the symptoms were not bilious.

On Sunday, as the sickness continued, Mr. Bamford prepared two opiate
pills containing half a grain of morphia, half a grain of calomel, and
four grains of rhubarb. The ingredients are important. The following
Monday is a crucial day. Palmer went to London and saw Herring, a
betting man, gave him a list of Cook’s winnings, and instructed him to
attend Tattersall’s and settle. Herring was not Cook’s regular agent,
but Fisher, the man to whom Cook had entrusted his money at Shrewsbury
whilst he was ill. Fisher declared that he had, in fact, advanced £200
on the strength of the money which Fisher expected to draw at
Tattersall’s. This £200, at the request of Cook, in a letter written by
him from Rugeley on the 16th of November (Friday), was applied by Fisher
to one of Pratt’s acceptances. This letter was used by the defence to
show that, as Palmer alleged, the bills were for the joint transactions
of himself and Cook, and by parity of reasoning that Palmer had probably
Cook’s authority to draw his bets. Herring drew £900 of the £1020 at
Tattersall’s, and, as Palmer had instructed him, he paid £450 to Pratt.
He was also instructed to pay Padwick £350 for a bet which Padwick had
won, partly from Palmer and partly from Cook, but for which Palmer was
liable: again a suggestion of joint transactions between Palmer and
Cook. This payment was to be made, according to the prosecution, to keep
Padwick quiet over his £2000 forged acceptance, half of which remained
unpaid. Herring, however, did not pay Padwick. If he had done so he
would have been out of pocket, as it had been agreed between him and
Palmer that part of the money he was to draw should be applied to debts
of his own due from Palmer.

Palmer finished his business in town by going to Pratt. He paid him £50,
so that this, the £450, and Fisher’s £200, with £600 Palmer had
previously paid, wiped off £1300. He then returned to Rugeley, arriving
there at an hour which was certainly mistaken by the prosecution, and
which derived its chief importance from the story told by Jeremiah
Smith of his meeting Palmer returning much later, and the account he
gave of their movements together. If his story were true, that of the
witness Newton, who spoke to the purchase by Palmer from him of
strychnia that night, would be suspect. As it was, doubt was cast upon
it by Newton never mentioning it until the day of the trial. Cook during
Palmer’s absence had no sickness, though in the morning Palmer, who had
gone early to the hotel, had given him coffee, and Cook had vomited. But
after Palmer left for London Mr. Bamford had come, and given him a new
medicine. It was arguable, therefore, that the irritation of the stomach
was soothed by the new medicine. Cook dressed, got up, recovered his
spirits, and saw and talked with several people, and so he continued
till night. This has the most important bearing, as will be seen by the
medical evidence, on the vital point whether Cook’s symptoms were either
those of strychnia poisoning, or idiopathic or traumatic tetanus, or of
some other form of nervous disease with tetanic convulsions.

On Palmer’s return to Rugeley he went to see Cook, and he remained,
going in and out of his room, until about eleven o’clock. He then left,
and about twelve the house was alarmed by violent screams from Cook’s
rooms. I shall refer the reader for the details of this illness to the
evidence.

According to the prosecution Palmer had gone previously on that night to
Newton, who was the assistant of a surgeon at Rugeley named Salt, and
had purchased three grains of strychnia. This was Newton’s statement.
Whilst Palmer was away in London Mr. Bamford had sent to the Talbot Arms
the same sort of pills, in which were morphia, calomel, and rhubarb.
They were taken by the maid upstairs, and put in the usual place for
Palmer to administer, as he had done before.

The Attorney-General put his case thus to the jury, “It will be for you
to say whether Cook took the pills prepared by Mr. Bamford, and which he
had taken on the Saturday and Sunday night, or whether, as this
accusation suggests, the prisoner substituted for the pills of Mr.
Bamford some of his own concoction in which strychnia was mixed.”

On Tuesday morning, the 20th, the day of his death, Cook was
comparatively comfortable after his violent attack.

That same morning Palmer went to the shop of a druggist at Rugeley, Mr.
Hawkins. He asked for six grains of strychnia, with some prussic acid
and some liquor of opium. While Hawkins’ assistant Roberts was putting
up the prussic acid Newton came into the shop. Palmer took him by the
arm, and saying, “I have something I want to say to you,” led him
outside, and began to talk to him about an unimportant matter. While
they were talking a man Bassington came up, and when he and Newton were
fully engaged in talk Palmer went back into the shop, and stood in the
doorway. Palmer went away with what he had bought, and then Newton went
into the shop and inquired what Palmer had bought, and was told.

At the preliminary inquiry before the coroner Newton only told of this
incident at the shop. He did not tell of Palmer having purchased
strychnia from him on the Monday night until the day before the
Attorney-General was making his speech for the prosecution. An
explanation will be found in Newton’s evidence.

Before coming to the actual circumstances of Cook’s death on Tuesday
night two other facts must be mentioned. On the previous Sunday Palmer
wrote to Mr. Jones, a medical man living at Lutterworth, with whom Cook
lived when he was at home. He said Cook had a bilious attack with
diarrhœa, and asked Jones to come and see him as soon as possible. On
Monday he wrote to him again desiring him to come.

The Attorney-General said, “I should not be discharging my duty if I did
not suggest this as being part of a deep design, and that the
administration of the irritant poison, of which abundant traces were
found after death, was for the purpose of producing the appearance of
natural disease, which could account afterwards for the death to which
the victim was doomed.”

The irritant poison referred to is antimony, but one of the main facts,
if not altogether the most important one, on which the defence relied,
was that no strychnia was found in the body of Cook.

Mr. Jones came on the Tuesday about three o’clock, and was with Cook
throughout till his death.

The other fact referred to is that during the same day (Tuesday) Palmer
sent for Cheshire, the postmaster at Rugeley. Palmer produced a paper
and asked him to fill in a cheque on Messrs. Wetherby (of Tattersall’s)
in Palmer’s favour for £350 (the amount of the Shrewsbury Handicap
stakes), saying “Poor Cook is too ill to draw the cheque himself, and
Messrs. Wetherby might know my handwriting.” Palmer was a defaulter at
Tattersall’s. Cheshire did what he was asked to do. Palmer took the
cheque away. It was sent that night, and returned to Palmer by Messrs.
Wetherby. Notice to produce the cheque was given to the defence. This
was not done, and the prosecution in these circumstances insisted that
Cook’s signature was forged by Palmer. If the cheque had been produced,
and Cook’s signature proved genuine, the defence would have had a strong
case that Palmer drew the bets by Cook’s instruction for their joint
transactions.

Cheshire was brought from prison to give evidence. Palmer had induced
him to intercept letters addressed to Palmer’s mother to prevent her
becoming aware of the forged bills. Besides this, Cheshire informed
Palmer of the contents of a letter from Dr. Taylor, the analyst, who
tested the remains for poison after the post mortem on the coroner’s
inquiry. This letter informed Mr. Stevens, Cook’s stepfather, that no
strychnia had been found, and Palmer was sufficiently audacious and
foolish to write to the coroner, a Mr. Ward, a lawyer, emphasising this
fact. More foolishly still he sent the coroner gifts of game. The
prosecution asserted that much of the evidence given by some of the
witnesses, Mills, for instance, at the trial, but not found in the
depositions at the inquest, had not been given there because the coroner
had conducted the inquiry so laxly. The defence, of course, disputed
this.

We come to the actual scene of Cook’s death on the Tuesday night. There
was a consultation of the three doctors in Cook’s presence at seven
o’clock. Cook suddenly said to Palmer, “Palmer, I will have no more
medicine to-night; no more pills.” It was arranged that the pills should
be made up as before without Cook knowing what they contained. Palmer
went with Mr. Bamford to the latter’s surgery for the pills, and Mr.
Bamford was surprised at Palmer’s asking him to write the directions on
the box, as Palmer himself was to give the pills, but he did so. Palmer
took the pills, and they were in his possession three-quarters of an
hour before he returned to the Talbot. On opening the box he called the
attention of Mr. Jones to the directions, saying “How wonderful it was
that a man of eighty should write so good and strong a hand.” Cook at
first refused to take the pills, but Palmer insisted, and Cook took
them. They were taken about half-past ten. A little before twelve
o’clock Jones, who was to sleep in Cook’s room, came in and undressed,
and went to bed. In fifteen or twenty minutes he was roused by a scream
from Cook, who called out, “For God’s sake, fetch the doctor, I am going
to be ill as I was last night.”

I shall not set out the symptoms of Cook throughout this attack which
ended in his death. They were the battle-ground of the case, and the
scientific evidence must be referred to the reader’s consideration. But
the length of time from the administration of the pills to the first
outcry of Cook must be particularly noted. The defence urged that
strychnia could not possibly be so long in taking effect. This and the
non-detection of strychnia in the body were the two chief difficulties
of the prosecution.

On Thursday or Friday, the 22nd or 23rd, after Cook’s death Palmer sent
again for Cheshire, and, producing a paper with Cook’s signature,
purporting to be an acknowledgment by Cook that £4000 worth of bills had
been negotiated for Cook’s benefit, asked him to sign it as witness.
Cheshire refused, exclaiming, “Good God! the man is dead!” The
prosecution asserted Cook’s signature to be a forgery; they gave notice
to produce the document, and this was not done.

We come to the appearance in Rugeley of Mr. Stevens, Cook’s stepfather.
His conversations with Palmer on money matters, his suspicions aroused
by the appearance of the body, Palmer’s ordering a coffin without his
orders, and especially the fact that Cook’s betting book and other
papers had disappeared, with Palmer’s evasions about them, all put him
on the alert. Besides, at the time, the inquiries by the insurance
office were going on in the neighbourhood about Walter Palmer’s death.
On Saturday, the 24th, both Stevens and Palmer had left Rugeley to go to
London, Stevens to consult his London solicitor, Palmer to pay Pratt
another £100, he, as the prosecution pointed out, not having had any
money at Shrewsbury, and having lost on the races there. Stevens and
Palmer met in the train on the return journey, and Stevens told Palmer
that he was determined to have a post-mortem and to employ a solicitor
to investigate.

The post-mortem, the chemical analysis, the coroner’s inquest, and the
trial followed. In the meantime Padwick had arrested Palmer for the
debt on his bills, the story of his mother’s forged acceptances became
known, and the Palmer case of 1855-6 became as intense a source of
popular curiosity and excitement as the Crippen case of 1910. To the
circumstances of the Cook case were also added the exhumations of
Palmer’s wife and brother, and the public inquiries relating to them,
and the rumours that Palmer had poisoned many others.

I shall not attempt to give the facts as to the post-mortem and the
analysis. It would be a futile effort. Not a fact was undisputed either
by one side or the other, and the value of the evidence, for the reader,
consists in the exercise of the patience and memory and judgment
required to master their complicated details, and to see the relations
of one fact to another. In the speech for the defence by Mr. Serjeant
Shee, and the final speech by Sir Alexander Cockburn, he will further
see how the same facts may be rendered for opposite purposes by
advocates of the first rank.

The trial marked an important step in English criminal procedure. In the
ordinary course Palmer would have been tried by an Assize Court in
Staffordshire, but the prejudice against him there was so strong that it
was felt he would not have a fair trial. An Act was therefore passed,
the 19 Vict. cap. 16, for enabling the trial to take place at the
Central Criminal Court in London. Since then that Act has been available
in any similar circumstances. To the magnitude and difficulty of the
Palmer case must be assigned the reason for three judges, Lord Chief
Justice Campbell, Mr. Justice Cresswell, and Mr. Baron Alderson being
appointed to try it: a very rare occurrence in England. The bar on each
side was remarkably strong. Sir Alexander Cockburn became the successor
of Lord Campbell; Mr. Edward James, Q.C., was one of the most brilliant
advocates of his day, and was only prevented from rising to the highest
professional honours by certain private incidents in his career which
happened subsequently; Mr. Huddleston became Baron Huddleston; Mr.
Bodkin and Mr. Welsby were the leading men of their time in the special
practice of the Old Bailey. Mr. Serjeant Shee, the leader for the
defence, became Mr. Justice Shee, and Mr. Grove, Q.C., who was one of
the most distinguished physicists of his day, and wrote a famous book on
“The Conservation of Energy,” became Mr. Justice Grove. Mr. Kenealey
was subsequently the famous Dr. Kenealey, the counsel for the Tichborne
claimant, a man of great learning and natural genius, inferior to none
of his professional contemporaries.

In an English criminal trial an inquiry into the family history of the
accused, or into his personal character and previous career, has no
place unless insanity is in issue. Such matters were rigidly excluded
from the trial of Palmer. This trial as it stands is simply a great
forensic contest famous in the records of the criminal law. The criminal
himself is, as it were, an abstraction or automaton, his acts are only
taken into account as part of certain outward events which enter into
the general body of circumstances connected with the particular case.
The motive is investigated, but strictly in relation to the particular
crime; and in atrocious crimes the pecuniary motive always seems
inadequate. Deadly hate or fierce passion, or an access of unreasoning
fear in some circumstances, may be more intelligible. Yet such crimes
seem always inexplicable, unless we can refer them to some abnormality
in the character of the criminal himself, and either ascribe it to his
ancestry or deduce it from his own doings outside the culminating crime
which he commits. The normal man, we say, does not become base at a
stroke.

In Palmer’s case there is available evidence of both kinds bearing on
abnormality. It may not amount to insanity. It may be only the
“wickedness” of which Sir James Stephen speaks in a quotation given
below. Whatever it may be called, it is traceable in Palmer throughout
his life.

Palmer’s father was a wealthy man who died worth £70,000, at Rugeley, in
Staffordshire, Palmer’s birthplace. The origin of this fortune began
with his maternal grandfather, who had been associated with a woman in
Derby whom he deserted, taking with him some hundreds of pounds said to
belong to her. In Lichfield he became prosperous and respectable. His
daughter married the elder Palmer, who was at the time a sawyer, a rude,
uneducated man. A previous suitor of Mrs. Palmer had been the steward of
the Marquis of Anglesea. The two men were intimate after the marriage,
and associated in dealings with the Anglesea timber; and to these
dealings, and similar ones with stewards of other estates, the elder
Palmer’s wealth was attributed by the country tradition. After her
husband’s death Mrs. Palmer used her freedom in several love affairs
that caused scandal. One of these was with Jeremiah Smith, the
attorney, Palmer’s associate in many nefarious transactions, who was
called for the defence, and was cross-examined mercilessly by the
Attorney-General on his relations with Mrs. Palmer.

William, the Palmer of this trial, was the second son in a family of
five sons and two daughters. Of these, William, his brother Walter, and
a sister lived badly and died miserably. Walter would have died from
drink if his brother William had not hurried him away by poison for his
insurance money. Other members of the family were reputable citizens.

William Palmer was first apprenticed to a firm of wholesale druggists in
Liverpool. After a time considerable amounts of money sent through the
post by customers to the firm were lost, and, after much inquiry, Palmer
confessed he had stolen them, and his indentures were cancelled. His
mother then for the first time began to cover up her son’s misdeeds by
advances of money. This story runs throughout the trial, and Palmer
fleeced his mother without compunction.

At the age of eighteen he was next apprenticed to Mr. Tylecote, a
surgeon, near Rugeley. In consequence of discreditable conduct with
women, and in money matters, Palmer left, and Mr. Tylecote refused to
take him back. He was then admitted into the Stafford Infirmary as “a
walking pupil.” Four years after, in 1846, he was back at Rugeley, and
there, at an inquest held on a man named Abley, it was proved that
Palmer had incited the man to drink large quantities of brandy. There
was talk of Palmer’s connection with Abley’s wife, and a suspicion that
the affair was something more than a “lark.”

In this year Palmer went to London and joined Bartholomew’s Hospital. He
obtained his diploma of surgeon in August, and returned to Rugeley as a
medical practitioner. A year after he married Annie Brookes, a ward in
Chancery, the illegitimate daughter of a Colonel Brookes, of the Indian
Army, who had settled in Stafford, and had as housekeeper Mary Thornton,
Annie Brookes’s mother. By his will Colonel Brookes left Annie Brookes
(or Thornton) considerable property in money and houses, but his estate
was administered in Chancery. The guardians were opposed to the
marriage, but it took place in 1847 by order of the Court. One of the
love-letters written by Palmer and read by Serjeant Shee during the
trial appears elsewhere.

Whether Palmer intended or not at first to settle down to his
profession, he was almost without practice in two or three years after
his marriage. Horses and racing occupied him in place of medicine. He
had means without practice, and, as Rugeley is a great horse-dealing
centre, he was always familiar with men connected with horses and
racing, and they were his chosen company. In 1853 he was in pecuniary
difficulties due to his racing transactions, and was raising money on
bills with moneylenders.

Withal he kept up an appearance of great outward respectability.
Church-going sixty years ago was more than now one of its marks. In the
diary, some extracts from which will be found in the Appendices, there
are references in the year when he poisoned Cook to attendances at the
Sacrament. It is not necessary to read into this church-going anything
more specific than the radical falsity of Palmer’s character. Great
formalism and profession of rigid theological dogma were the usual
mental furniture of the middle classes of Palmer’s day. After all the
disclosures of the trial Palmer used the customary pietistic phrases,
and it was characteristic of the times that, after his conviction, his
counsel, Serjeant Shee, sent him a beautifully bound copy of the Bible.
The profession of religion, indeed, as a cloak to evil seems to have
been purposeless, as he was notorious for seductions, as well as of bad
odour in other details of his life.

One intrigue of illicit gallantry, which began probably in the lifetime
of Mrs. Palmer, and was certainly going on at the time of Walter
Palmer’s death, has a sinister connection with the death of Cook. It is
not mentioned in any account published of Palmer. Jane Burgess, a young
woman of respectable position living in Stafford in 1855, left, at the
house where she resided, a bundle of thirty-four letters written to her
by Palmer. They show that a practitioner in Stafford, chosen by Palmer,
and described by him as one “who would be silent as death,” had
performed an illegal operation. On the 13th of November the day notable
in the trial, when “Polestar,” Cook’s racehorse, won at Shrewsbury,
there is a letter to her from Palmer, which shows that she had made a
demand for money as a condition of returning his letters. He was
surprised, he wrote, to learn that she had never burned one of his
letters. He says, “I cannot do what you ask; _I should not mind giving
£30 for the whole of them_, though I am hard up at present.” Another
letter is dated the 19th November, the day on which Palmer was accused
of administering strychnia for the first time to Cook. He offers £40 “to
split the difference.” On the 21st, the day on which, in the early
morning, Cook had died, he sends the halves of eight £5 notes, and on
the 24th the remainder. The letters were probably never returned,
because the trouble threatened about Cook’s death became common talk in
Rugeley and Stafford.

Shortly after his marriage began a series of suspicious deaths which
were attributed to Palmer after investigation started into the
circumstances attending the death of Cook. An illegitimate child he had
by a Rugeley woman died after it had visited him. Mrs. Thornton, his
mother-in-law, was persuaded to live at his house, and she died within a
fortnight. Palmer acquired property from her by her death. In 1850 a Mr.
Bladon, a racing man, stayed for several days with Palmer, who owed him
£800 for bets. Bladon died in circumstances very like those attending
Cook’s death, and Palmer buried him with the haste he attempted in the
case of Cook, and he narrowly escaped a similar accusation.

In 1854 Palmer effected insurances to the amount of £13,000 on his
wife’s life. Within six months she died much as Bladon had died, and as
Cook was to die. Dr. Bamford, a medical man of eighty-two, whom Palmer
seems to have hoodwinked into serving his purposes, certified the death
of Mrs. Palmer, as he had done the death of Bladon, and as he was to
certify a year later that of Cook. Palmer drew the insurance money from
the offices concerned. They were influenced by the popular suspicions
and rumours in Rugeley and in the sporting circles Palmer frequented,
but they paid after some hesitation and suggestion of inquiry, and
Palmer was freed from the most pressing of his liabilities. His diary
contains this entry--“Sept. 29th (1854), Friday--My poor, dear Annie
expired at 10 past 1.” Nine days after this--“Oct. 8th, Sunday--At
church, Sacrament.” Nine months after his maidservant, Eliza Tharm, bore
an illegitimate child to him. Within three months of his wife’s death
Palmer, with the assistance of Pratt, the moneylender, whose claims had
been met by the insurance on Mrs. Palmer’s life, was making proposals to
various offices, amounting to £82,000, on the life of his brother
Walter. Ultimately an insurance for £13,000 was effected, and the
policy was lodged with Pratt to secure advances. After this the rest of
Palmer’s life-history is directly connected with the story of the trial.
The account we have given will suggest the, perhaps unprecedented,
interest with which the trial was anticipated throughout the Midlands,
and afterwards with what absorbed attention it was followed by all
England as well as on the Continent.

I conclude this sketch by quoting a characteristic description by Sir
James Stephen, who knew Palmer, had studied the criminal type, and
himself presided at one of the most famous trials for poisoning. He says
of Palmer--“His career supplied one of the proofs of a fact which many
kind-hearted people seem to doubt, namely, the fact that such a thing as
atrocious wickedness is consistent with good education, perfect sanity,
and everything, in a word, which deprives men of all excuse for crime.
Palmer was respectably brought up; apart from his extravagance and vice,
he might have lived comfortably enough. He was a model of physical
health and strength, and was courageous, determined, and energetic. No
one ever suggested that there was even a disposition towards madness in
him; yet he was as cruel, as treacherous, as greedy of money and
pleasure, as brutally hard-hearted and sensual a wretch as it is
possible even to imagine. If he had been the lowest and most ignorant
ruffian that ever sprang from a long line of criminal ancestors, he
could not have been worse than he was. He was by no means unlike Rush,
Thurtell, and many other persons whom I have known. The fact that the
world contains an appreciable number of wretches, who ought to be
exterminated without mercy when an opportunity occurs, is not quite so
generally understood as it ought to be--many common ways of thinking and
feeling virtually deny it.”


Leading Dates in the Palmer Trial.

1855.

August     Walter Palmer, William Palmer’s brother, dies.
               Payment of policy on his life for £13,000
               assigned to William Palmer, and held by
               Pratt, moneylender, as security, refused by
               insurance office. Negotiations about it
               continue up to Cook’s death.

Nov.    6. Writs issued by Pratt against Palmer and his
               mother for £4000, Mrs. Palmer’s acceptance
               being forged. Writs not served, for Palmer
               to have opportunity of raising instalments.

 “     13. (Tuesday) Palmer and Cook go together from
               Rugeley to Shrewsbury Races. Cook’s mare,
               “Polestar,” wins Shrewsbury Handicap,
               and he has in his possession, in consequence,
               £700 or £800, and is entitled to stakes of
               £350 and bets, to be paid at Tattersall’s the
               Monday following, of over £1000.

 “     14. (Wednesday night) Cook ill at the Raven,
               Shrewsbury, where he and Palmer stayed.
               Palmer is alleged to have dosed his drink.

 “     15. Palmer’s horse, “Chicken,” beaten in his race,
               and Palmer loses heavily.

           Cook and Palmer return to Rugeley, and Cook
               puts up at the Talbot.

 “     16. Cook dines with Palmer and Jeremiah Smith.
               Cook apparently in usual health.

 “     17. (Saturday) Cook ill in bed, with the same
               symptoms as at Shrewsbury.

 “     18. (Sunday) His illness continues, and during the
               two days Palmer is in constant attendance,
               and orders and administers food, drink, and
               medicine. Dr. Bamford called in.

 “     19. (Monday) Palmer goes to London and arranges
               with Herring to draw Cook’s bets at Tattersalls
               and make payments to Pratt and Padwick,
               the moneylenders.

             Cook is better all the Monday while Palmer is
               away.

Nov.   19. Palmer returns in the evening. Goes to Newton,
               the assistant of Mr. Salt, surgeon at Rugeley,
               and purchases 3 grains of strychnia. Is in
               and out of Cook’s room up to eleven o’clock.
               Gives Cook pills, and leaves about eleven
               o’clock. These pills were professedly those
               sent by Dr. Bamford, but were alleged by the
               prosecution to have been substituted by
               Palmer with others containing strychnia.
               Jeremiah Smith gave evidence that Cook had
               taken Dr. Bamford’s pills before Palmer’s
               arrival.

           About twelve o’clock Cook is taken ill with violent
               spasms, and awakens household with violent
               screaming. Palmer is sent for.

 “     20. (Tuesday) Cook “comparatively comfortable” in
               the morning.

           Palmer during the day purchases from Roberts,
               the assistant at the shop of Mr. Hawkins,
               druggist at Rugeley, prussic acid, 6 grains
               of strychnia, and liquor of opium.

           Palmer requests Cheshire, the Rugeley postmaster,
               to fill up cheque on Wetherby for Cook’s
               stakes won at Shrewsbury.

           Mr. Jones, surgeon, of Lutterworth, Cook’s most
               intimate friend, comes, at Palmer’s request,
               to stay with Cook.

           Pills again made up by Dr. Bamford at his house
               and taken away by Palmer. Pills administered
               by Palmer at 10.30. Jones sleeps in
               Cook’s room. Cook taken ill again as on
               Monday, about twelve o’clock, and in a few
               minutes dies. Palmer had been sent for, and
               was present at the death.

 “     21. (Wednesday) Wetherby declines to pay £350
               cheque, as the stakes were not received from
               Shrewsbury.

           Palmer writes to Pratt that he must have
               “Polestar.”

 “     22. Palmer goes to London and pays Pratt £100; he
               had no money at Shrewsbury, and lost on the
               races.

 “     23. Palmer at Rugeley again; sees Cheshire, and
               desires him to witness a document purporting
               to be signed by Cook acknowledging £4000
               of bills to have been negotiated by Palmer for
               Cook.

Nov.   23. Mr. Stevens, Cook’s stepfather, arrives in Rugeley,
               sees Palmer, and discusses Cook’s affairs
               and the funeral. Cook’s betting book and
               papers not found. Coffin ordered by Palmer
               without Stevens’s knowledge. Stevens
               notices unusual appearance of the body;
               returns to London and consults a solicitor,
               who gives him introduction to Mr. Gardner,
               solicitor in Rugeley. Stevens and Palmer
               meet on the train from London to Rugeley,
               and Stevens informs Palmer that he intends
               to have a post-mortem.

 “     25. (Sunday) Palmer applies to Dr. Bamford for death
               certificate, which is given for apoplexy.

           Sends for Newton, and has a conversation about
               the effects of strychnia.

 “     26. Post-mortem examination; Palmer is present, and
               acts suspiciously.

           Mr. Stevens takes jars, with contents from the
               body, to London for analysis to be made by
               Professor Taylor.

Dec.    5. Cheshire, having opened Professor Taylor’s letter
               to Mr. Gardner, containing account of
               analysis, tells Palmer strychnia or other
               poisons, with the exception of traces of antimony,
               have not been found.

 “      8. Palmer writes to the coroner as to Professor
               Taylor’s letter.

 “     14. Inquest, at which Professor Taylor gives evidence.

           Verdict of “wilful murder” returned.

           Palmer, who was in custody of Sheriff’s officer for
               the bills, is arrested on the verdict and taken
               to Stafford Gaol.




                              THE TRIAL.


                  Within the Central Criminal Court,
                          Old Bailey, London.
                      WEDNESDAY, 14TH MAY, 1856.
                     The Court met at Ten o’clock.


                              _Judges_--

                     LORD CHIEF JUSTICE CAMPBELL.
                        MR. JUSTICE CRESSWELL.
                          MR. BARON ALDERSON.


                       _Counsel for the Crown_--

           THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (_Sir Alexander Cockburn_).
                        Mr. EDWARD JAMES, Q.C.
                              Mr. BODKIN.
                              Mr. WELSBY.
                            Mr. HUDDLESTON.


                     _Counsel for the Prisoner_--

                          Mr. SERJEANT SHEE.
                            Mr. GROVE, Q.C.
                               Mr. GRAY.
                             Mr. KENEALEY.




     The prisoner, William Palmer, surgeon, of Rugeley, aged thirty-one
     was indicted for having at Rugeley, county of Stafford, on 21st
     November, 1855, feloniously, wilfully, and with malice
     aforethought, committed murder on the person of John Parsons Cook.

            *       *       *       *       *

     On being called upon the prisoner pleaded not guilty.

            *       *       *       *       *

     The jury having been duly empanelled and sworn, the
     Attorney-General opened the case for the Crown.[A]




Evidence for the Prosecution.


[Sidenote: Ishmael Fisher]

ISHMAEL FISHER, examined by Mr. JAMES--I am a wine merchant. I attend
races occasionally, and knew the deceased, John Parsons Cook, for about
two years. I was at Shrewsbury Races in November, 1855, and I remember
the race for the Shrewsbury Handicap won with a mare called “Polestar,”
the property of Mr. Cook. That was on Tuesday, the 13th of November. I
saw Mr. Cook, the deceased, that day upon the course. He appeared in his
usual health and spirits. At Shrewsbury I stopped at the Raven Hotel. I
know Palmer, the prisoner, very well. I have known him a little longer
than I have known Mr. Cook. Mr. Cook and Mr. Palmer were also stopping
at the Raven Hotel, and were occupying a room near me. There was only a
wooden partition between my room and theirs. Between eleven and twelve
on the night of Wednesday I went into the sitting room, in which Mr.
Cook and Mr. Palmer and Mr. Myatt were. Myatt is a saddler at Rugeley,
and is a friend of Palmer. They each appeared to have some grog before
them. In my presence Mr. Cook asked Mr. Palmer to have some more brandy
and water. Mr. Palmer said, “I shall not have any more till you have
drunk yours.” Mr. Cook said then, “I will drink mine,” and he took up
his glass and drank it at a drop, or he might have made two drops of it.
After he had drunk it he said, “There is something in it.” He also said,
“It burns my throat dreadfully.” Mr. Palmer then got up and took up the
glass. He sipped up what was left of the glass, and said, “There is
nothing in it.” There appeared to be certainly not more than a
teaspoonful left by Mr. Cook. At that time a Mr. Reid, whom I knew, came
in. He is a wine merchant, and attends races. After Palmer had put his
glass to his mouth and said, “There is nothing in it,” he handed the
glass to Reid, and asked him if he thought there was anything in it.
The glass was also handed to me. We each said the glass being so empty
we could not recognise anything. I said I thought there was rather a
strong scent upon it, only I could not detect anything besides brandy.
About ten minutes after this Cook retired from the room. Cook then came
back and called me out of the room, and I went with him into my sitting
room. Cook at that time was very ill. He had been sick. He said he had
been very sick, and he thought that Palmer had dosed him. On that
occasion he handed me over a sum of money, between £700 and £800 in bank
notes. It was given to me to be taken care of. He did not say till when.
Mr. Palmer and Mr. Cook jointly occupied a sitting room. They occupied
different bedrooms. After Cook had given me this money he was
immediately seized with sickness. I saw him in the same room and in his
own bedroom. He again complained of suffering during the time he was
absent, and said he had been again very sick. He asked me to go with him
to his bedroom, which I did. A Mr. Jones, a stationer, went with me to
his bedroom. While we were there he was violently vomiting again, so
much so that we thought it right to send for the doctor, Mr. Gibson. We
left him that morning in his room about two o’clock or a little after.
Mr. Gibson came about half-past twelve or a quarter to one. I again sent
for Mr. Gibson, as Cook was so ill. The second time I sent was about
one, as near as I can remember. After taking some medicine Cook became
more composed. The medicine was sent by Mr. Gibson, but he did not
administer it himself. Mr. Jones and myself gave him the medicine. The
next morning about ten o’clock I saw Palmer in my own sitting room. He
was in the sitting room when I got downstairs. He said that Cook had
been stating he had given him something last night, that he had been
putting something in his brandy, or something to that effect. Palmer
said he never played such tricks with people. He said, “I can tell you
what he was; he was very drunk.” Cook certainly was not drunk. I did not
see him at dinner, but I saw him some time after, and from what I
observed of him he was certainly sober. On the same morning Mr. Cook
came up to my bedroom after he had got up. He was looking very ill. I
gave him back his money. On that day (Thursday) I saw Mr. Cook on the
racecourse at Shrewsbury. It would be about three o’clock. He looked
very ill. I frequently had been in the habit of settling his bets for
him when he did not settle them himself. I was in the habit of paying
and receiving for him at Tattersall’s and other places. At Shrewsbury I
saw Cook’s betting book in his possession. It was a little more than
half the size of this (a small memorandum book). As nearly as I can
remember, it was very nearly this colour (a dark colour). On the 17th,
which was Saturday, I paid to Mr. Pratt, by direction of Mr. Cook, £200
in a cheque. As his agent I expected to settle his Shrewsbury account at
Tattersall’s on the following Monday, and I should have been entitled to
deduct the £200. That was the course of dealing between us, but I did
not settle that account, as it turned out.

 [A] See Introduction, p. 2.

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I have known Mr. Palmer a little
longer than Mr. Cook. I knew that they were a good deal connected with
racing transactions. They appeared to be very intimate, and were a great
deal together. They generally stayed at the same hotels. I knew that
Cook won considerably at Shrewsbury. I knew that “Polestar” was his
mare. I do not know whether Palmer also won. I saw Mr. Cook after the
race on the course. He appeared very much elated and gratified.
“Polestar” won easily. In the room to which I went in the evening, in
which Mr. Cook, Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Myatt were, I remember seeing a
glass before Mr. Palmer and before Mr. Cook. I could not answer for
Myatt’s glass. I believe there was one decanter on the table. I did not
observe sufficiently the glasses to see whether both had been drinking.
Mr. Cook asked me to take some brandy. I do not recollect drinking any,
but I cannot positively remember. I was not tipsy. I do not think I
drank anything. I believe I am a good judge of brandy by the smell. I
smelt this glass, and said that it had a strong smell about it, but I
thought there was nothing in it unlike brandy. The glass was perfectly
empty, and had been completely drained. I had been in the Unicorn in the
evening before this occurred. I saw both Cook and Palmer at the Unicorn
on Wednesday night about nine o’clock, or between nine and ten. I cannot
say if he was drinking then. I do not know that a good number of people
happened to be ill at Shrewsbury on that Wednesday or Tuesday. I had a
friend who was rather poorly there from a different kind of illness to
Mr. Cook. Wednesday was rather dull. I do not know that it rained, but
it was damp under foot I remember. I saw Mr. Cook about the racecourse
several times on Wednesday. On Thursday I remember the weather was
rather cold and damp, but I cannot say whether it rained or not. On the
16th or 17th of November I received a letter from Mr. Cook, dated
Rugeley, 16th November, 1855--

     Dear Fisher,--It is of very great importance to both Mr. Palmer and
     myself that the sum of £500 should be paid to Mr. Pratt, of Queen
     Street, Mayfair, to-morrow, without fail. £300 has been sent up
     to-night, and if you will be kind enough to pay the other £200
     to-morrow on receipt of this, you will greatly oblige me. I will
     settle it on Monday at Tattersall’s. I am much better.

I received this on the 17th at No. 4 Victoria Street, London. I
considered that Palmer and Cook were for some time jointly connected
with racing transactions, but there is no proof of it. Cook was not more
elated after winning than people usually are.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: Thomas Jones]

THOMAS JONES, examined by Mr. WELSBY--I am a law stationer, and was at
Shrewsbury Races last November. I stayed at the Raven. On the Monday
night Cook supped with me and some other friends. He appeared well on
that occasion, as he also did on the Tuesday and Wednesday. On Wednesday
night, between eleven and twelve, Mr. Cook came into my room at the
Raven and invited me into his. I went there, and found, amongst other
people in the room, Palmer. After the party broke up Mr. Fisher said
something to me about Cook, in consequence of which I went up to Cook’s
bedroom. I found him there, and he complained of a burning in his
throat. He was vomiting. Some pills and a draught were brought. Mr. Cook
refused to take the pills, in consequence of which I went to the doctor,
Mr. Gibson, and got some liquid medicine from him, which I brought back
and gave to Mr. Cook. He drank about a wineglassful of the medicine, and
after that he also took some of the pills. Next morning, between six and
seven, I again saw him. He looked pale, and appeared to be unwell.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: George Reid]

GEORGE REID, examined by Mr. BODKIN--I was acquainted with the deceased
Mr. Cook and the prisoner Palmer. I saw them at Shrewsbury Races in
November. On the Tuesday and Wednesday Cook appeared to be in his usual
health. On Wednesday night I went into the room at the Raven where
Palmer and Cook were. There was another gentleman present. We had a
glass of brandy and water before the time to rest. Almost immediately
after I arrived there I noticed that Cook was in pain. I heard him say
to Mr. Palmer there was something in the brandy and water. Mr. Palmer
handed me the glass to taste from it. I said, “What is the use of
handing me the glass when it is empty?” The next time I saw Cook was
about eleven o’clock the next morning. He said he was very ill.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT SHEE--I should consider that Cook’s general
state of health was delicate. He always had a pallid complexion, and did
not look like a strong man.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: W. S. Gibson]

WILLIAM SCAFE GIBSON, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTON--I am assistant to Mr.
Heathcote, surgeon, at Shrewsbury. On 14th November last, between twelve
and one at night, I was sent for to the Raven Hotel, and saw there Mr.
Cook in his bedroom. He was not in bed. He complained of pain in his
stomach and heat in his throat, and said he thought he had been
poisoned. His pulse was about 90; his tongue was perfectly clean. I
advised him to take an emetic, which he did, and he was then very sick.
Nothing came away but water. I sent him two pills and a draught. The
pills consisted of rhubarb and 3 grains of calomel. The draught
consisted of mistura sennacum. Later on in the same night I gave Mr.
Jones some medicine for Cook. I never saw Cook after that occasion.

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I treated Cook as if he had taken
poison. I took him at his word, that he had taken poison, not from his
symptoms. He seemed a little excited by drink.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: E. Mills]

ELIZABETH MILLS, examined by Mr. JAMES--I was chambermaid at the Talbot
Arms at Rugeley in November last. I had been there about two years. I
knew the prisoner. He was in the habit of coming to the Talbot Arms. I
remember on Thursday, the 15th, between nine and ten at night, Mr. Cook,
along with Mr. Palmer, came to the Talbot Arms. He retired to rest
between ten and eleven. He said he had been poorly, and was feeling
poorly then. The next morning he got up about twelve o’clock, and said
he felt no worse, but still he was not well. That night he retired to
bed about half-past ten. He said he had been to Mr. Palmer’s and had
dined there. On Saturday morning about eight, Palmer, who lived opposite
to the Talbot Arms, came over. He ordered a cup of coffee for Mr. Cook,
which I believe I gave to Mr. Cook in his bedroom. Mr. Palmer was in the
room at the time. I did not see Cook drink it, but about half an hour
afterwards I returned into the room and found that the coffee had been
vomited. On that occasion I observed a jug in the room which did not
belong to the Talbot Arms. It was sent down to me by Lavinia Barnes to
make some more toast and water. During that Saturday I saw Palmer
perhaps four or five times in Cook’s room. I heard him say to Mr. Cook
that he would send over some broth. I did not see it brought over, but I
saw the broth in the kitchen. The cook told me that it had come over
from Mrs. Rowley. The broth had not been made at the Talbot Arms. Later
in the day I took up the broth to Mr. Cook. About a quarter of an hour
after the broth came over I met Palmer coming up the stairs to Cook’s
room. He asked if Cook had had his broth. I told him I did not know that
any was come for him. During this conversation Lavinia Barnes came
forward and said she had taken up the broth to Mr. Cook as soon as it
had come, and he had refused to take it, saying that it would not stay
in his stomach. Palmer said that I must go and fetch the broth, which I
did, and took it into the room. Mr. Palmer was there, and I left the
broth in the room. About an hour and a half afterwards I went up to the
room again and found that the broth had been vomited. About six o’clock
that evening some barley water was made for Cook. I took that up to him,
but I cannot remember whether that stayed in his stomach or not. At
eight o’clock that evening I took up some arrowroot to Cook. The first
time I saw Mr. Bamford [the doctor at Rugeley] was about three o’clock
on the Saturday afternoon. Between seven and eight on the Sunday morning
I went into Mr. Cook’s room. During the night Mr. Smith, a friend of Mr.
Cook, had slept in the same room. I asked Mr. Cook if he felt worse. He
said he felt pretty comfortable, and had slept well since twelve
o’clock. Upon the Sunday a large breakfast cup of broth was brought to
the Talbot Arms by Charles Hawley. I took some of it up to Mr. Cook’s
room in the same cup in which it was brought. I tasted about two
tablespoonfuls of the broth before I took it up. It was between twelve
and one, before my dinner, that I tasted this broth. About half an hour
afterwards it made me very sick, and I vomited violently all the
afternoon till about five o’clock. I was obliged to go to bed. Up to
that time I had been quite well. I had taken nothing that I am aware of
that had disagreed with me. In the evening and on the morning of the
Sunday I saw Mr. Cook several times. He appeared to be better during
that evening, and to be in good spirits. The last time I saw him on the
Sunday night might be about ten or a little after that. I saw him
between seven and eight on the Monday morning. I took him up a cup of
coffee. He did not vomit that. Palmer was there that morning about a
quarter or half-past seven. I saw him coming downstairs as though he had
been to see Mr. Cook. Mr. Cook got up at one o’clock on that Monday. He
appeared a great deal better, and he washed and dressed and shaved
himself. He said he felt exceedingly weak. On the Monday Ashmall, the
jockey, and Mr. Saunders, Cook’s trainer, visited him. As soon as Cook
got up at one o’clock I gave him some arrowroot, which he retained in
his stomach. I believe he had a cup of coffee about four or five. About
eight o’clock that night Miss Bond, the housekeeper, gave me a pillbox
to take upstairs to Mr. Cook’s room, which I did, and placed it on the
dressing-table. It was wrapped up in white paper. I do not know whether
the box contained pills or not. After I had placed the pillbox on Cook’s
dressing-table Palmer came, and went into Cook’s room. I saw him sitting
down by the fire between nine and ten. I retired to rest between ten and
eleven. About a quarter or ten minutes before twelve Lavinia Barnes, the
waitress, called me up. I heard a noise of violent screaming whilst I
was dressing. The screams came from Cook’s room. My room is on the
floor above Cook’s room. I heard the screams twice, and went down to
Cook’s room. As soon as I entered the room I found him sitting up in
bed. He desired me to fetch Mr. Palmer directly. I walked to his
bedside, and I found the pillow upon the floor. There was one mould
candle burning. I picked up the pillow and asked him would he lay down
his head. At that time he was sitting up and was beating the
bed-clothes, with both his arms and hands stretched out. He said, “I
cannot lie down. I shall suffocate if I do. Oh, fetch Mr. Palmer.” His
body, his hands, and neck were moving then--a sort of jumping or
jerking. His head was back. Sometimes he would throw back his head upon
the pillow, and then he would raise himself up again. This jumping and
jerking was all over his body. He appeared to have great difficulty in
breathing. The balls of both the eyes were much projected. It was
difficult for him to speak, he was so short of breath. He screamed three
or four times while I was in the room. He called aloud “Murder” twice.
He asked me to rub one hand. I found the left hand stiff. It appeared to
be stretched out as though the fingers were something like paralysed. It
did not move. It appeared to me to be stiff all the way up his arm. I
did not rub him very long. The stiffness did not appear to be gone after
I had rubbed him. During the time I was rubbing his hands Palmer was in
the room. Cook was conscious while this jerking of the body was going
on. He recognised Palmer when he came in, and said, “Oh, Palmer, I shall
die,” or “Oh, doctor, I shall die.” Palmer replied, “Oh, my lad, you
won’t.” Palmer then left to fetch something, and asked me to stay by the
bedside with him. He returned in a few minutes, during which time I
merely stood by the bedside. He brought back with him some pills. He
gave him something else, but whether he brought it with him or not I do
not know. He gave him a drop from a wineglass after giving him the
pills. Cook, when he took the pills, said he could not swallow them. At
Palmer’s request I gave Cook a teaspoonful of toast and water, which he
took. When I gave it him from the spoon his body was then jerking and
jumping. He snapped at the spoon like that [describing it] with his head
and neck, and the spoon was fast between his teeth. It was difficult to
get it away. He seemed to bite it very hard. While this was going on the
water went down his throat and washed the pills down. Mr. Palmer then
handed him the draught from the wineglass. It was something liquid, and
the wineglass was three parts full with a liquid of a dark,
heavy-looking nature. Cook drank it. He snapped at the glass just the
same as he did at the spoon. He swallowed the liquid, which was vomited
up immediately. I supported his forehead with my hand while he vomited.
The stuff he vomited smelt, I should think, like opium. Palmer said
that he hoped the pills were not returned, and he searched for the pills
with a quill. He said, “I cannot find the pills.” After this Cook seemed
to be more easy. This second attack lasted about half an hour, or it
might be more. He appeared to be conscious during the whole of that
time. He asked Palmer to feel his heart after he had got more composed.
I do not know whether he did so or not. Palmer made some slight remark
as to its being all right, or something of that kind. I left Cook and
Palmer about three o’clock in the morning. Cook was dozing when I left
him, and Palmer was asleep in the easy-chair.

[Sidenote: E. Mills]

I next saw Cook again about six o’clock on the Tuesday morning. I said,
“Has Mr. Palmer gone?” and he said, “Yes; he left a quarter before
five.” I asked him how he felt, and he said he had been no worse since I
left him in the morning. He asked me if I had ever seen any one suffer
such agony as he was in last night, and I said no, I never had. I asked
“What do you think was the cause of all that, Mr. Cook?” and he said the
pills that Palmer gave him at half-past ten. When I saw Cook on the
Tuesday morning I did not observe any of those jerkings or convulsions
about him. About twelve o’clock he rang his bell and desired me to send
the boots over to ask Palmer whether he might have a cup of coffee. The
boots returned and said he might have a cup of coffee, and that Mr.
Palmer would be over immediately. I took the coffee up a little after
twelve. Palmer was in Mr. Cook’s room at that time. I gave the coffee to
Mr. Palmer, who tasted the coffee in my presence. I then left the room.
Mr. Jones arrived by the three o’clock train that afternoon. He went and
saw Mr. Cook upon his arrival. About four, or it might be between four
and five, I took up to Mr. Cook’s room another cup of coffee. At that
time I saw Palmer in the room. I left the room, and afterwards I saw
Palmer, who told me that Mr. Cook had vomited the coffee. He spoke from
the door of Cook’s room, but did not call me in. I saw Cook several
times that evening before I retired to rest. He appeared to be in very
good spirits, and talked about getting up the next morning. I believe I
gave him some arrowroot that evening about half-past ten. Palmer was
with him in his bedroom when I left him. I gave Palmer a jug of toast
and water for Cook. Mr. Palmer asked Cook if I could do anything more
for him that night, and Mr. Cook said he would want nothing more. That
was about half-past ten. I did not go to bed that night, but I remained
in the kitchen, as I was anxious to see how Mr. Cook went on. While I
was in the kitchen the bell of Mr. Cook’s room rang violently a little
before twelve [Tuesday night]. Mr. Jones was sleeping in Cook’s bedroom,
which was a double-bedded room, and where a bed had been made up for
him. I went upstairs to Mr. Cook’s room on hearing the bell. He was
sitting up in bed, and Mr. Jones appeared to be supporting him. Mr. Cook
said, “Oh, Mary, fetch Mr. Palmer directly.” He was conscious at the
time. I went over for Mr. Palmer. I rang the surgery bell at the surgery
door. I expected him to come to the window and as soon as I stepped off
the step into the road he was at the bedroom window. He did not put up
the sash. At that time I could not see whether he was dressed or not. I
asked him to come over to Mr. Cook directly, as he was much the same as
he was the night before. I then went back to the hotel. Palmer came two
or three minutes afterwards. I was in the bedroom when Palmer came, and
he remarked that he had never dressed so quickly in his life. That was
the first thing he said when he came into Cook’s room. Mr. Cook was
sitting up in bed, supported by Mr. Jones. After Mr. Palmer came I
remained on the landing, just outside the door. After I had been waiting
a short time Palmer came out. I said to him that Mr. Cook was much about
the same as last night, and he replied that he was not so ill by the
fiftieth part. He then went downstairs as though he was going into his
own house, and after a very short time he came back to Cook’s room.
After Palmer had returned I heard Cook ask to be turned over on his
right side. I was at the door at the time, which was open. I did not go
in. I was not in the room when Cook died. I went in, I believe, just
before he died, but I came out again. I saw Mr. Jones supporting Cook.
Mr. Palmer was then feeling Mr. Cook’s pulse, and he said to Mr. Jones,
“His pulse is gone.” Mr. Jones pressed the side of his face to Cook’s
heart. Mr. Palmer asked me to fetch Mr. Bamford, and I did so. From the
time I was called up, about ten minutes before twelve, till Cook’s death
would be about three-quarters of an hour. Mr. Bamford came over, and I
saw him when he came downstairs. He said, “He is dead. He was dead when
I arrived.” Mr. Jones came out of the room and told me that Mr. Palmer
wanted me. I went into the room and saw Mr. Palmer. There was no one
with him. I said, “It is not possible Mr. Cook is dead,” and he said,
“Oh, yes, he is dead.” He asked me to arrange about laying out Cook. I
had seen a book in Mr. Cook’s room, a dark book with a gold band round
the edge. It had a pencil going into it on one side. Cook stopped at the
Talbot Arms perhaps two or three months before this time. I saw the book
on the Monday night before Mr. Cook’s death. He wrote something in it,
and took from a pocket in the book a postage stamp. I placed the book
back at the looking-glass on the dressing-table. I have never seen that
book since Cook’s death. I have searched everywhere for it. When I went
into the room where Cook’s body was lying Palmer was there. I noticed
that Cook’s clothes were placed on a chair. I saw Palmer searching the
pocket. That was on the Tuesday night about ten minutes after Cook’s
death. He also searched under the pillow and bolster. After Cook’s death
I saw some letters on the mantelpiece which were not there before.


The Court then adjourned.




Second Day, Thursday, 15th May, 1856.

The Court met at ten o’clock.


[Sidenote: E. Mills]

ELIZABETH MILLS, cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I had been at the
Talbot Arms about three years at the date of Mr. Cook’s death. He first
came to the Talbot Arms about three months before he died, and up to the
time of his death he was constantly coming back and forward. During the
time he was there I never heard him complain of anything except a sore
throat or something of that kind through cold. I never noticed that he
had any soreness about his mouth or that he had difficulty at all in
swallowing. I have seen him with a foul tongue about once or so. He
never complained in my hearing of the tongue being sore so as to render
it difficult to swallow. I do not know of caustic having been applied to
it while he was there. Before he went to Shrewsbury he had not been
ailing at all to my knowledge. When he came back he said he was poorly.
After Cook’s death I stayed at the Talbot Inn till the day after
Christmas. I then went to my home in the Potteries, Shelton. Since then
I have been in service in Dolly’s Hotel, Paternoster Row, London. I
stayed six weeks there as chambermaid. About a week after I came to
London I saw Mr. Stevens (the stepfather of Cook) about six or seven
times. Two or three times I saw him alone; at other times perhaps Mrs.
Dewhurst, the landlady of the inn, or Miss Dewhurst was there. It was
not always about Mr. Cook’s death that he spoke to me. He would merely
call to see how I liked London, and whether I was well in health, and
all that.

[Sidenote: E. Mills]

Mr. Stevens is a man not in your station. He is a gentleman. Do you mean
to say he called to see how you liked London?--Just to see whether I
liked the place. I had some conversation with him at the Talbot Inn just
before the funeral. I really cannot remember what he spoke about beyond
Mr. Cook’s death. During the time I was at Dolly’s Hotel I never
received a farthing from him, and he never made me any promise to get a
place. The last time I saw him out of Court was on Tuesday last at
Dolly’s Hotel. He never spoke to me about Mr. Cook’s death. When I saw
him at that time there were other people present, including Lavinia
Barnes, Mr. Gardner, and Mr. Hatton, the chief officer of police in
Staffordshire. Mr. Gardner is an attorney at Rugeley. I cannot say what
all the talk was about. Mr. Cook’s death might be mentioned. I daresay
it was. I will undertake to say that there were other subjects of
conversation between us besides the subject of Cook’s death. I do not
wish to mention what they were. They did not, so far as I heard, talk
about the evidence I was to give. They did not ask me what I could
prove, nor did they read my depositions before the coroner to me. There
was nothing read to me from a newspaper or anything else. Mr. Stevens
never at any previous interview read anything from a newspaper to me. He
never talked to me about the symptoms which Mr. Cook exhibited before
his death. Before last Tuesday I had seen Mr. Hatton about twice. I saw
him once at Dolly’s, when he dined there. I did not wait upon him. I
merely saw him there. He might have talked about Mr. Cook’s death, but I
cannot remember. I have seen Mr. Gardner there three or four times since
Mr. Cook’s death. I have seen him at Dolly’s, and have met him in the
street. I have merely said, “How do you do,” or “Good morning.” I have
had no other talk with him. I do not remember to have read the case of a
Mrs. Dove in the newspapers, but I may have done so. I have heard spoken
of a case that lately occurred at Leeds of a lady who was said to have
been poisoned by her husband, but I did not read it. It was not
mentioned to me by Mr. Stevens, nor by Mr. Gardner, nor by Mr. Hatton.

Were you told when you heard of it what the symptoms of Mrs. Dove
were?--I think not. I merely heard there had been strychnine used at
Leeds, another strychnine case.

Were the symptoms of strychnine ever mentioned to you by any one?--No,
never.

When, and to whom, did you first use the expression “twitching,” which
you mentioned so repeatedly yesterday?--To the coroner, I did. If I did
not mention twitching, I mentioned something to the same effect. I will
not swear I used that word at the coroner’s. I cannot remember when I
first used the word “twitching.” I cannot remember when I first used the
word “jerking” to anybody. I will undertake to swear it has never been
used to me by anybody.

You stated yesterday that on the Sunday some broth was brought in a
breakfastcup between twelve and one o’clock; that you took it up to
Cook’s bedroom; that you drank about two tablespoonfuls; that you were
sick the whole afternoon, and vomited till five o’clock. Did you state
one word about that in your deposition before the coroner?--It never
occurred to me until three days afterwards.

Did you state before the coroner that there was nothing peculiar in the
taste of the broth?--I believe I was examined three times before the
coroner. My attention had been called to the fact of broth having been
sent over on one occasion, but I do not remember whether it was the
first. I was asked if I had tasted it, and I stated I had tasted it, and
thought it was very good. It never occurred to me to mention that I was
sick and vomited frequently in the course of the afternoon.

You went to bed in consequence of the vomiting?--Yes.

[Sidenote: E. Mills]

I suppose sickness of that kind repeated frequently in the course of an
afternoon is not a very common occurrence with you?--No, I have a
bilious attack sometimes, but not such violent vomiting as I had that
afternoon. I could not at all account for it at the time. I only took
two tablespoonfuls. The vomiting came on from half an hour to an hour
after I took them.

On the Saturday morning did Cook express a wish to have coffee for
breakfast, or was it from Palmer the first you heard that his breakfast
was to be coffee?--I do not know whether Palmer told me to bring coffee
or whether it was Cook. I never knew Mr. Cook to take coffee in bed
before. He generally took tea.

I understood you to say yesterday Palmer came over at eight o’clock and
ordered a cup of coffee for Cook. Do you adhere to that?--I cannot
remember whether Palmer ordered it or not. If I said it yesterday it is
correct, but I cannot remember whether Palmer ordered the coffee or not
now. I will swear now that Palmer ordered the coffee, and I took it and
gave it into Cook’s hands, and Palmer was there.

You swear to it now?--Yes.

You doubted it a moment ago?--If that was stated yesterday I do not
doubt it was correct.

Is that your only reason for stating it to be correct?--I believe it to
be correct.

Will you swear that it is correct?--Yes; it is no doubt correct if I
said so.

Why should that make it more correct if you cannot say it now from your
own recollection?--I cannot remember as well to-day as I did yesterday.
I cannot remember that I stated before the coroner that Cook had coffee
for breakfast at eight o’clock, that he ate nothing, and that he vomited
directly he had swallowed it, and that up to the time I had given him
the coffee I had not seen Palmer. I cannot remember whether I stated
before the coroner anything about the pillbox on Monday night. It was
sent over wrapped up in paper. I will swear that Palmer was there
between nine and ten o’clock. He brought a jar of jelly to the Talbot,
and I opened it. I should say he was there nearer to ten than nine. I do
not recollect whether he was there when I left Cook at half-past ten.

You stated yesterday that you asked Cook on the Tuesday afternoon what
he thought the cause of his illness was, and he said, “The pills which
Palmer gave me at half-past ten”?--Yes.

Did you say that before the coroner?--No.

[Sidenote: E. Mills]

Have you been questioned by any one since Mr. Cook’s death respecting
what you did say before the coroner as to when these pills might have
been given or respecting anything you have said about these pills before
the coroner?--Yes; I was questioned by Dr. Collier at Hitchingly. I did
not tell him that the gentleman in London had altered my evidence on
that point, and that my evidence was now to be that “Cook said the pills
which Palmer gave him at half-past ten made him ill.”

Did he state anything about your evidence being altered since?--Yes; he
said he had not got that down in what I had given to the coroner in the
coroner’s papers. I said “No, I thought it was down in some of the
papers. I had given it to a gentleman in London.” The evidence has been
altered by myself since. I do not remember who the gentleman was that I
had given it to. I gave it to him at Dolly’s. The gentleman came to me
at Dolly’s and asked if I would answer him a few questions. I said I
would, and I saw him in a sitting-room. I was with him about half an
hour. He asked me not very many questions, and during the time I was
answering the questions he was writing. He did not tell me who he was or
whom he came from, but he mentioned Mr. Stevens’ name.

What did he say about Mr. Stevens?--Mr. Stevens was with him. He called
Mr. Stevens by name.

Why did you not tell us that before?--You did not ask me.

Then, although you did not know who he was, you knew he was an
acquaintance of Mr. Stevens because he came with him?--He did. All that
I said then was taken down. I do not remember saying before the coroner
that when Cook was ill on Monday night and sitting up in bed beating the
bed-clothes he said, “I cannot lie down; I shall suffocate if I do.” I
do not remember whether I mentioned the word “jerking” before the
coroner.

Did you say before the coroner, “He would throw his head back and raise
himself up again”?--Yes.

You will say you said that?--Yes. I do not know whether I mentioned the
word “jerking.” I said the whole of the body was in a jumping, snatching
way. I believe I mentioned it was difficult for him to speak, he was so
short of breath. I did not mention about him calling “murder” twice. I
do not remember whether I mentioned before the coroner that Mr. Cook
said the pills stuck fast in his throat and he could not swallow them. I
did not answer the coroner anything more than he asked me. If he had
asked me I should have answered him as I am answering now.

The first time that you were examined before the coroner was Dr. Taylor
present?--I believe he was.

[Sidenote: E. Mills]

Were you not recalled after you had been examined once for the purpose
of describing the symptoms for Dr. Taylor to hear?--I was not. I was
never examined as to the symptoms when I knew the medical gentlemen were
there. I cannot remember how Mr. Palmer was dressed when he came over
on the Tuesday night. He had a plaid dressing-gown on, but I cannot
remember what sort of cap he had. When Mr. Jones asked me to go into the
room after Mr. Cook’s death I went in at once, and it was then that I
saw Palmer searching the pockets of the coat. When I went in he did not
seem at all confused.

Re-examined by Mr. JAMES--I was under examination before the coroner
perhaps a couple of hours on different occasions. The coroner put the
questions to me, and the coroner’s clerk, I believe, wrote down my
answers. The coroner asked me if the broth had any effect on me, and I
said not that I was aware of.

By Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--What brought to your mind afterwards the vomiting
after taking the broth?--I do not know. I believe it was some one else
in the house that mentioned my sickness first. It did not occur to me
until some one else mentioned it about a week after the coroner was
there.

Re-examination resumed--I cannot remember who it was, but it was some of
my fellow-servants in the house. A person of the name of Dr. Collier
called upon me and represented that he was for the Crown. He asked me
questions about the inquest and about the death of Mr. Cook. That would
be about three weeks or a month ago, at Hitchingley.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: J. Gardner]

JAMES GARDNER, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I am an attorney, and
attended for Mr. Stevens at the inquest. The inquest lasted five days,
and on each of these days I had several times occasion to expostulate
with Mr. Ward, the coroner, as to questions which he put or omitted to
put, and I observed that the clerk omitted to take down answers given to
the questions which had been put.

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--A great many questions were put by
the jury after the examination of the professional men.

By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--The jury made very strong observations as to
the necessity for further questions.

Objection to statement of these observations allowed.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: Anne Brooks]

Mrs. ANNE BROOKS, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I live in
Manchester, and am in the habit of attending race meetings. I was at
Shrewsbury races in November, 1855. About eight o’clock in the evening
of Wednesday, the 14th, I met Palmer in the street. I had some
conversation with him as to horses that were running during that week at
Shrewsbury. About half-past ten the same evening I went, along with some
friends, to the Raven, where I knew Palmer was staying. I had been there
frequently before. I left my friends downstairs and went upstairs to go
to Palmer’s room, which I knew. As I approached Palmer’s room a servant
called my attention to Palmer himself, who was standing at a small table
in the passage. When I first saw him he had a glass tumbler in his hand,
in which there appeared to be a small quantity of liquid like water. I
did not see him put anything in the glass. I saw him shaking up the
fluid that was in it. There was a light in the passage. It was nearer to
me than to him. He held up the glass as if he were looking at the light
through it. He then said to me, “I will be with you presently.” He
noticed me the moment I got to the top of the stairs. After he made that
remark to me he stood for a minute or two holding the glass in his hand
up to the light once or twice and shaking it now and then. The only
observation he made was about the fine weather we had. After this he
carried the glass into a sitting room adjoining his own. The room, I
imagined, was empty, as I heard no one speaking. He remained there two
or three minutes, and came out with the glass still in his hand, and
carried it into his own sitting room, shutting the door after him. Three
or four minutes afterwards he came out to me, bringing me a glass--it
might be the same one, it was very like it--with some brandy and water
in it. I took the brandy and water, and it produced no unpleasant
consequences in me. We had some conversation regarding the next day’s
racing, and he said he should back his own horse “Chicken.” “Chicken”
lost. Palmer never told me afterwards whether he had won or lost on the
race.

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I am a married woman, and am in the
habit of attending race meetings, but my husband does not sanction my
going when he knows about it. Several people were taken ill in
Shrewsbury on the Wednesday. One of my company was dreadfully ill, and
there was a wonder what could cause it; we made an observation. We
thought the water might have been poisoned. We were all affected the
same way by sickness.

Can you tell me in what way it affected persons?

By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--Any person you saw. Whom did you see yourself
affected in that way?--There was a lady that came to meet me there; she
was one; and there was another party in my company who was so ill that
he could not go to the races on Thursday.

By Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--They were affected by sickness and purging.

You saw Palmer with the glass in his hand?--I did.

[Sidenote: Anne Brooks]

Did he put it up to the light?--He held it just carelessly up. I did not
see any substance in the glass. He was doing this in a passage that led
to a great many rooms. I could not say if there was more than one light
in the passage. I think it was a chandelier. He said, “I will be with
you presently,” when he carried the glass into the room which I supposed
to have been unoccupied.

Did he also say that while he was holding it to the light?--Yes, just in
this manner, quite carelessly.

And at that time you thought nothing of it?--I thought he was mixing up
some cooling draught, and was waiting for some water. I was not examined
before the coroner.

By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--The brandy and water he gave me was cold, not
hot. I have known Palmer for a great number of years as a racing man.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: L. Barnes]

LAVINIA BARNES, examined by Mr. JAMES--In November, 1855, I was in
service as waitress at the Talbot Arms. I knew both Palmer and Mr. Cook.
I saw Mr. Cook on 12th November on his way to the Shrewsbury Races. He
seemed quite well then. I saw him on Thursday, the 15th, on his return
from the races. On Friday I saw him between nine and ten, when he came
back after having dined with Palmer. He was quite sober. I saw Mr. Cook
twice on Saturday. On that day I remember some broth being sent over,
which I took up to Mr. Cook. He could not take it, as he said he was too
sick. I brought the broth down to the kitchen. I saw Palmer, and told
him that Cook would not take the broth, as he was too sick. Palmer said
he must take it, and it was taken up again to him by Elizabeth Mills. I
did not see any broth being brought over on the Sunday. Between twelve
and one on the Sunday Elizabeth Mills was taken ill, and had to leave
her work and go to bed. I saw her; she was vomiting violently. Between
four and five she returned to work, and complained to me of having been
ill from the vomiting. I saw some broth in a basin in the kitchen on the
Sunday. I do not know where it was made. It was in a sick cup with two
handles. The cup did not belong to the Talbot Arms, and it went back to
Palmer’s. Between seven and eight on Sunday morning I heard Palmer say
he was going to London on the Monday. On Monday I saw Cook after dinner.
Mr. Saunders, the trainer, visited him, and I took up some brandy and
water to them. On that night I slept in the room next Mr. Cook’s. I saw
Palmer between eight and nine that night going upstairs in the direction
of Cook’s room. I saw him in the room afterwards between twelve and one
o’clock. About twelve o’clock I was in the kitchen, when Mr. Cook’s bell
rang violently. I went up to his room, and found he was very ill. He
asked me to send for Mr. Palmer. He was screaming “murder,” and was in
violent pain. He said he was suffocating. His eyes looked very wild, and
were standing a great way out of his head. He was beating the bed with
his hands. I sent the boots for Palmer, and went and called Elizabeth
Mills. After Palmer came I went up to the room again. Cook seemed to be
more composed. Palmer told him not to be alarmed. I saw Cook drinking a
darkish mixture in a glass. I cannot remember who gave it to him, but
Palmer was in the room when it was given. When Cook put the glass to his
mouth he snapped at it. I both saw and heard him do it. He vomited the
black-looking draught. I left the room between twelve and one, and he
seemed more composed then. I saw him again on the Tuesday, and he seemed
to be much better. A few minutes before twelve o’clock on the Tuesday
night Elizabeth Mills and I were in the kitchen. Mr. Cook’s bell rang,
and Elizabeth Mills went up to answer it. I followed her upstairs, but
did not go into the room. I heard Cook scream. Elizabeth Mills went for
Palmer, and he came. He was dressed in his usual way, with a black coat
on. There was nothing peculiar about his dress. He wore a cap. After
Palmer went into the room I remained on the landing. I did not hear what
was going on inside. Palmer came out and went downstairs for something.
When he came out Elizabeth Mills asked him how Mr. Cook was, and he
replied, “Not so bad by a fiftieth part.” She and I were both together
when he said this. I went into the room before Mr. Cook died. Mr. Jones
was there in attendance upon him. Before I went into the room, and when
Palmer was there, I heard Cook ask to be turned over. After I went into
the room I do not remember hearing anything. I came out again before
Cook’s death, and did not see him die. I returned to the room
afterwards, and saw Palmer there with one of Cook’s coats in his hands.
He was feeling the pockets. I also saw him feel under the bolster I left
him in the room with the dead body. On the Thursday following I met
Palmer in the hall of the hotel. He asked me for the key of Cook’s room,
and I fetched it from the bar. He said he wanted some books and papers
and a paper knife, which were to go back to the stationer’s where he had
them from, or he should have to pay for them. I went into the room with
him. While there he asked me to go to Miss Bond, the housekeeper, for
some books she had. I brought them back with me to the room, and found
Palmer there searching on the chest of drawers among some books and
clothes belonging to Mr. Cook. I thought it was the paper knife he was
looking for, as he said, “I cannot find the knife anywhere.” Miss Bond
then came into the room, and I left. I saw Mr. Jones, who had visited
Cook on the Tuesday, on the Friday with Palmer. I heard him ask Palmer
if he knew where Cook’s betting book was. I cannot remember what Palmer
replied. He said it would be sure to be found, and asked me and the
chambermaid to go and look for it. He also said, “It was not worth
anything to anybody but Cook.” This would be between three and four
o’clock, and Mr. Stevens, who was at the Talbot Arms that day, left
about half-past four. We went to look for the betting book. Palmer did
not go with us. We searched under the bed and all round the room. We did
not look in the chests of drawers, of which there were two in the room,
both unlocked. We went downstairs and told Palmer we could not find the
book. He said, “Oh, it will be found somewhere; I will go with you and
look myself.” He did not go, but went out of the house, and I did not
see him afterwards. I cannot say how long Palmer was in the room on the
Thursday. There was no reason why we did not search the drawers for the
betting book. There were some people in the room with Mr. Cook’s corpse,
nailing the coffin, and they stood at the side of the drawers.

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Shortly after Cook refused to take
the broth, saying he was too sick, Palmer came over and said, “He must
have it.”

Did he say why he must have it?--No.

Did he say anything to the effect, “Why, he has eaten nothing for
several days”?--I cannot remember that he did.

Did he ask whether anything had been eaten by him?--Not of me.

You know, in fact, that Mr. Cook had had no substantial food?--He had
some coffee and cocoa, and something like that.

You say that on the Monday evening you saw Palmer between eight and nine
o’clock going upstairs. Are you sure it was before nine o’clock?--I am
not quite certain.

Are you sure it was before half-past nine o’clock?--No, I did not pay
particular attention to what the time was.

Are you quite sure it was before ten o’clock?--Yes, I knew he had been
to London.

Did you know what hour the train came back from London?--I did not. An
omnibus goes from the hotel to the station, starting from the hotel
about half-past seven. It is not one mile from the station. I can give
no notion of what time the express train comes into Rugeley from London,
nor do I know if it stops at Rugeley.

Do you persist that it must have been before ten o’clock that you saw
Palmer come in?--I think it was.

May it not have been a quarter past ten o’clock? You can easily have
been mistaken about an hour; are you quite certain it was before ten
o’clock?--I cannot remember now.

You have stated that when Palmer left on the Monday evening he gave Cook
something to drink in a glass; he snapped at the glass, and you said, “I
cannot remember who gave it to him”; did you see the glass in Mr. Cook’s
hands?--I cannot remember whether I saw the glass in Cook’s hands.

[Sidenote: L. Barnes]

Did you see his hand up to the glass?--I think I did. I think it was as
if he was going to catch hold of it, but somebody else was holding it.

Did you see the hand touch the glass?--I cannot remember that. I
remember some one was holding it for him.

Might he not be holding it too?--He might.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: Anne Rowley]

ANNE ROWLEY, examined by Mr. WELSBY--I live at Rugeley, and have been
employed by Mr. Palmer as charwoman. On the Saturday before Mr. Cook
died I remember being sent by Palmer to Mr. Robinson, of the Albion, for
a little broth for Mr. Cook. The Albion is an inn in Rugeley, and a
small distance from the Talbot Arms. I brought the broth, which was not
warm, to Palmer’s house and put it by the fire. I left it at the fire
and went back to my work in the kitchen. When the broth was hot Mr.
Palmer brought it to me in the back kitchen. He poured it into a cup,
which I held while he did so. He told me to take it across to the Talbot
Arms for Mr. Cook, and to say to whoever I gave it to to ask Mr. Cook if
he would take a little bread or a little toast with it, and to say that
Mr. Smith had sent it. I took it to the Talbot Arms. He did not say why
I was to say Mr. Smith had sent it. Mr. Jeremiah Smith is an attorney in
Rugeley. He goes under the name of Jerry Smith, and is a friend of
Palmer. I gave the broth to Lavinia Barnes.

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Mr. Smith was in the habit of
putting up at the Albion, and took his meals there a good deal. He was
intimate with Mr. Cook. I have not known them to dine together, but Mr.
Cook was to have dined at Mr. Smith’s that day, but was unable to do so.
The time between the broth being brought in to me and the time it was
taken to the Talbot Arms would be about five minutes.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: C. Hawley]

CHARLES HAWLEY, examined by Mr. BODKIN--I am a gardener in Rugeley, and
was occasionally employed by the prisoner in that capacity. I was in his
house on the Sunday before Mr. Cook died, between twelve and one, and
Mr. Palmer asked me whether I would take some broth to Mr. Cook. He gave
me some broth in a small cup with a cover, and told me to take it over
to the Talbot Arms. I gave it to one of the servant girls, either Mills
or Lavinia Barnes. I cannot tell whether the broth was hot or not.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: Sarah Bond]

SARAH BOND, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTON--I was housekeeper at the Talbot
Arms in November last. I saw Mr. Cook on the Thursday after he returned
from Shrewsbury Races. I heard him say he was very poorly. About eight
o’clock on Sunday evening I saw him in bed. He said he had been very
ill, but was better. Soon after I came into the room I saw the prisoner.
I asked what he thought about Mr. Cook, and he told me he was better. On
the Saturday night I spoke to him about the advisability of having some
one to be with Mr. Cook during the night. He said that either he or
Jerry Smith would be there. I also spoke to him about it on the Sunday
night, but he said that Cook was so much better he would not require any
one. He would be much better without it. I asked him if Daniel Jenkins,
the boots, should not sleep in the room, but he said he would much
rather not. On Monday morning, a little before seven, he came into the
kitchen to me. He said Cook was better, and asked me to make a cup of
coffee for him. I made the coffee. He remained in the kitchen while I
was making it, and took it from me to give to Mr. Cook. He said he was
going to London that day, and he had asked Mr. Jones to come to be with
Cook while he was away. Between eleven and twelve on Monday night the
waitress came and told me that Mr. Cook was very ill. I went up to his
room. There was no one with him. He was sitting up a little on the bed,
and seemed disappointed when I came in that it was not Palmer. He said
it was Mr. Palmer he wanted. I did not remain in the room above two or
three minutes. I did not go downstairs, but remained on the landing, and
was still there when Mr. Palmer came. I could see into the room from
where I was standing. Palmer went into the room, and I heard he was
giving him some pills. He then came out to fetch some medicine, and was
not many minutes away before he came back. After he returned, I heard
Mr. Cook was very sick and very ill. He told Mr. Palmer he thought he
should die, and he must not leave him. Mr. Palmer came out again, and I
asked him if Cook had any relatives. He said he had only a stepfather. I
saw Cook on Tuesday, between three and four, when Mr. Jones came. I took
him a little jelly shortly after six. He seemed very anxious for it, and
said if he did not have something he thought he should die. He seemed a
little better. I did not see him again alive.

[Sidenote: Sarah Bond]

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE--I did not see Palmer on the Monday evening
until a little before twelve. The last train, which stops at Rugeley at
eight o’clock, is not an express train. The express does not stop at
Rugeley, and passengers coming by the express have to take some
conveyance from Stafford. I cannot say when they would arrive in the
ordinary course. On the Monday night when I went up to Cook’s room he
seemed disappointed that it was not Mr. Palmer. He seemed to be worse
than he was. At that time Barnes had gone to fetch the doctor. Mr.
Palmer came directly I left the room. I was led to ask what relatives
the man had as he seemed so very ill, and I heard him telling Mr. Palmer
he thought he should die.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: W. H. Jones]

Mr. WILLIAM HENRY JONES, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I am a
surgeon and medical practitioner at Lutterworth, and have been in
practice for fifteen years. I have known the deceased, Cook, intimately
for nearly five years. I have known of his acquaintance with William
Palmer for over a year. He looked upon my house at Lutterworth as his
home, and I attended him if there was anything the matter with him. His
health was generally good, but he was not very robust. I think he hunted
and played cricket. On the Tuesday of the Shrewsbury Races, the day on
which his horse “Polestar” won, I spent the day with him at his
invitation. We dined together in the evening at the Raven Hotel. He
accompanied me when I left for the station. On our way there we called
at the house of Mr. Fraill, the clerk of the course. I was present
during a conversation they had along with Whitehouse, the jockey. Cook
produced his betting book and calculated his winnings. He had seven to
one. Cook was with me till I left the hotel at ten o’clock. He was not
in the least the worse of liquor, and seemed to be in his usual health.
On the Monday I received the following letter from Mr. Palmer:--

November 18, 1855.

     My dear Sir,--Mr. Cook was taken ill at Shrewsbury, and obliged to
     call in a medical man; since then he has been confined to his bed
     here with a very severe bilious attack, combined with diarrhœa,
     and I think it advisable for you to come and see him as soon as
     possible.

[Sidenote: W. H. Jones]

I was ill on the Monday when I received the letter, and did not arrive
at the Talbot Arms, Rugeley, till half-past three on Tuesday afternoon.
I saw Cook there, and he expressed himself as very comfortable, but said
he had been very ill at Shrewsbury. I examined Cook in Palmer’s
presence. His pulse was natural and his tongue was clean. When I
remarked upon this to Palmer he said, “You should have seen it before.”
I prescribed nothing for Cook at that time. I visited him several times
in the course of that afternoon, and he seemed improved in every way. I
gave him a little toast and water, which was in the room, and which he
vomited. There was no diarrhœa as far as I was aware. Mr. Bamford,
who I learned from Palmer had been attending, came about seven o’clock.
He expressed his satisfaction with Cook’s improved state of health.
Whilst Bamford, Palmer, and I were consulting what we should prescribe
for him, Cook objected to the pills he had had the previous night. He
said they made him ill. The three of us then withdrew, and Palmer
proposed that Mr. Bamford should make up the morphine pills as before,
but not to mention what they contained, as Cook objected so much to
morphine. Mr. Bamford agreed to it, and went away. Palmer and I went
into Cook’s room. I was in and out of the room during the whole evening,
and he seemed very comfortable. I observed no more vomiting nor any
diarrhœa. There were no bilious symptoms whatever, nor were there any
signs of his having recently suffered from a bilious attack. About eight
o’clock I went with Palmer over to his house. I returned to Cook’s room
in about a quarter of an hour. Palmer came back about eleven o’clock
with a box of pills. He opened them in my presence and showed me the
directions on a slip of paper round the box. He remarked, “What an
excellent hand for an old man upwards of eighty to write.” It was very
good writing indeed. Palmer proposed to Cook to take the pills, but he
protested, as they had made him so ill the previous night. Ultimately he
did take them, and he immediately vomited into the utensil. Both Palmer
and I, at his request, searched the utensil for the pills, but we found
nothing but the toast and water, so that the pills were retained. After
he vomited he lay down very comfortably, and we left him. Before he had
taken the pills he had expressed himself stronger, and had got up and
sat in a chair. During the evening he had been very jocose, speaking of
what he should do during the winter, and of his future plans and
prospects. After he had taken those two pills, at eleven o’clock, I went
downstairs and had some supper. I returned about twelve to his room, had
some conversation with him, and then went to bed, it being arranged that
I should sleep in his room, which was a double-bedded one, that night.
At the time I last talked to him he seemed rather sleepy, but quite as
well as usual, and there was nothing to excite any apprehension in my
mind. I had been in bed ten minutes, and had not gone to sleep, when he
suddenly started up in bed and called out, “Doctor, get up; I am going
to be ill; ring the bell for Mr. Palmer.” I rang the bell, and the
chambermaid came to the door. He himself called out to her, “Fetch Mr.
Palmer.” He asked me to rub his neck. I rubbed the back part of his neck
and supported him with my arm while doing so. There was a stiffening of
the muscles; a sort of hardness about the neck. Palmer came very soon
indeed; two or three minutes at the most. He made the remark, “I was
never so quickly dressed in my life.” I did not observe how he was
dressed, as I was so engaged. He gave Cook two pills, which he said were
ammonia pills. Directly he swallowed the pills he uttered loud screams,
threw himself back in the bed, and was dreadfully convulsed. As the
pills had immediately before been taken, it certainly could not have
been from their action. He said to me, “Raise me up or I shall be
suffocated.” The convulsions lasted five or ten minutes. It was at the
commencement of the convulsions that he called out to raise him up or he
should be suffocated. All the muscular fibres were convulsed; there was
a violent contraction of every muscle of the body, and a stiffening of
the limbs. When he called out to me to raise him, I endeavoured to do so
with the assistance of Mr. Palmer, but found it was quite impossible
owing to the rigidity of the limbs. When he found I could not raise him
up he asked me to turn him over, which I did. He was quite sensible.
After I had turned him over I listened to the action of his heart. I
found it gradually to weaken. I requested Palmer to fetch some spirits
of ammonia in the hopes of reviving him. Palmer fetched a bottle from
his house. He was not away above a minute. When he returned, Cook’s
heart was gradually sinking, and life was almost extinct. He died very
quietly. He was not able to take the ammonia, and it was very soon after
Palmer returned that he died. From the time when he raised himself in
bed and called upon me to go for Palmer to the time when he died would
be from ten minutes to a quarter of an hour. In my judgment, as a
medical man, he died from tetanus, or, in ordinary English parlance,
lockjaw.

Does it involve, ordinarily speaking, a mere locked jaw?--Yes, that is
the common term. Locked jaw is one of the symptoms of tetanus. Every
muscle in the body was affected in the same manner.

How would you express in ordinary English the general symptoms of what
you call tetanus in one word?--Violent spasmodic affection of all the
muscles of the body. That effects the immediate cause of death by
stopping the action of the heart, and also the breath, from its effect
on the diaphragm. It affects the respiratory muscles and stops
respiration. It is that spasm of the respiratory muscles which causes
the sense of suffocation. When death took place he was still upon his
side. He remained in that position after death. I did not turn the body
upon its back. The outward appearance of the body after death was very
dark. As there was only one candle in the room, I could not make the
observation I otherwise should have made. Both his hands, the left hand
particularly, which I had in my hand, were clenched. I observed the
clenching of the hands immediately the attack took place, when he threw
himself back immediately after taking the pills Palmer brought over.
When I was rubbing his neck I did not see the hands clenched.

Did you observe either before or at the time of death, or immediately
afterwards, anything in the position of the head and neck?--Yes; the
head was quite bent back.

When you say bent back, do you mean bent back into an unnatural
position?--Yes; by spasmodic action. The body was twisted back like a
bow; the backbone was twisted back.

[Sidenote: W. H. Jones]

By LORD CAMPBELL--When did you observe that appearance--immediately
after death, or all the time?--Indeed, after throwing himself back, he
was immediately drawn back.

Examination resumed--If I had placed the body at that time upon the
back, on a level surface, it would have rested upon the head and heels.
As his face was turned away from me, I did not observe anything
immediately after or at the time of death about the jaw. After death I
saw the jaw was not in its natural condition; it was all affected by
spasmodic action. I spoke to Palmer about the laying out of the body,
and left him alone in the room while I went downstairs to see Miss Bond.
I returned in a few minutes and found Palmer with Mr. Cook’s coat in his
hand. He remarked that I, being Cook’s nearest friend, should take
possession of his effects. I did so, and took possession of his watch
and his purse, containing five sovereigns and five shillings. That was
all I could find. I did not find any betting book or any papers. After
that, before Palmer left, he said something to me upon the subject of
affairs as between Cook and himself. He said, as near as I can
recollect, “It is a bad thing for me, as I was responsible for £3000 or
£4000, and I hope Mr. Cook’s friends will not let me lose it. If they do
not assist me, all my horses will be seized.” Nothing was said by him
about securities or paper.

By LORD CAMPBELL--In the consultation which we three medical men had on
Tuesday night nothing was said about the symptoms, the spasms, which had
occurred the night before.

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I know that Mr. Cook had been under
treatment by Dr. Savage for some time.

You knew he had treated himself a good deal with mercurial
treatment?--No, not a great deal. I know that he had had a sore throat
for two or three months. In the summer it was bad. It was slightly
ulcerated; not a very extreme case; the back part of the tongue. He
could swallow, but it gave him a little pain occasionally. It depended
upon what he did swallow. I knew he had found it necessary to apply
caustic to his tongue. For two months before his death he had ceased to
do it. After that he never complained of occasional pain in his throat
or his tongue. I did not see much of him during these two months. He was
attending most of the races.

[Sidenote: W. H. Jones]

Was he apprehensive about some spots which appeared upon his body?--I
never heard him mention it. I had heard him express apprehensions of his
being affected by secondary symptoms of venereal disease. His habits
were, generally speaking, correct, though he may occasionally have gone
astray, and perhaps was not very particular. I do not know that he had a
chancre at the time he died, although I believe he had one twelve months
ago. I was not present at either of the post-mortem examinations. I was
at Shrewsbury Races with him on the Tuesday, and I knew he was very
anxious, as the winning of the race was of great consequence to him.
After the race was run he was so excited that for two or three minutes
he could not speak to me. He was elated and happy the rest of the day,
but he was not at all intoxicated. He was a very temperate man. That
night when he was first attacked, and when Palmer came, Cook said,
“Palmer, give me the remedy you gave me the night before.” I was rubbing
his neck for about five minutes, I should think. After I turned him over
on his side to the time of his death three or four minutes would elapse.
He died so very quietly that I could hardly tell when he did die. I have
seen cases of tetanus before.

You said nothing about tetanus at the inquest?--Yes, I did; convulsions
and tetanus.

Did you not say at the time it was from over-excitement that he died?--I
could not tell the cause. I was so much taken by surprise. I said I had
no idea of the cause of death.

Whatever you said about “violent convulsions,” did you say, “I could not
tell the cause; I imagined at the time it was from over-excitement”?--Yes.

       *       *       *       *       *

[The deposition of the witness before the coroner was read.]

       *       *       *       *       *

You say in your deposition you had been in your bed a quarter of an hour
or twenty minutes. Was it not as much as twenty minutes?--I do not think
it was. I had not begun to dose. I do not remember ever having stated I
thought he died of epilepsy. Mr. Bamford said it was apoplexy; I said it
was not. I could not make up my mind what sort of fit it was. I said it
was more like an epileptic fit than apoplexy.

Re-examined--There was a partnership between Cook and Palmer about the
mare “Pereine,” but it was discontinued some months before Cook’s death,
and the mare became the property of Palmer. I have only seen one case of
traumatic tetanus.

Was that from a wound?--From a wound in the thumb. It ended in death.

How long was the patient in dying from the time he received the
wound?--Three days. The patient died of lockjaw. I have seen cases of
epilepsy.

Are there any such symptoms in epileptic fits as those convulsive spasms
of the muscles?--No; the consciousness is lost, and there is none of
this rigidity of the muscles. In apoplexy consciousness is generally
lost too. I am satisfied in my own mind that this case was not apoplexy.

[Sidenote: W. H. Jones]

By LORD CAMPBELL--Supposing he had any secondary symptoms of syphilis,
do you think they could have produced the symptoms you saw on the
Tuesday night?--No, I say not, decidedly, and for two months before
death he was clear of them, and the throat was well.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: E. Mills]

ELIZABETH MILLS was recalled and said that on the Monday morning Cook
told her that during the night he had been disturbed. He said, “I was
just mad for two minutes.” She asked him why he did not ring the bell,
and he replied he thought we should all be fast asleep, and it passed
over. He said he thought he was disturbed by hearing a quarrel in the
street.

By LORD CAMPBELL--What did he say about the street?--He thought he was
disturbed by hearing a quarrel in the street. He was not sure that it
was that which had made him ill; that he might have been asleep, and the
quarrel might have disturbed him. I cannot positively recollect whether
he said so or not.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: H. Savage]

HENRY SAVAGE, examined--I am a physician. I have known the deceased man
Cook for about four years. He was not a man of robust constitution, but
his general health was good. In the spring of 1855 he consulted me about
some spots on his skin--one on his arm and one on his forehead. He had
two shallow ulcers on the tongue corresponding to bad teeth. He thought
these spots and ulcerations were secondary syphilitic symptoms, and had
been undergoing a mild mercurial course. I recommended its immediate
discontinuance, and prescribed him quinine as a tonic, and an aperient
containing cream of tartar, magnesia, and sulphur. I never at any time
gave him antimony. He was quite well by the end of May. He still
continued to see me, as he was not quite sure about the correctness of
my notions of his not having syphilis. I examined him from time to time,
and the only thing the matter with his throat was that one of his
tonsils was slightly enlarged; it was red and tender. There was nothing
of a syphilitic character in the appearance of his throat. I saw him
about a fortnight before his death, when I recommended him to go abroad
for two years, as I wished to get him away from his turf associations. I
examined him thoroughly at that time, and beyond a very shallow scar of
some former excoriation, to which he told me he was liable, there was
nothing venereal about him. There was no chancre nor any sore on any
other part of his body.

Cross-examined--He was a weak man, and apt to take the advice of any
person he might be in company with. The last time I saw him he had a
redness over one tonsil, showing there was tenderness. He had three or
four superficial ulcers on his lips.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: C. Newton]

CHARLES NEWTON, examined--I am assistant to Mr. Salt, practising
surgeon at Rugeley. On Monday, 19th November, about nine o’clock in the
evening, Palmer came in to Mr. Salt’s surgery. He asked me for three
grains of strychnia, which I gave to him. I do not think he was in the
shop above two minutes. Between eleven and twelve on the next day I saw
him again in the shop of Mr. Hawkins, a druggist. He was in the shop
when I went in. He put his hand between my shoulders and said he wished
to speak to me. I went to the door with him and out into the street. He
asked me when Mr. Edwin Salt, the son of Mr. Salt, was going up to his
farm at Sudbury. Palmer had nothing to do with that at all. While we
were talking, a Mr. Brassington came up and entered into conversation
with me about some bills for money he had against my employer. Palmer
left us and returned to the shop, and came out again while we were still
talking. He went in the direction of his own house, which is between 200
and 300 yards away. I went into the shop after my conversation with Mr.
Brassington and saw Roberts, who was serving. I know Mr. Thirlby, who
deals in drugs. He was formerly an assistant to Palmer, and succeeded to
his business. He dispenses all Palmer’s medicines for him. About seven
o’clock in the evening of Sunday, the 25th November, I went to Palmer’s
house in consequence of being sent for by him. There was no one else
there. He asked me what dose of strychnia would kill a dog, and whether
it would be found in the stomach. I told him a grain, and that there
would be no inflammation, and I did not think it would be found. I think
he said, “It is all right,” as if speaking to himself, and snapped his
fingers. I heard the next day that the post-mortem examination of Cook’s
body was to take place. On my way to the post-mortem, about ten o’clock
in the forenoon, I saw Palmer at Bamford’s, and I told him where I was
going. He, Dr. Harland, and I went down together to the Talbot Arms for
the examination. Palmer and I were left alone together in the entrance
to the hall. He remarked it would be a stiff job, and asked me to go
over to his house for some brandy. We did so. While we were taking the
brandy he said, “You will find this fellow suffering from diseased
throat; he has had syphilis.” We then returned to the Talbot Arms. I was
examined before the coroner, but I said nothing about giving Palmer the
three grains of strychnia on Monday night.

[Sidenote: C. Newton]

Cross-examined--When I was first examined on behalf of the Crown I
mentioned the circumstance of the conversation about poisoning the dog.
Before that I mentioned it to Mr. Salt, but I cannot remember when. I
gave a statement to Mr. Gardner some time after the inquest. I mentioned
about the dog, but did not speak about the 3 grains of strychnia. I made
no mention about these matters at the inquest. I gave evidence about my
conversation with Palmer at the door of Hawkins’ shop. I knew my
evidence was with reference to the supposed purchase of strychnia by
Palmer at the shop. The first time I informed the Crown with reference
to the purchase of the 3 grains on the Monday was on Tuesday last. At
the post-mortem examination I did not point out any chancre to the
medical men there. It was not mentioned at all, and I did not see one
nor the marks of one.

Re-examined--The reason why I did not mention about the purchase of the
3 grains of strychnia before last Tuesday to the Crown was because Mr.
Salt was not on speaking terms with Mr. Palmer, and I thought Mr. Salt
would be angry at my letting him have it. I communicated the fact of my
own accord.


The Court then adjourned.




Third Day, Friday, 16th May, 1856.

The Court met at ten o’clock.


[Sidenote: C. J. Roberts]

CHARLES JOSEPH ROBERTS, examined by Mr. JAMES--In November last I was an
apprentice to Mr. Hawkins, a chemist at Rugeley. I remember that between
eleven and twelve o’clock on Tuesday, 20th November, Palmer came into
the shop and asked me first for 2 drachms of prussic acid. Whilst I was
putting it up for him Mr. Newton came in. Palmer said he wanted to speak
to him, and the two of them went out of the shop together. I saw
Brassington come up and speak to Newton when Palmer left them and came
back into the shop. I was putting the prussic acid into the bottle, and
he asked me for 6 grains of strychnine and 2 drachms of Batley’s
solution of opium. While I was making the things up Palmer stood at the
shop door with his back to me, looking into the street. He then took
them away and paid for them. After he left Newton came into the shop,
and I had some conversation with him. It would be two years before this
transaction that Palmer bought drugs in our shop. He always dealt with
Thirlby, who previously was his assistant, and is now practising as an
apothecary in Palmer’s name.

Cross-examined--I did not make any entry of the transaction in our book.
I am not in the habit of doing so when things are sold over the counter.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: W. V. Stevens]

WILLIAM VERNON STEVENS, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I am a retired
merchant living in the city. I am the step-father of John Parsons Cook,
having married his father’s widow eighteen years ago. He did not live
with me, but we were always on friendly terms. He became entitled to
property worth about £12,000. The last time I saw him alive was at
Euston station at two o’clock on the afternoon of 5th November. He
looked better than I had seen him for some time, and I said, “My boy,
you look very well; you do not look anything of an invalid now.” He
struck himself firmly on the chest and said he was quite well. The next
time I saw him was after his death, information of which I received from
Mr. Jones, who came to my house on the Wednesday. I went to Lutterworth
on the Thursday to search for a will and any papers he had left. I found
a will. When I reached Rugeley the next day I went to the Talbot Arms,
and met Palmer in the passage. I had only seen him once before. Mr.
Jones introduced us in the inn, and we then went up and viewed the
body. I was greatly struck by the appearance of the countenance, the
tightness of the muscles across the face. We all then went down to one
of the sitting rooms, and I said to the prisoner that I understood from
Mr. Jones he knew something of my son’s affairs. He replied, “Yes, there
are £4000 worth of bills out of his, and I am sorry to say my name is to
them; but I have got a paper drawn up by a lawyer, signed by Mr. Cook,
to show that I have never had any benefit from them.” I told him I
feared there would be no money to pay them, and asked if he had no
horses or property. He replied that he had horses, but they were
mortgaged. He mentioned one debt of £300 that was owing to Cook. It had
nothing to do with sporting matters, and was a personal debt from a
relative of his. I then turned round to Palmer and said that, whether
Cook had left anything or not, he must be buried. Palmer immediately
said, “Oh! I will bury him myself if that is all.” I replied I could not
hear of that. Cook’s brother-in-law was there at the time, and he also
expressed a wish to bury him. I said it was my business, as executor, to
bury him, and that I intended to bury him in London in his mother’s
grave, and that the body would have to be at the inn for a day or two.
Palmer said that would be of no consequence so long as the body was
fastened up at once. Some short time afterwards I asked Palmer for the
name of some respectable undertaker in Rugeley, so that I might order a
coffin at once. He replied, “I have been and chosen that. I have ordered
a shell and a strong oak coffin.” I expressed my surprise, and said he
had no authority to do so. At my invitation, my son-in-law, Mr. Jones,
and Palmer all dined with me at the inn. We dined about three, as I was
going back to London by the quarter-past four train. Before I left I
asked Mr. Jones to go upstairs and bring me Cook’s betting book and any
papers. He went along with Palmer, and in about ten minutes he returned,
saying he could find no book or paper. I expressed my astonishment, and
Palmer said, “It is of no manner of use if you find it.” I said I was
the best judge of that, and I understood my son won a great deal of
money at Shrewsbury. Palmer replied that when a man dies his bets are
done with, and that Mr. Cook had received the greater part of his money
on the course at Shrewsbury. I said that the book must be found, and he
replied in a much quieter tone, “Oh, it will be found, no doubt.” The
body was in the shell, and I noticed that both the hands were clenched.
I then returned to town. The next morning I communicated with the uncle
of the deceased and with my solicitor, who gave me a letter to Mr.
Gardner, of Rugeley. I returned to Rugeley by the two o’clock train,
arriving there about eight. Palmer travelled by the same train. I met
him first at Euston station, when he told me he had been summoned to
London by telegraph. I saw him again in the refreshment room at
Wolverton. We had some conversation, and I remarked that it would be as
well to know something of the complaint of which Cook died, and that I
should like his body opened. Palmer replied, “That can be done very
well,” or “That can be easily done,” or something of that sort. I saw
him again in the refreshment room at Rugby, and mentioned to him my
determination to see a solicitor in Rugeley about my son’s affairs. From
Rugby to Rugeley we travelled in the same carriage, but no further
conversation took place. When we arrived at Rugeley he again spoke about
me employing a solicitor, and offered to introduce me to one. I refused
his offer, and said I would find one myself. I then immediately
purposely changed the tone of my voice and manner, and said, “Mr.
Palmer, if I should call in a solicitor to give me advice, I suppose you
will have no objections to answer him any questions he might choose to
put to you?” He replied, with a spasmodic affection of the throat, which
was perfectly evident, “Oh, no, certainly not.” I also expressed my
desire of taking a solicitor to Hednesford, where Cook’s horses were
kept. I ought to say that, when I first mentioned the post-mortem, there
was not the slightest change in Mr. Palmer’s manner; he was perfectly
calm and collected. We then parted, he to go home and I to go and look
for Mr. Gardner. Later in the evening Palmer came to me again, and the
first thing he spoke about was the bills. He said, “It is a very
unpleasant affair for me about these bills.” I remarked that I had heard
a different account of Mr. Cook’s affairs, and that his affairs could
only be settled in the Court of Chancery. All he replied was, “Oh,
indeed,” in a lower tone. The next day, Sunday, I saw him again in the
coffee room of my hotel. He advised me not to take a solicitor to
Hednesford, but I told him I should use my own judgment upon that. Later
in the evening, I think, I saw him again. I asked him who the Mr. Smith
was who had sat up with my son, as I wished to make inquiries regarding
the missing betting book. He replied he was a solicitor of that town. I
asked him if he attended my son medically, and he said no. He then asked
me if I knew who was to perform the examination, and I told him I did
not. On the Friday, when I twice saw the body, I did not perceive any
decomposition or anything which called for its being speedily put into a
shell; on the contrary, the body did not quite look to me like a dead
body.

[Sidenote: W. V. Stevens]

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--The last time my stepson stayed in
my house was for about a month, in January and February of last year. He
had a slight sore throat then, but I do not know that it was
continuously sore. He did not complain of it. I never noticed any ulcers
about his face. Between that time and the 5th November I saw him
several times, and he did not appear to be more delicate than usual. The
reason why I mentioned to him on 5th November that he was looking very
well was because he had complained of being an invalid the winter
before. His brother and sister were rather delicate, and his father died
at the age of thirty or thirty-one.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: J. T. Harland]

Dr. JOHN THOMAS HARLAND, examined by Mr. BODKIN--I am a physician
residing at Stafford. On 26th November I made a post-mortem examination
of Mr. Cook. I called at the house of Mr. Bamford, and on my way there I
was joined by Palmer, whom I had frequently seen and spoken to at
Rugeley. He said, “I am glad you have come to make a post-mortem
examination; some one might have been sent whom I did not know; I know
you.” I asked him what the case was; that I heard there was a suspicion
of poisoning. He replied, “Oh, no! I think not; he had an epileptic fit
on Monday and Tuesday night, and you will find an old disease in the
heart and in the head.” Palmer offered to lend me instruments, as I had
brought none with me. He said a queer old man seemed to suspect him. He
also said, “He seems to suspect that I have got the betting book, but
Cook had no betting book that would be of use to any one.” After we
reached Bamford’s house, Mr. Bamford and I went to Mr. Frere’s, a
surgeon in Rugeley, and from there to the Talbot Arms, where the
post-mortem examination was proceeded with. Palmer and several others
were in the room. Mr. Devonshire operated and Mr. Newton assisted him.
The body seemed to me to be stiffer than bodies generally are six days
after death. The muscles were strongly contracted and thrown out, which
showed there was a strong spasmodic action in the body before death. The
hands were clenched; firmly closed. The abdominal viscera were the first
parts of the body examined internally. They were taken out of the body,
and were in a perfectly healthy state. The liver was healthy. The lungs
were healthy; there was blood in them, but not more than could be
accounted for by gravitation. The brain was quite healthy. There was no
extravasation of blood nor serum on the brain. There was nothing in its
appearance that would cause unnatural pressure. The heart was
contracted, and contained no blood. This did not appear to be the result
of disease, but from spasmodic action. The stomach was taken out. At the
larger end there were numerous small yellowish-white spots about the
size of mustard seed. These would not at all account for death, nor
would they have any effect on the health of any one. There may have been
numerous follicles, nothing more. The kidneys were full of blood that
had gravitated since death, and had no appearance of disease. The blood
was in a fluid state, which is a rare occurrence even in cases of sudden
death. About the whole body generally there was no appearance of disease
that would account for death. The lower part of the spinal cord was not
minutely examined on this occasion. The upper part presented a perfectly
natural appearance.

[Sidenote: J. T. Harland]

On the 25th of January the body was again exhumed, so that we might
examine the spinal cord with more attention. Dr. Monckton and I jointly
made a report on the matter. I am still of the opinion that there was
nothing in the appearance that I have described to account for the death
of the deceased. When the stomach and intestines were removed from the
body in the first examination they were separately emptied into a jar by
Mr. Devonshire and Mr. Newton. Palmer was standing at the right of Mr.
Newton. When the intestines and stomach were being placed in the jar,
and while Mr. Devonshire was opening the stomach, I noticed Palmer
pushed Mr. Newton on to Mr. Devonshire, and he shook a portion of the
contents of the stomach into the body. I thought a joke was passing
among them, and I said, “Do not do that,” to the whole. Palmer was the
only one close to them when Mr. Newton and Mr. Devonshire were pushed
together. After this interruption the opening of the stomach proceeded.
It contained about, I should think, 2 or 3 ounces of brownish liquid. It
was stated that there was nothing particular found in the stomach, and
Palmer remarked to Mr. Bamford, “They will not hang us yet.” The stomach
was then emptied into the jar along with the stomach itself. The
intestines were then examined, and nothing particular found in them.
They were contracted and very small. They were placed in the jar, with
their contents, as they were taken from the body. I then tied the jar
over with two bladders and sealed it, and placed it on the table beside
the body. At that time Palmer was moving about the room. My attention
had been called away by the examination, and I missed the jar for a few
minutes. I called out, “Where is the jar?” and Palmer, from the other
end of the room, said, “It is here; I thought it more convenient for you
to take it away.” Palmer was standing a yard or two from a door at that
end of the room. I got the jar from him. I found there was a cut, hardly
an inch long, through both bladders. The cut was quite clean, as if
nothing had passed through. I asked who had done this, and Palmer, Mr.
Devonshire, and Mr. Newton all seemed to say they had not done it. I
told Palmer I should take the jar to Mr. Frere. He said, “I would rather
you take it with you to Stafford, if you would take it there,” but I
took it to Mr. Frere’s house, tied and sealed in the way I have told.
When I noticed the slit in the bladders I immediately cut the strings
and replaced the bladders, and tied them separately again, so that the
slit was not at the top. When I returned to the Talbot Arms Palmer
asked me what I had done with the jar. I said I had left it with Mr.
Frere, and that it would go to either London or Birmingham that night
for examination.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT SHEE--On the occasion of the first
examination you say you observed follicles under the tongue; are those
pustules?--Not under the tongue, on the tongue. They are not pustules;
they are large mucous follicles, not containing matter.

Is it a sort of thickening, then, of the skin?--Of the mucous follicles
at the base of the tongue. They appeared to be of long standing, and
were very numerous.

Do they indicate that there had been much soreness there?--I have no
doubt they would produce inconvenience. They must have given some slight
degree of pain in eating and speaking.

Will you undertake to say they were not enlarged glands, enlarged by the
irritation of disease?--I do not believe they were; I have seen them
frequently.

Do you adhere to your opinion that the lungs were healthy?--Yes.

Did not Mr. Devonshire, in your presence, express a contrary opinion,
and say they were unhealthy?--He said he thought there was emphysema, as
well as congestion of the lungs.

Is that not a diseased state of the lungs?--Yes, it is an abnormal
state. I examined the white spots on the wider part of the stomach.

How did you examine them?--By removing the mucous that was on the
surface of the stomach by the finger or scalpel. I had no lens, no
glass. I should have examined them with a lens if I had had one.

Was your examination of these appearances satisfactory to you without a
lens?--Yes.

You said that the brain was healthy; what sort of examination did you
make of the brain?--The brain was carefully taken out; the external part
was first of all examined; the membranes were examined, and slices were
taken off from the apex to the base of the brain. These slices were, I
should think, a quarter of an inch thick.

Is that as thick as it should be to make a full examination?--I think
that would show any disease if there was any. The spinal cord was
examined down to the first vertebra, and we found no appearance of
disease.

Supposing you had discovered a softness of the spinal cord on that
occasion, after a full examination, might not that have been sufficient
to account for the death of Mr. Cook?--No, certainly not; softening
would not produce tetanus at all; it might produce paralysis.

[Sidenote: J. T. Harland]

Do not you think in the case of a man dying by convulsions, in order to
ascertain with any degree of certainty what the cause of his death might
be, it was necessary shortly after his death to make a careful
examination of the spinal cord?--No, I do not. It was afterwards thought
desirable. It was first suggested on 26th December.

It was in January the second examination took place; supposing there had
been a softening, do not you think, in order to discover it, it was
necessary to examine the spinal cord at an earlier period after death
than two months?--If there had been a softening it would have been
detected at the second examination; the body remaining unexamined for a
long time would not produce hardening of the spine.

That is your opinion; might not any softening at that late period be the
result of decomposition?--The spine was very little soft indeed. There
were some appearances of decomposition upon it. I examined him to see if
there was any disease on him of the venereal kind. I observed there was
a loss of substance from past disease. It was cicatrised over, and on
the cicatrix there was a small abrasion.

Then it must have been in a sore state?--The excoriation might be a
little sore. It was very small. It was a mere excoriation; merely a
little of the excoriation rubbed off.

Re-examined--There were no chancres, nothing beyond what I would term an
excoriation, except the cicatrix from the old disease. There was no
symptom of ulcerated throat, nor any appearance of anything syphilitic
there. The follicles in the tongue are often produced by a disordered
stomach, and are of no serious consequence to health. The congestion of
the lungs, which Mr. Devonshire spoke about, was due, in my opinion,
wholly to the gravitation of blood after death. There was nothing
whatever in the brain to indicate the presence of any disease. Even if
there had been, I have never heard or read of any diseased state of the
brain occasioning death by tetanus. There is no disease of the spinal
cord with which I am acquainted which produces tetanus and that form of
death. Sometimes with inflammation of the membranes of the spinal cord
there is tetanus; but there were no appearances of inflammation
whatever.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: C. J. Devonshire]

CHARLES JOHN DEVONSHIRE, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTON--I am an
undergraduate of London University. I performed the post-mortem on 25th
November at the Talbot Hotel. The body was pale. The fingers were
clenched firmly; the thumb of the left hand was thrown into the palm,
and the fingers were clenched over. The mouth was a little contracted.
The body was stiff, much beyond the usual stiffness of death. I took out
the stomach and opened it with a pair of scissors. As I was opening the
stomach there was a pressure or push from behind. I did not pay any
attention to it, and I do not think any of the contents of the stomach
escaped. I punctured the anterior surface of the stomach, and a spoonful
of the contents fell out on the chair. I tied up where it was punctured,
and it was put into a jar and sealed by Dr. Harland. On the same day I
got the jar at Mr. Frere’s, and gave it, on the 28th, to Mr. Boycott,
Messrs. Lander & Gardner’s clerk. The body was opened again on the 29th
to get the liver and kidneys and spleen. They were taken from the body
with some blood, placed in a stone jar, which I sealed and handed to Mr.
Boycott on the 30th. In consequence of something Mr. Palmer had said, I
examined the body to find if there were any indications of syphilis, but
I found none. I also took out the throat, and found there were natural
papillæ there; they were larger than usual at the base of the tongue.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: John Myatt]

JOHN MYATT--I am postboy at the Talbot Arms at Rugeley. On 28th of
November last I was engaged to drive Mr. Stevens to Stafford station.
Before I started Mr. Palmer asked me if I was going to drive them to
Stafford. I told him I was. He asked if I was going to take the jars. I
said I believed I was. He said there was a £10 note for me if I would
upset them. I told him I should not. I saw him next morning, and he
asked me who went with the fly. I said Mr. Stevens, and I believed one
of Mr. Gardner’s clerks.

Cross-examined--How did you know what he meant by “going to drive them
to Stafford”?--I knew I was going to take some one to Stafford.

Did he use the name “Stevens” before he used these words to you?--He
mentioned Mr. Stevens afterwards.

You understood the word “them” to mean Mr. Stevens and his party?--Yes.

Were the words used not to this effect, “I should not mind giving £10 to
break Mr. Stevens’ neck”?--I do not remember that.

The “£10 to upset him”?--These were the words to the best of my
recollection.

When he said “to upset him” did he say anything about him at the
time?--He did say something about it, that it was a humbugging concern,
or something to that effect. I do not recollect him saying he was a
suspicious, troublesome fellow.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: S. Cheshire]

SAMUEL CHESHIRE--I was for upwards of eight years postmaster at Rugeley.
I am now from Newgate suffering punishment for having opened a letter as
postmaster. I know the prisoner very well, he and I having been
schoolfellows together. I was with him at Shrewsbury Races the day
“Polestar” won. I saw Mr. Cook at the Talbot Arms on the Saturday, 17th
November. He was in bed at the time. On the Tuesday following Palmer
asked me to meet him at his house and bring a receipt stamp with me. I
did so. He said he wanted me to write out a cheque, which, he said, was
for money Mr. Cook owed him. He produced a copy from which I was to
write, and I copied it. He gave me as a reason why he wanted me to write
it that Mr. Cook was too ill, and he said Wetherby would know his
writing. After I had written it I left it with him, and he said he was
going to take it over for Mr. Cook to sign.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--We know that it went out of his possession
afterwards, and therefore perhaps we ought to follow it.

[Evidence was then given to show that this cheque for £350 was sent to
Mr. Wetherby, the secretary to the Jockey Club, that it was returned to
Palmer, that notice to produce it was given by the prosecution, and that
it was not produced.]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: S. Cheshire]

SAMUEL CHESHIRE, recalled--After Mr. Cook’s death, on the Thursday or
Friday, Palmer sent for me again. I went to his house and saw him there.
He had a sheet of quarto paper in his hand, which he asked me to sign.

LORD CAMPBELL--Was there anything written upon this quarto sheet of
paper?--There was.

Examination resumed--I asked him what it was, and he said, “You know
that Cook and I have had some dealings together, and this is a document
which he gave me some days ago, and I want you to witness it.” I asked
him what it was about, and he replied, “There is some business that I
have joined him in, and which was all for Mr. Cook’s benefit, and this
is a document stating so,” or something of that kind. The paper was a
post quarto paper of a yellow description. I observed the writing on it,
and thought it was Mr. Palmer’s. I told him I could not sign it, as I
might perhaps be called upon to give evidence in the matter at some
future day. I said I had not seen Cook sign it, and that the post office
authorities would not like me to be called on to give evidence as to a
document which took place while I was absent. Palmer replied that it did
not matter my signing it, and he dared say they would not object to Mr.
Cook’s signature. I gave the paper back to him and left.

(Notice to produce this paper was given, but it was not produced.)

[Sidenote: S. Cheshire]

Palmer was in the habit of calling for letters addressed to his mother,
and which I gave to him. I cannot remember whether during October and
November, 1855, I gave him letters addressed to his mother or addressed
to Mr. Cook. I remember seeing Palmer while the inquest was going on. He
came to me on the Sunday evening previous to 5th December, and asked me
to let him know if I had seen or heard anything fresh. I understood
that was a temptation for me to open a letter, and I told him I could
not do that. He said he did not want me to do anything to injure myself.
The letter which I read, and for which I am suffering, was a letter from
Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner, the solicitor. I did not give nor send that
letter to Palmer. I merely told him in few words of its contents. I only
read part of the letter, and told Palmer the contents as much as I
remembered. That was on the morning of the 5th of December. I told
Palmer that I found in Dr. Taylor’s letter that there were no traces of
strychnia found. I cannot recollect what else I told him. He said he
knew they would not, for he was perfectly innocent.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: J. H. Hatton]

Captain JOHN HAINES HATTON--I am chief constable of the police of
Staffordshire.

Did you obtain this letter, which I have just proved to be in Palmer’s
handwriting, and envelope from Mr. Ward, the coroner?--I did; I endorsed
it.

     My dear Sir,--I am sorry to tell you that I am still confined to my
     bed. I do not think it was mentioned at the inquest yesterday that
     Cook was taken ill on Sunday and Monday night in the same way as he
     was on the Tuesday night when he died. The chambermaid at the Crown
     Hotel, Masters, can prove this. I also believe that a man by the
     name of Fisher is coming down to prove he received some money at
     Shrewsbury. Now here he could only pay Smith £10 out of £41 he owed
     him. Had you better not call Smith to prove this? And again,
     whatever Professor Taylor may say to-morrow, he wrote from London
     last Tuesday night to Gardner to say “We have this day finished our
     analysis, and find no traces of either strychnia, prussic acid, or
     opium.” What can beat this from a man like Taylor, if he says what
     he has already said, and Dr. Harland’s evidence? Mind you, I know,
     and saw it in black and white, what Taylor said to Gardner, but
     this is strictly private and confidential, but it is true. As
     regards his betting book, I know nothing of it, and it is of no
     good to any one. I hope the verdict to-morrow will be that he died
     of natural causes, and thus end it.--Ever yours.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: S. Cheshire]

SAMUEL CHESHIRE, recalled, cross-examined--I knew Cook very well, but I
could not speak to his handwriting. I am sure that when Palmer came to
me he used the words, “seen or heard anything.” He did not simply ask if
I had “heard anything.” On the Saturday before Cook’s death I dined with
Palmer and Mr. Smith. Cook was expected to dine also, but he was too
ill. Palmer said he must call in Bamford.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: G. Herring]

GEORGE HERRING--I knew Mr. Cook. I was at Shrewsbury Races last
November, staying at the Raven, and saw Cook each day. I saw him with
money on the Wednesday. He was counting up a lot of Bank of England and
other notes. I could not say how many there were, but there were a
considerable number. He showed me his betting book, containing entries
of bets made at the races. On Monday, 19th November, I received a letter
from Palmer asking me to call upon him at 7 Beaufort Buildings at
half-past two that day. I called, and he said he wished to see me about
settling Cook’s account, as the physician had advised Cook not to go out
that day, it being damp. Palmer had a paper in his hand, and read out
from it a number of items which he asked me to take down. I did so, and
I have here the list I made. He said--“Receive of Ingham, £350; Barr,
£300; Green, £140; Morris, £200; Nelson, £30; pay yourself £6 and
Shelley £30.” I said that made it £984, and he said--“That is what Cook
makes it; if I give you £16 it will make £1000; out of that pay yourself
for my bill.” I said, “I know no difference between the two bills”; he
said, “Pay Padwick £550 and Pratt £450, making £1000.” He asked me to
send cheque for the last two at once. I refused to do so, as I had not
received the money. He wished me particularly to pay Pratt the £450, as
he said it was for a bill or joint-bill of sale on the mare. I had an
account of £45 against Palmer, while he had one of £40 against me. He
settled this £5, along with the £16 to make up the £1000 previously
spoken to, by a Bank of England £50 note. I do not know the number of
the note. Before he left he pressed me to send the cheques to Pratt and
Padwick immediately before the closing of the bank. He said, “When you
have settled this account write down word to either me or Cook.” I
replied, “I shall certainly write to Mr. Cook,” because I thought I was
settling Mr. Cook’s account. He said, “It does not matter which.” I
asked him if I addressed the letter, “Mr. Cook, Palmer, Rugeley, would
that be correct,” and he said “yes.” I received all the money at
Tattersall’s on Cook’s account, except £110 of Mr. Morris, who only paid
£90 instead of £200. I sent a cheque for £450 to Pratt from
Tattersall’s. I wrote a letter to Cook from Tattersall’s. The next day I
received a telegraphic message, which I gave to Captain Hatton on the
coroner’s inquest. In consequence of this message I wrote a letter the
same day to Cook.

(Evidence was given to show that Herring held three bills of exchange,
each for £200, on which Cook and Palmer were jointly responsible to him.
He received £200 from Cook on one bill; another £200 bill he deducted,
as instructed by Palmer from the £1000. The third bill he paid himself
for by not paying Padwick as Palmer instructed him. Besides these bills
Herring held a fourth for £500 drawn by Palmer on his mother, and
endorsed by him and Cook. It was proved that this acceptance was not in
Mrs. Palmer’s handwriting.)


The Court then adjourned.




Fourth Day, Saturday, 17th May, 1856.

The Court met at ten o’clock.


[Sidenote: George Bate]

GEORGE BATE, examined by Mr. JAMES--I am a farmer, and was in the
employment of the prisoner during September, October, and November of
last year. I was engaged to look after his horses, and received no
stated salary, sometimes two sovereigns and sometimes one sovereign a
week. I remember in the month of September, 1856, being in the company
of Mr. Cook and Mr. Palmer. Something was said by one of them to me
about an insurance being proposed on my life.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE objected to this evidence, and his objection was
sustained.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: T. B. Curling]

Mr. THOMAS BLIZZARD CURLING, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I am a
Fellow of the College of Surgeons, and surgeon to the London Hospital. I
have published a work on the subject of tetanus. Tetanus signifies
spasmodic affection of the voluntary muscles of the body. There are two
sorts of tetanus, idiopathic and traumatic. Idiopathic tetanus is
tetanus originating, as it were, as a primary disease, without any
wound. Traumatic is from a wound. During twenty-two years I have been
surgeon to the London Hospital. I have never seen a case of idiopathic
tetanus. I have seen over fifty cases of traumatic tetanus. Traumatic
tetanus first manifests itself by a stiffness about the jaws and the
back of the neck; rigidity of the muscles of the abdomen usually sets
in; a dragging pain at the pit of the stomach is almost a constant
attendant of spasm of the diaphragm, and in many cases the muscles of
the back are sensibly affected. Then the spasms, though continuous, are
liable to aggravation in paroxysms. As the disease goes on these
paroxysms become more frequent and more severe. When they occur, the
body is drawn backwards; in some instances, though less frequently, it
is bent forwards; then, in an acute case, a difficulty in swallowing is
a very common thing; a difficulty in breathing also during the paroxysm,
a choking sensation. The disease may end, supposing it be fatal, in two
ways; the patient may die somewhat suddenly of suffocation, owing to
closure of the opening of the windpipe, or the patient may be worn out
by the severe and painful spasms, and the muscles may relax and the
patient gradually sink and die. Traumatic tetanus is generally fatal,
and the locking of the jaw is an almost invariable symptom. A symptom
very characteristic of the disease is a contracted condition of the
eyelids, a raising of the angles of the mouth, and a contraction of the
brow. The lower extremities are sometimes affected, and sometimes the
upper; the muscles affected are chiefly those of the trunk. I have never
heard of traumatic tetanus being produced from sore throat or from
chancre. A case of traumatic tetanus which ends fatally takes from one
day to four days, or longer, before death ensues. I never heard of a
case in which a man would be attacked one day and then have twenty-four
hours’ respite, and be again attacked the next. The symptoms of the
death of Mr. Cook, given by Mr. Jones, the surgeon, were not consistent
with any form of traumatic tetanus I ever heard of. There was the sudden
onset of the fatal symptoms; in all cases that have fallen under my
notice the disease has been preceded by the milder symptoms of tetanus.
The symptoms given by the woman Mills as to the Monday night were not
those of tetanus. The sudden onset and rapid subsidence are not
consistent with what I call the true form of tetanus. The poison, nux
vomica, produces tetanic convulsions.

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Any irritation of the nerves
proceeding to the spinal cord might produce tetanus. I agree with Dr.
Watson in his “Lectures on the Principles and Practice of Physic,” that
all the symptoms of tetanic convulsions may arise from such slight
causes as the sticking of a fish bone, the mere stroke of a whip lash
under the eye, from the cutting of a corn, from the bite on the finger
by a tame sparrow, from the extraction of a tooth, from the operation of
cupping, and simple things of that character. Idiopathic tetanus would
not be so likely to bring the patient to the hospital as a sudden wound
leading to traumatic tetanus. A syphilitic sore would not be likely to
lead to tetanus.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--A medical practitioner who saw a
case of convulsions would be able at once to know the difference between
symptoms of general convulsions and of tetanus. One of the
characteristic features of tetanus is that the consciousness is not
affected.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: Robert Todd]

Dr. ROBERT TODD, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I have been in
practice as a doctor for twenty-five years, and have been a physician to
King’s College Hospital for many years. I have lectured on the disease
called tetanus, and have published the lectures. I have seen two cases
of what seemed to be idiopathic tetanus. It is a very rare thing. The
term tetanus ought not to be applied to cases of poisoning, for the
symptoms are so essentially distinct from the disease. I have had under
my own observation cases of traumatic tetanus. When once the disease has
begun there are remissions, but not complete; rather a diminution of the
severity of the symptoms. There are two classes--an acute class and a
chronic class. The acute cases will terminate in the course of three or
four days, and the chronic cases will go on from nineteen to twenty-two
or twenty-three days, perhaps longer. Sometimes epilepsy will produce
convulsions, and sometimes the convulsions from epilepsy assume somewhat
of a tetanic character, but they are essentially distinct from tetanus.
When the epileptic convulsions assume somewhat of the tetanic form, it
is quickly over, not continuous. In epilepsy there is an abolition of
consciousness for the time. I have heard the symptoms described which
accompanied this gentleman’s seizure and death, and also the appearances
after death and the post-mortem examination. I am of opinion there was
neither apoplexy nor epilepsy. There are poisons which will produce
tetanic convulsions. The chief of these poisons is nux vomica. I have
seen animal life destroyed by strychnia, but never human life. The
effects of a large dose, such as a grain of strychnia given in a liquid
form to a cat or dog, would be apparent in the course of ten minutes.
The symptoms would be spasmodic action of the muscles, chiefly of the
trunk, the spine, the spinal muscles, producing a very marked
opisthotonos, as it is called, where the spine is thrown back, the head
thrown back, and the trunk bowed in a very marked manner. The
extremities are generally stiffened, jerked out with violent jerks. The
muscles are rendered stiff and rigid from the spasms. The stiffness
remains, and does not perfectly relax. Fresh paroxysms come in always
attended with the peculiar curving back of the head and neck and spine.
The extremities of the animals are powerfully stiffened out, distended,
every now and then powerfully bent, and jerked out again. Death ensues
within half an hour, unless it is a small dose. There is a marked
difference between cases where death ensues after taking strychnia and a
case of tetanus such as I was describing just now from idiopathic or
traumatic causes. The continuity of the symptoms in strychnia poisoning
is very characteristic: as long as the poisonous influence lasts, the
symptoms last, but the poisonous symptoms will subside after a time. The
shortness of the duration of the symptoms is decidedly in favour of
strychnine poisoning. There are no other poisons that I know of that
produce convulsions of a tetanic character. The symptoms described which
attended this gentleman’s death are not referable to idiopathic or
traumatic tetanus. I have never seen a person die from the
administration of strychnia, but I have seen a person suffer from the
consequences of an overdose. There was the opisthotonos and there was
the consciousness perfectly retained. There was also dilation of the
pupils, a peculiar convulsion of the muscles of the trunk, and the limbs
were stiffened out. Difficulty of breathing is common to both tetanus
and to tetanic convulsions from strychnia. In the case of Mr. Cook, I
think it is an important distinction that he seems to have been able to
swallow sufficiently easy, and there was no rigidity of the muscles of
the jaw which is characteristic of tetanus, of disease, or of wound. I
think the symptoms in his case, judging from my own experience, were
those of tetanus from strychnia.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE--The proximate effect of tetanus, whether
caused by idiopathic or traumatic tetanus, or strychnia, is probably the
same on the nerves leading from the spine. The particular affection of
the nerves is unknown. In the disorder of convulsions there are cases of
very slight affection, others more serious, and so on. I adhere to the
opinion given by me in my lectures on “Diseases of the Brain and Nervous
System,” that the results of the administration of strychnine exactly
imitate the convulsions of tetanus. It does not produce the exact
phenomena of the disease in a clinical sense. I have no doubt the
peculiar irritation of the nerves in tetanus is identical with the
peculiar irritation of the nerves in strychnine poisoning. In traumatic
tetanus I do not recollect any instance of the limbs being affected
before the jaw. An examination of the spinal cord in tetanic affections
shortly after death is of importance. If it were deferred as late as two
months, there would be, to a certain extent, a fallacy. There are morbid
appearances produced by wounds after death which sometimes simulate
diseased conditions before death.

Supposing the spine to be affected by decomposition, would not what may
be called the diseased softening of the spine previous to death be
confused or obliterated?--You would not be able to speak with certainty
as to simple softening if the examination had been long after death.
There is nothing in the post-mortem examination on which any one could
positively say that the patient died from the ordinary disease of
tetanus. I think granules on the spinal cord, such as I have heard of
here, are not likely to cause tetanus. In the cases of the animals to
whom strychnia was administered they went off into a second spasm
immediately they were touched. They retained that tendency as long as
the influence of the poison lasted. I examined the animals that were
killed by strychnia anatomically. The right side of the heart was not
generally full; it was empty, and the heart contracted. Death where
strychnine was administered is partly due to the difficulty of action of
the respiratory muscles, but chiefly to a general nervous exhaustion
which the violence of the paroxysm produces.

Would not the difficulty of action of the respiratory muscles producing
death tend to leave the heart full?--I do not think it was asphyxia.

[Sidenote: Robert Todd]

Then I think I may take you as differing from the great mass of
authorities on strychnia poisoning?--I don’t know; I think there are
differences of opinion on that subject. Persons sometimes have
convulsions after poison by morphia. The time in which convulsive
symptoms come on after morphia would depend on the dose entirely. I
cannot say whether it would be later than strychnia. It is not a
question I have devoted attention to.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--In death resulting from tetanus I
should not expect to find anything peculiar about the heart. I heard the
evidence of the gentlemen who examined the spinal cord after Mr. Cook’s
death. From their description it appeared to me that those parts were in
such a condition that any indication of disease might have been
discovered.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: Sir B. Brodie]

Sir BENJAMIN BRODIE, examined by Mr. JAMES--I was surgeon at St. James’s
Hospital for a great number of years, and have had a considerable
practice. I have had many cases of death from tetanus. Death from
idiopathic tetanus is very rare in this country. I heard the description
of the symptoms attending the death of Mr. Cook. As far as the spasmodic
contraction of the muscles is concerned, the symptoms resemble those of
traumatic tetanus; as to the course the symptoms took, that was entirely
different. I heard about the attack on the Monday night and its ceasing,
and the patient being comfortable and composed during the Tuesday, and
then the attack again about ten minutes before twelve on the Tuesday
night. The symptoms of traumatic tetanus always begin, so far as I have
seen, very gradually; the stiffness of the lower jaw being, I believe,
invariably the symptom first complained of; then the contraction of the
muscles of the back is always a later symptom; the muscles of the
extremities are affected in a much less degree than those of the neck
and trunk, except in some cases where the injury has been in a limb, and
an early symptom has been a spasmodic contraction of the muscles of that
limb. I do not recollect a case in which in ordinary tetanus there was
that contraction of the muscles of the hand which I understand was
stated to have existed in this instance. Ordinary tetanus rarely runs
its course in less than two or three days, and often is protracted to a
much longer period; I know one case only in which the disease was said
to have terminated in twelve hours.

LORD CAMPBELL--Probably in that case the early symptoms had been
overlooked?--I never knew these symptoms of ordinary tetanus to last for
a few minutes, then subside, then come on again after twenty-four hours.

[Sidenote: Sir B. Brodie]

Examination continued--I do not believe that death here arose from what
we ordinarily call tetanus, either idiopathic or traumatic. I never knew
a death from tetanus to result from a sore throat, or a chancre, or any
other form of syphilitic disease. The symptoms of the death of Mr. Cook
are not consistent with a fit of apoplexy. I never saw a case in which
the symptoms that I heard described arose from any disease.

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I remember one case of idiopathic
tetanus in our hospital, but I doubted its deserving the name of
tetanus.

Considering how rare tetanus is, would you think that the description of
a chambermaid and of a provincial medical man, who had only seen one
case of tetanus, could be relied upon by you as to what the disease
observed was?--I must say I thought the description very clearly given.
I have never seen the syphilitic poison produce convulsions except as a
consequence of disease in the bones of the head.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: Henry Daniel]

Mr. HENRY DANIEL, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I was for upwards of
twenty-eight years surgeon to the Bristol Hospital. I have seen fully
thirty cases of tetanus, of which two were idiopathic. One of these two
ended fatally. Idiopathic tetanus is of very rare occurrence. The
symptoms are not so severe as those in traumatic tetanus. The symptoms
which accompanied the attack of Mr. Cook before his death were quite
distinguishable from those cases of tetanus which have come within my
experience. In pointing out the differences I would repeat very probably
the words of Sir Benjamin Brodie. Tetanus, so far as my experience goes,
begins with uneasiness in the lower jaw, followed by spasms of the
muscles of the trunk, and most frequently extending to the muscles of
the limbs. Lockjaw is almost invariably a symptom of traumatic in
particular. It is one of the earliest symptoms. I have seen the
clenching of the hands, but I do not think it is an ordinary symptom of
common tetanus. I cannot recollect a case the duration of which has been
less than from thirty to forty hours. I have never known a syphilitic
sore producing tetanus. The symptoms I have heard described in Mr.
Cook’s case are not referable to either apoplexy or epilepsy. In both
these there is a loss of consciousness, but in cases of tetanus that I
have seen consciousness has been retained throughout all the period. In
my experience of tetanus the symptoms have been invariably continuous
without any interruption. In my judgment the symptoms of Mr. Cook could
not be referred to idiopathic or traumatic tetanus.

[Sidenote: Henry Daniel]

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE--I do not know that cases are mentioned in
books where there is a long interval of some hours between the symptoms.
I have not read Dr. Todd’s book, nor Mr. Curling’s book, nor Dr.
Copland’s book on the subject. I have been out of practice some
seventeen or eighteen months, and have not looked into the reported
cases of tetanus of late. In my opinion the symptoms of tetanic
convulsions do not vary much in different cases. There may be an
affection of a muscle in this man that there is not in the other, in a
leg or an arm. In tetanic affections death is caused by exhaustion and
suffocation.

[Sidenote: Samuel Solly]

Mr. SAMUEL SOLLY, examined by Mr. WELSBY--I have been connected with St.
Thomas’s Hospital as lecturer and surgeon for twenty-eight years. I have
either seen or had under my care twenty cases of tetanus, all of which
were traumatic, except one, in which I was doubtful whether it was
traumatic or idiopathic. In the latter case the symptoms were slower in
their progress and generally rather milder. The shortest period I can
remember before the disease arrived at a point is thirty hours. The
difference between Mr. Cook’s attacks and the cases I have seen is that,
in my experience, there has been a marked expression of the
countenance--that is the first symptom; it is a sort of grin, and the
symptoms have always been continuous. The symptoms in Mr. Cook’s case
are not referable to either epilepsy or apoplexy, or any disease that I
ever witnessed.

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--A marked expression of the
countenance, a sort of grin, frequently occurs in all violent
convulsions, which assume, without being tetanus, a tetanic form and
appearance. They are not a numerous class. It is difficult to
distinguish between them and idiopathic tetanus in the onset, but not in
the progress. I heard the account given by Mr. Jones of the last few
moments before Mr. Cook died.

That he uttered a piercing shriek, fell back, and died, did he
not?--Yes.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I beg your pardon; there was an interval.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--No, no; five or six minutes.

LORD CAMPBELL--He died very quietly.

Cross-examination resumed--I heard the description of the shriek with
the convulsion; but it was the shriek that called the medical man into
the room. That was at the height of the attack. In some respects that
last shriek and the paroxysm that occurred immediately afterwards bear a
resemblance to epilepsy. Death from tetanus accompanied with convulsions
seldom leaves any trace behind; but death from epilepsy leaves behind it
some few effusions of blood on the brain or congestion of the vessels.

[Sidenote: Samuel Solly]

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--Convulsions that take place in
epilepsy are not at all of tetanic character. I say that Mr. Cook did
not die from epilepsy, because there were none of the symptoms there.
When a patient dies with epilepsy he dies perfectly unconscious.
Ulceration of the brain from injury, a sudden injury to the spinal cord,
irritation of the teeth in infants, all produce convulsions. But those
convulsions in their progress are not similar to the convulsions of
tetanus. There is no progressive movement and no appearance about the
face or jaw of having tetanus.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: R. Corbett]

Dr. ROBERT CORBETT, examined by Mr. JAMES--I am a physician in Glasgow.
I remember a patient of the name of Agnes Sennet who died in the Glasgow
Royal Infirmary on 29th September, 1845, after taking some strychnia
pills intended for another patient. I saw her while she was under the
influence of the poison. The symptoms I noticed were a retraction of the
mouth, face much suffused and red, the pupils dilated, the head bent
back, the spine curved, and the muscles rigid and hard like a board. She
died about an hour and a quarter after taking the pills. There would be
a quarter of a grain in each of the three pills she took.

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--The retraction of the angles of the
mouth was continuous, but it was worse at times. I did not observe it
after death. The hands were not clenched, but semi-bent after death.
That semi-bending of the hand is a very common thing in cases of death
by violent convulsions. Twenty minutes after taking the medicine she was
attacked by the symptoms.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: Dr. Watson]

Dr. WATSON, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I am one of the physicians
in the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, and attended the case of Agnes Sennet
spoken to by the last witness. I saw her about a quarter of an hour
after the symptoms first began. She was in violent convulsions; her arms
were stretched out and rigid; her feet and legs were also rigid. Just at
that moment she did not breathe. That paroxysm subsided almost
immediately, and fresh ones came on after a very short interval. They
occurred at intervals until they destroyed her. She was about half an
hour in dying. She seemed perfectly conscious during the time. At the
post-mortem examination the spinal cord was quite healthy. The heart was
contracted.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: Mary Kelly]

MARY KELLY, examined by Mr. BODKIN--I was a patient in the Glasgow Royal
Infirmary, and saw Agnes Sennet take the pills, which were intended for
another patient. I saw her take two pills only. After taking the pills
she went and sat down by the fire, and in about three-quarters of an
hour she was taken ill. She fell back on the floor, and a nurse and I
lifted her into bed. The nurse cut her clothes off, and she never moved
after she was put upon the bed; she was just like a poker. She never
spoke after she fell.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: C. Hickson]

CAROLINE HICKSON, examined by Mr. JAMES--In October, 1848, I was nurse
and lady’s maid in the family of Mrs. Serjeantson Smith, at Romsey, in
Hampshire. On the 30th of that month Mrs. Smith was unwell, and some
medicine was sent to her in the afternoon, about six o’clock, by a Mr.
Jones, a druggist in Romsey. Shortly after seven o’clock next morning I
saw her take about half a wineglass of the medicine. About five or ten
minutes afterwards I was summoned to her bedroom, and on entering I saw
her leaning upon a chair, and I thought she had fainted. She appeared to
suffer from what I thought spasms. I went out and sent for Mr. Taylor,
surgeon, and on returning to the bedroom I found some of the other
servants assisting to support Mrs. Smith. She was then lying on the
floor and screaming very much, very loudly, but did not open her teeth.
She asked me to have her legs pulled straight, and I found them drawn up
very much. She still screamed as if in great agony, and requested some
water to be thrown over her, which I did. Her feet were turned inwards.
I put a hot-water bottle to them, but this had no effect. Shortly before
she died she said she felt easier, and her last words were, “Turn me
over.” I did so. A few minutes after this she died. She was conscious,
and knew me during the whole time. From the time she took the medicine
until she died would be about an hour and a quarter.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE--From the time I first saw her in the spasms
she could not sit up at all. It was a continuous, recurring fit, and
lasted about an hour. She only seemed easy for a very short time before
her death. Her teeth were clenched during the whole time.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: F. Taylor]

Mr. FRANCIS TAYLOR, examined by Mr. WELSBY--I am a surgeon at Romsey. I
was summoned one morning to the house of Mrs. Serjeantson Smith. I
arrived between eight and nine o’clock, shortly after she died. I saw
the body then. The hands were clenched; the feet were contracted, turned
inwards; and the soles of the feet were hollowed up. This appeared to
have been from recent spasmodic action. The limbs were remarkably stiff.
The body was still warm. The eyelids were totally adherent, almost to
the eyeballs. I made a post-mortem examination three days after death.
The contraction of the feet continued, but it was gone off somewhat from
the rest of the body. No trace of disease was found. The heart was
contracted and perfectly empty, and the blood was fluid. I analysed the
medicine Mrs. Smith had taken. It originally contained nine grains of
strychnia, and Mrs. Smith had taken one-third. As the truth was so
apparent, only a very general examination of the stomach and bowels was
made, but still sufficient to find traces of strychnia.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: Jane Witham]

JANE WITHAM, examined by Mr. JAMES--In March last I was in attendance on
a lady who died. I remember her taking some medicine, after which she
became ill. She first complained of her back, and when I went to her I
observed her head was drawn back, and I could not get at her back. She
was in bed. I noticed she had twistings of the ankles, and her eyes were
drawn aside and staring. She first complained of illness on the 25th of
February, and she died on 1st March. She had several attacks, between
each of which she got better. She generally complained of a pricking in
her legs and twitching of the muscles in the hands, and she compared
them to a galvanic shock. During the attacks she requested her husband
to rub her legs and arms. The first attack was on the Monday, and she
died on the Saturday about ten minutes to eleven at night.

(This case was that of Dr. Dove’s wife.)

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--It was on the commencement of the
spasms that she requested her legs to be rubbed. On the Saturday night
she could not bear them to be touched. On that night the spasms were
much stronger than on the other days. On the Saturday she did not speak
but once or twice. During the interval of the spasms on the Saturday
touching her brought the spasms on. She could swallow on each of the
days except the Saturday, when her mouth was quite closed. After death
her body was stiff.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: G. Morley]

Mr. GEORGE MORLEY, examined by Mr. WELSBY--I was the medical attendant
on the lady referred to by the last witness. I had been attending her
for about two months before her death for a functional derangement. I
saw her on the Monday before her death lying in her bed. I observed
several convulsive twitchings of her arms. I saw her on the Saturday
about the middle of the day. She was much better, and in a composed
state. She complained of an attack she had had in the night, and spoke
of pains and spasms, affections of the back and neck. I and another
medical gentleman made a post-mortem examination on the Monday. We found
no disease which would account for death. There were no abrasions, nor
any wound or sore. The hands were semi-bent, the fingers curved, and the
feet were strongly arched. We applied several colour tests to the
contents of the stomach for the purpose of detecting the presence of
poison. On each occasion we produced the appearance characteristic of
strychnia. After the separation of the strychnine by chemical analysis
we inoculated two mice, two rabbits, and one guinea pig with the stuff
taken from the stomach. We observed in each of the animals more or less
the effects usually produced by the poison strychnia--general
uneasiness, difficult breathing, convulsions of the tetanic kind,
muscular rigidity, bending backwards, especially of the head and neck, a
violent stretching of the legs. In the case of the animals where death
resulted the muscular rigidity continued without any intermission.
There was an interval of relaxation, but immediately after death the
muscles became very rigid, more so than at rigor-mortis. We afterwards
made a similar series of experiments on some animals with strychnia
itself, both in solid and liquid forms. The symptoms and the results
generally were exactly the same as those I have described in the case of
the other animals.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE--I did not see the patient during any severe
attack. I observed that when the animals were touched it brought on the
symptoms. That is a very marked result. Directly they are touched they
give a sudden start, and pass into a severe spasm. At the post-mortem
examination the lungs were very much congested. The muscles generally
were dark and stiff. There was a decided quantity of bloody serous
effusion over the brain. There was a notable quantity, but not a large
quantity, of serum slightly tinged with blood in the membranes of the
spinal cord. The large spinal veins were very much congested, as were
the membranes of the spinal marrow. We opened the head first, and that
led to a great deal of blood flowing from the head. That would make it
uncertain whether the heart was full or empty. The right sides of the
hearts of animals that have been poisoned by strychnia are generally
full. From one to two hours is the longest time in animals at which I
have perceived the first effect of strychnia come on after it has been
taken. I made experiments in conjunction with Mr. Nunneley, and my
impression is that the interval has been as long as one hour. I
discovered strychnia with all the tests I applied with more or less
distinctness. I have detected strychnia in the stomach two months after
death, and after decomposition had proceeded to a considerable extent.

[Sidenote: G. Morley]

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I have given to the animals which I
have killed from half a grain to two grains. The animals experimented on
were cats, rabbits, and dogs. The strychnia, I think, acts on the
nerves, but a part may be taken into the blood also and act through the
blood. The poison is absorbed. We searched the stomach to find the
presence of the strychnia. The strychnia which we found in the stomach
would be that which was there in excess beyond that which had been
absorbed in the system. The strychnia that has been absorbed into the
system is sufficient to destroy life. The excess that remains in the
stomach is inactive. I should expect to fail sometimes to find strychnia
in the stomach if the minimum quantity capable of operating to the
destruction of life had been administered. If death resulted from a
series of minute doses of this poison, administered for a space of
several days, it is my opinion that the appearances would be likely to
be different after death from what they would, supposing death was
produced rapidly by one dose.

Re-cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Is it your theory that in the
act of poisoning the poison is absorbed and ceases to exist as poison,
as strychnia?--I am inclined to think so. I have thought much upon that
question. I am not decided in my own mind.

What chemical reason can you give for your opinion?--My opinion rests on
the general fact that organic substances acting on the human body, such
as food or medicine, are frequently changed in composition. It is
possible that strychnia may have been discovered in the blood and liver
after effecting the operation of poisoning, but I do not know that it
has.

Do you know whether strychnia can be decomposed by any sort of
putrefying or fermentative process?--I have no fact to show that it can,
and I doubt if it is.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: E. D. Moore]

Mr. EDWARD DUKE MOORE, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTON--I was formerly in
practice as a surgeon. About fifteen years ago I was attending a
gentleman for paralysis, and had been giving him some very small doses
of strychnia. Subsequently I made him up a stronger dose containing a
quarter of a grain. In about three-quarters of an hour I was summoned to
come back and see him. He was stiffened in every limb. His head was
drawn back, and he was screaming, frequently requesting that we should
turn him, move him, and rub him. His spine was arched. We tried to give
him a mixture of ammonia with a spoon. He snapped at the spoon with a
sort of convulsive grasp to take it. He was suffering about three hours
altogether. He survived the attack, and was perfectly conscious the
whole time.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT SHEE--He recovered from the spasms in about
three hours, but the rigidity of the muscles remained for the rest of
the day and part of the next day. He was completely recovered the next
day after the attack, and the patient himself said he thought his
paralysis was better.


The Court then adjourned.




Fifth Day, Monday, 19th May, 1856.


[Sidenote: Alfred Taylor]

Dr. ALFRED TAYLOR, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I am a Fellow of
the College of Physicians, a lecturer on medical jurisprudence at Guy’s
Hospital, and the author of a well-known treatise on poisons and on
medical jurisprudence. Among other poisons, I have made strychnia the
subject of my attention. It is the produce of the nux vomica. There is
also in the nux vomica a poison of an analogous nature called bruchsia,
which differs from it only in point of strength. The difference of the
two poisons is relatively estimated from one-sixth to one-twelfth,
bruchsia being one-sixth to one-twelfth the strength of strychnia. I
have never witnessed an instance of the action of strychnia on the human
subject. I have tried a variety of experiments, I think about ten or
twelve, on animal life with strychnia. Rabbits have always been used for
these experiments. The symptoms produced by the poison have been on the
whole very uniform. I have given a quantity varying from one-half to two
or three grains. I have found half a grain sufficient to destroy the
life of a rabbit. I have given it in both solid and liquid form. When
given in a fluid state it produced its operation in two or three
minutes; when given in a solid state, in the form of pill or bolus, from
about six to eleven minutes, I think. The time is influenced by the
strength of the dose, and also by the strength of the animal. The poison
is first absorbed into the blood; it is then circulated through the
body, and the poison especially acts on the spinal cord. That is the
part of the body from which the nerves affecting the voluntary muscles
proceed. The entire circulation through the whole system is considered
to take place about once in four minutes.

LORD CAMPBELL--Are you speaking of the human circulation?--Yes; the
circulation in the rabbit is quicker.

Examination resumed--How is it the absorption would be quicker in a
rabbit?--I think it is from the effects produced; that will also depend
on the state of the stomach, as to whether there be much food in the
stomach and whether the poison comes in immediate contact with the inner
surface of the stomach. The poison must first, I believe, be absorbed
before it acts on the nervous system.

[Sidenote: Alfred Taylor]

Will you describe the series of symptoms from the commencement to the
close?--The animal for about five or six minutes does not appear to
suffer; it moves about freely and actively. It then, when the poison
begins to act, suddenly falls on its side. There is a trembling of the
whole muscles of the body, a sort of quivering motion arising from the
poison producing those violent and involuntary contractions. There is
then a sudden paroxysm of it; the fore legs and the hind legs are
stretched out, the head and the tail are drawn back so as to give it the
form of a bow. The jaws are spasmodically closed, the eyes are
prominent, protruding. After a short time there is a slight remission of
the symptoms, and the animal appears to lie quiet, but the slightest
noise or touch reproduces convulsive paroxysms. There is sometimes a
scream or sort of shriek; the heart beats very violently during the fit,
and after a succession of these fits the animal dies quietly.

There is not invariably, immediately prior to death, a remission of the
symptoms?--I have only known an animal has died by having the hand over
the heart. It has been in a state of spasms at that time. In one or two
cases the animal has died quietly, as if there was a remission;
sometimes it dies apparently during the spasms itself.

What appearance have you observed after death which would be different
from the ordinary appearances--the outward appearances? Are the muscles
more than usually rigid?--In some instances the animal has been rigid
throughout; that is to say, it has died in a spasm, and the rigidity has
continued, the muscles so strongly contracted that for a week afterwards
it was possible to hold the animal horizontally extended by the hind
legs without the body falling. In an animal killed the other day the
body was flexible at the time of death, but it became rigid about five
minutes after death. I have opened the bodies of animals that have been
thus destroyed. I have found no appearances in the stomach or intestines
which would indicate any injury there. I have found in one or two cases
congestion of the vessels of the membranes. In other cases I have not
found any departure from the ordinary state of blood. The membranes of
the spinal cord and brain are a continuation one of the other, so that
it is not easy to have congestion of one without congestion of the
other. The congestion of those membranes has been due to fits which the
animal has had before death. In three out of five cases I failed to
discover any abnormal condition of the spinal cord or brain. As to the
hearts of animals thus killed, from all that I have seen the heart has
been congested with blood, the right side especially. The description
given by Elizabeth Mills and Mr. Jones of the symptoms which accompanied
the attack on Mr. Cook are similar to those I have seen in animals to
which I have administered strychnia.

[Sidenote: Alfred Taylor]

How long does it take in the case of rabbits to which you have
administered strychnia from the time the first symptoms manifest
themselves to the time of the death?--They have died in various
periods--one died in thirteen minutes, one in seventeen minutes; that, I
should mention, would be the whole time. The symptoms appear more
rapidly when the poison is administered in a fluid state, and death has
taken place in five or six minutes after. The experiments which I have
particularly noticed and performed lately, and which I am about to
detail, have been in reference to solid strychnia. In the first the
symptoms began in seven minutes, and the animal died in thirteen minutes
from the time the poison was given; in the second the symptoms appeared
in nine minutes, the animal died in seventeen minutes; in the third the
symptoms appeared in ten minutes, the animal died in eighteen minutes;
in the fourth the symptoms appeared in nine minutes, and the death took
place in twenty-two minutes; in the fifth the symptoms appeared in
twelve minutes, and the death took place in twenty-three minutes. In the
human subject, supposing this poison to be administered in the shape of
pills, I should expect it would take a longer period before the poison
began to act, because it requires that the pill structure should be
broken up in order to bring the poison in contact with the mucous
membrane of the stomach.

[Sidenote: Alfred Taylor]

Given that the poison is administered in both cases, to the rabbit and
the human subject, in the shape of pills, should you expect a longer
period before it began to act on the human subject than the rabbit?--I
do not think we can fairly draw any inference; the circulation and
absorption are very different. It is very probable that there would also
be a difference between one human subject and another in the power of
taking the thing up with more or less rapidity. The strength of the dose
would make a difference; a large dose would be more rapid than a small
dose. I have experimented upon the intestines of animals to reproduce
the strychnia or to discover it. (Dr. Taylor described the chemical
tests.) These colour tests, as they are called, are, I think, very
fallacious. There are other vegetable matters to which, if these colour
tests are applied, similar results as to colour would be obtained. A
mixture of sugar and bile will produce the purple and red tint, for
instance. Vegetable poisons are more difficult of detection by chemical
processes than the mineral ones, and the tests are more fallacious. In
four cases of animals destroyed by strychnia Dr. Rees and I endeavoured
to reproduce the strychnia, and then applied to it those colouring tests
which I mentioned just now. We also tried the effect of taste. In one
case by the colour test we satisfied ourselves of the presence of
strychnia; in another there was a bitter taste in the liquid, but no
indication of strychnia by the colour test. In other two cases there was
no indication at all of the presence of strychnia. In the first case we
had given a dose of two grains at intervals; in the second case one
grain; in the other two cases one grain and half a grain.

How did you account physiologically for the absence of any indication of
strychnia where you know strychnia to have been given and to have caused
death?--By absorption into the blood so that it is no longer in the
stomach; it is in a great part too changed in the blood. In the case of
the larger dose there would be a retention of some not absorbed. That
would be in cases beyond what was required for the destruction of life.
If the minimum of the quantity required to destroy life was given, I do
not think I would find any. It would be removed by absorption, and no
longer discoverable in the stomach.

Are there any chemical means you are acquainted with whereby the
presence of this poison can be detected in the tissues?--There are not;
there is no process I am acquainted with when it is in a small quantity;
so far as I know it cannot be detected.

In addition to this distribution of the half grain, which you tell us is
known to have destroyed human life, over the whole system, in your
opinion does it undergo decomposition as it mixes itself with the animal
tissues?--I believe it undergoes some change in the blood. That
increases the difficulty in detecting it in the tissues. I have never
heard of its being separated in a crystallised state from the tissues.

[Sidenote: Alfred Taylor]

After the post-mortem examination on the body of Mr. Cook some portion
was sent up to me. I experimented to ascertain if there were any poison
present. We sought for prussic acid, oxalic acid, morphia, strychnia,
veratrea, a poison of white hellebore, the poison of tobacco, hemlock,
arsenic, mercury, antimony, and other mineral poisons generally. We only
found small traces of antimony. The part which we had to operate upon
was in the most unfavourable condition for finding strychnia if it had
been there. The stomach had been completely cut from end to end; all the
contents were gone, and the fine mucous surface, on which any poison if
present would be found, was lying in contact with the outside of the
intestines, all thrown together. There was also succulent matter on the
surface of the mucous membrane, derived from the intestines, the
contents of which partly escaped. The inside of the stomach had been
forced into this mass of intestinal succulent matter; at any rate, it
was lying so. In journeying up to London it must have been shaken in
every possible way. The contents of the intestines were there, but the
contents of the stomach were gone. If there had been any of this poison
present I should have expected to have found it in the contents of the
stomach and on the mucous membrane. At my request other portions of the
body were sent--the liver, the spleen, and the two kidneys; in addition,
a small bottle of blood, unlabelled, giving us no idea whence it was
taken. We analysed all those portions. We searched for mineral poison in
the liver and kidneys, and discovered antimony in an eighth part of the
liver; we analysed only the left kidney and the spleen, and there were
traces of antimony in each. The quantity was less in proportion in the
spleen than in the other parts. The blood contained antimony.

Would its being found in the blood enable you to form any opinion how
shortly before death the antimony had been given?--It is impossible to
say with any precision, but I should say shortly before death--within
some days; the longest period known at which antimony has been found in
the blood, after a person has ceased to take it, was eight days. I heard
the account by the servant girls of the vomiting of Mr. Cook; I also
heard the account given of his vomiting at Shrewsbury, and by the
medical men, Gibson and Jones, and Dr. Bamford’s deposition as to the
concomitant symptoms. In my opinion, the vomiting would be such as might
be produced by antimony. Tartar emetic is soluble in fluids, and if
mixed with broth or toast and water would not affect the colour.

From these traces of the antimony can you form any judgment as to the
time when the antimony was taken?--It is impossible to say with any
precision, but I should say within two or three weeks at the outside. We
did not find any perceptible quantity dissolved in the fluids of the
body and the washings of the stomach; therefore I should infer there was
no evidence of any given within some hours of death. I think that which
I found in the liver might have been administered within eighteen hours
of death or within two days. I know by experience it takes a shorter
time to get to the liver. Antimony does not affect the taste of anything
if it is given in quantities which would cause vomiting. If a large
quantity was taken at once it might leave a choking or constricting
sensation, as if the throat was contracted. There was no trace of
mercury. I should have expected to find mercury according to the
quantity taken. If a few grains had been taken recently before death I
should expect to find some trace in the liver. Supposing a man had been
taking mercury for any syphilitic affection within anything like a
recent period before death I should expect to find it. I heard the
evidence which was given as to the deaths of Mrs. Smith, Agnes French,
and the lady referred to, and also the case of the gentleman of whom Mr.
Moore spoke. Judging by the results of my own experiments and studies, I
agree that those deaths were occasioned by strychnia. Mr. Cook’s attacks
appear to me to be of a similar character.

As a professor of medical science do you know any other cause in the
nature of human diseases to which the symptoms of Mr. Cook’s death can
be referred except to strychnia?--I do not.

[Sidenote: Alfred Taylor]

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--In the course of your examination
you have frequently used the words “traces of antimony.” What was the
meaning of “trace”?--A very small quantity.

In analytical chemistry does it mean an imponderable quantity?--I do not
apply it in that shape. Some chemists mean that. I mean we obtained some
quantity in that sense from many parts, and that the quantity thus
calculated would make a ponderable quantity in the whole. We have about
half a grain.

You did not actually ascertain it to amount to half a grain?--No. I do
not think a quarter of a grain would have explained the quantity we
obtained. I will undertake to say there was half a grain to the best of
my judgment.

In all parts of the body you examined?--There was more in the parts of
the body examined, but we extracted that quantity.

In your judgment would that be sufficient to cause death?--No. I was
first asked to investigate this case on Tuesday, 27th November, by Mr.
Stevens. Either on that day or subsequently he mentioned the name of Mr.
Gardner to me. After Mr. Stevens spoke to me he and Mr. Boycott came
together with these jars.

You wrote a letter, the whole of which I will read to you. It is in
reply to a letter received from Mr. Gardner--

     Dr. Rees and I have compared the analysis to-day. We have sketched
     a report, which will be ready to-morrow or next day. As I am going
     to Durham Assizes on the part of the Crown, in the case of _Reg._
     v. _Wooler_, the report will be in the hands of Dr. Rees, No. 26
     Albemarle Street. It will be most desirable that Mr. Stevens should
     call on Dr. Rees, read the report with him, and put such questions
     as may occur. In reply to your letter received here this morning, I
     beg to say that we wish a statement of all the medicines prescribed
     for deceased (until his death) to be drawn up and sent to Dr. Rees.
     We did not find strychnia nor prussic acid or any trace of opium.
     From the contents having been drained away, it is now impossible to
     say whether any strychnine had or had not been given just before
     death. But it is quite possible for tartar emetic to destroy life
     if given in repeated doses; and, as far as we can at present form
     an opinion, in the absence of any natural cause of death, the
     deceased must have died from the effects of antimony in this or
     some other form.

Was that your opinion at the time?--It was. That was all we could infer
from the chemical analysis.

[Sidenote: Alfred Taylor]

Have you not told me to-day that the quantity of antimony that you found
in Cook’s body was not sufficient to account for death?--Perfectly so;
but what was found in Cook’s body was not all he took. We found
antimony, and we could not account for its being there. I wrote to know
whether antimony had been given as a medicine, and I considered, as
people had died from antimony, it was necessary to have information of
the symptoms connected with the man’s death, which I knew nothing about
at the time; finding antimony there and no explanation, I put it as the
only hypothesis to me to account for death.

Had you any reason to think any undue quantity had been administered to
him?--I could not speculate on that from the quantity there, for I did
not know at all what quantity he had taken, and whether it had been
prescribed medicinally.

May not the injudicious use of quack medicines containing antimony, such
as James’ powder or other mixtures, have accounted for as much antimony
as you found in the body of Mr. Cook?--Any antimonial preparation would
account for it. I knew strychnia was bought before we sent in the
report. Mr. Gardner gave the information in a letter in reply to that
which has been read that strychnia, prussic acid, Batley’s sedative of
opium, had been bought by the prisoner. After giving my evidence at the
inquest I returned to town. Soon after I knew that the prisoner had been
committed on the charge of wilful murder.

You knew, of course, that his life depended in a great degree on your
opinion?--No; my opinion was in reference to the death by poison; I
expressed no opinion of the prisoner’s guilt. I knew I would be examined
as a witness upon his trial. I wrote a letter to the _Lancet_ on the
subject, contradicting several misstatements which were made regarding
my evidence. I have never had under my own observation the effects of
strychnia on the human body; but I have written a book upon the subject.

Do you, from your reading, know of any fatal case in which the patient
under strychnia poison has had, while the paroxysm lasted, as much
command over the muscles and voluntary motion as Mr. Cook had on the
Monday and Tuesday nights, according to the evidence of Mills and
Jones?--I do not see that he had much command over the muscles of
voluntary life. His symptoms are quite in accordance with the ordinary
action of strychnia.

Can you tell me a single case of a patient seized with tetanic symptoms
by strychnia poison sitting up in his bed talking?--He was seized with
the tetanic symptoms after he sat up in his bed.

Do you know of a single case of the symptoms of poison by strychnia
commencing or exhibiting themselves during any time of the paroxysm by
the operation of beating the bed?--There have been only about fifteen
cases altogether; I have not heard of a person taken ill in bed before.

[Sidenote: Alfred Taylor]

Is not the beating of the bed well known under the name of malasaux; is
it not a very common symptom of ordinary convulsions?--No, I do not
think it is the case, not to my knowledge. I have not a case of a
person sitting up in bed and beating the bed.

Have you known any instances in which the patient has screamed before he
was seized with the fit?--No. That is common in convulsions not
occasioned by strychnia poisoning. In many cases they scream very soon
after the spasm sets in; the pain felt is very severe.

This is before the convulsions begin?--No, I have never known that. I
have known cases in which they speak freely, but not after the paroxysm
has commenced; I do not remember a case at the present time.

Can you tell me or refer me to any one case in which the effect of the
strychnia affection or paroxysm in a fatal case has been as long after
the ingestion of the poison as in Cook’s case on Tuesday night?--Yes. In
a case communicated to the _Lancet_ of 31st August, 1850, p. 259, by Mr.
Bennett, one grain and a half of strychnia, taken by mistake, destroyed
the life of a healthy young female in an hour and a half, which is
remarkable, as no symptoms appeared for an hour.

May I take it that is the longest period which has elapsed between the
ingestion of the poison and the commencement of the symptoms on
record?--No, I think not.

Do you know a single case in which the symptoms have manifested
themselves as long as an hour and a half after the ingestion of the
poison?--No, I do not.

Do you know any case of strychnia poison in which the patient has
recovered from a paroxysm in as short a time as Mr. Cook did, he being
well before the morning?--I do not remember any, but I can conceive in
medical practice such cases.

Do you know any case of strychnia poison in which there was so long an
intermission of the paroxysm as between the two fits of Monday and
Tuesday night?--No, I do not.

As you choose to go upon rabbits, do you not know that it constantly
happens, even in rabbits, that the spasm and the contraction instantly
cease immediately with death, or just before death, and that the body
becomes perfectly pliant?--No, I do not. It does so in some instances,
in one out of five cases.

[Sidenote: Alfred Taylor]

Do you agree in this opinion of Dr. Christison--“I have not altered the
statement as to this point in the former edition, that is, that the
rigidity supervenes at an early period after death; yet I strongly
suspect the authors who describe the spasm which precedes death to
continue as it were without the rigidity that occurs after death must
have observed inaccurately, for, in the numerous experiments that I have
made and witnessed upon animals, flaccidity of limb continued after
death”?--Dr. Christison speaks from his own experience; I speak from my
own.

Have you any reason to say that the clenching of the hand is a
distinctive feature of strychnia poison?--It is the result of violent
tetanic spasms. It occurs in other violent spasms.

In all forms of convulsion?--No; the great point is this, that in
tetanus it remains so; in other convulsions it comes and goes.

Is it always so?--That is according to my knowledge.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I have met with three cases in a
human subject in which it has appeared that the heart was found empty
after death, where the death had taken place from strychnia. I think the
emptiness of the heart is owing to spasmodic affection, the effect upon
the heart in the last moment of life. I know of no reason why that
should be more likely to be the case in the human subject than in a
small animal like a rabbit. The only thing I would observe is, that I
think the heart is generally more affected by the paroxysm, so that the
blood accumulates.

Suppose the paroxysms short and violent, and cause death in a few
minutes?--That is the kind of case in which I should expect to find it
empty. The rigidity after death in the cases where I found it always
affected the same muscles, the muscles of the limbs, specially the
muscles of the back. In the case of poisoning by strychnia, where the
rigidity was relaxed in death, it returns while the body is warm.

Would the rigidity of the extremities as long as two months after death,
the clenching of the hands, and the twisting of the feet, afford you any
indication of whether the person died of tetanus?--I have never known
such a case. That would indicate, in my opinion, great violence of the
spasm with which the party died.

With regard to the duration of time in which the effects of the poison
would begin to act, to show itself, would it be uniform, do you think,
in all persons to whom the same quantity of poison might be given?--It
would vary according to the constitution and the strength, according to
the power of absorption.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: G. O. Rees]

Dr. GEORGE OWEN REES, examined by Mr. JAMES--I am a Fellow of the
College of Physicians, and Lecturer on Materia Medica at Guy’s Hospital.
I believe strychnia is absorbed always before it produces the symptoms.
If enough strychnia is given to destroy life, that might be done without
our being able to discover it after death. I agree with Professor Taylor
that it is the excess that is found. Where vitality is destroyed by the
effects of the poison, and an excess remains, I would expect with care
to discover that excess. The symptoms in the cases of death from
strychnia that have been given are analogous, in my opinion, to those of
Mr. Cook, and to those produced by strychnia in the experiments I have
seen made on animals.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: R. Christison]

Professor ROBERT CHRISTISON, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I am a
Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Professor of Materia
Medica to the University of Edinburgh. I published in 1845 a treatise on
poisons in relation to medical jurisprudence. Among other poisons, I
have turned my attention to strychnia. It acts upon the human frame by
absorption into the blood, and then by acting on the nervous system. I
have seen a case of strychnia poisoning, but not a fatal one, in a human
subject. I have frequently seen experiments tried upon animals--frogs,
rabbits, cats, dogs, and one wild boar. In most of my experiments I have
given very small doses, a sixth part of a grain, but sometimes as much
as a grain. The first symptom that I have observed has been a slight
tremor and unwillingness to move, then frequently the animal jerks its
head back slightly, and very soon after that all the symptoms of tetanus
come on, which have been so often described in the evidence of previous
witnesses. There is occasionally an intermission of the spasms for a
short while. Where the poison has been introduced into the stomach,
between five or six minutes and twenty-five minutes have elapsed from
the commencement of the symptoms to the death of the animal. From the
giving of the poison to the first symptoms coming on, the appearance of
tremor, I have seen as long as twelve minutes elapse, and from the first
commencement of the symptoms to their termination in death from five or
six minutes to twenty or twenty-five minutes. The symptoms have always
been very much the same. Where we can trace it very correctly, I think
the jaws and the back of the neck are affected first, then the trunk and
the extremities in such rapidity that it is very difficult to follow
them in succession. I have sometimes observed differences in individuals
of the same species; the intermission sometimes is wanting; some lie in
one long continuous spasm, with scarcely any intermission, but that is
uncommon. I have generally found that the animal is in a state of
flaccidity about the period of the termination of life. I have always
observed an interval before the rigidity that takes place after death.
There is a cessation of the symptoms immediately before death; the
rigidity is gone, the body is flaccid. The rigidity is renewed very soon
after death. I have frequently opened the bodies of the animals that
have thus been killed. I never could find that the poison had produced
any apparent effect upon the stomach or intestines. I have never found
any apparent effect on the spinal cord or brain which I could trace
satisfactorily to the poison. I have always found that the heart of the
animal after death contained blood. Others have found it devoid of
blood, but I have not. In the one case of the human subject which I saw
the symptoms were the fixing of the jaw, spasmodic retraction of the
head, slight grinning expression of the mouth, and a slight stiffness of
the arms and legs. There was no convulsion of the muscles of the trunk,
nor any convulsive movement of the arms and legs in that case. I have
collected all the cases that have occurred up to the time of the
publication of my book as far as I am aware. The poison appears to
require a longer time in producing its effect in the larger animals than
the small. In the case of the wild boar, the poison was injected into
the chest. The animal died in ten minutes, from the third of a grain. I
think there are cases where strychnia, given to the human subject in the
shape of nux vomica, has not operated for about an hour. Strychnia
itself is generally given in the solid form, sometimes in the fluid
form. When given in the fluid form the symptoms are not so long in
appearing as when given in the solid form. When given in the shape of a
pill the time it takes to act depends very much upon the material used
for making the pill. To make the appearance of the symptoms as late as
possible the poison might be mixed up with resinous materials, which are
all difficult of digestion. Such materials would be within the knowledge
and reach of a medical man, and some are often used for making ordinary
pills. Absorption would not begin until the pill came to be broken up or
digested; the less soluble the pill the longer would be the period
required.

Now, independently of that, does the state of knowledge upon this
subject enable you to predicate with anything like certainty or accuracy
the period that would be required in the human subject before such
poison would begin to operate after it has been taken into the stomach;
does the state of science enable you to form an opinion as to the
precise time, or near the precise time, that it would require for this
poison to operate?--I do not think we can fix from our present knowledge
the precise time for the poison beginning to operate. When we give
poison to an animal for the purpose of watching the effect of the
poison, we give it in a manner in which it would act most rapidly,
whether in the fluid or the solid form. We take care that the animal is
fasting, and have every circumstance favourable for the action of
poison. We mix it up with materials that are readily soluble in the
stomach. I have seen a good many cases of tetanus arising from wounds,
but very few from natural diseases.

[Sidenote: R. Christison]

Is there, in your opinion, any marked difference between what I may call
natural tetanus and the tetanus of strychnia?--I would not rest much
upon the little difference of particular symptoms, but rather upon the
course and the general circumstances attending them. First, that in all
the natural forms of tetanus the symptoms begin and advance much more
slowly; and, secondly, they prove fatal much more slowly. When once set
up in natural forms of tetanus there is no intermission. Where the first
paroxysm does not prove fatal there are short intermissions in tetanus
from strychnia. I heard the evidence given by Elizabeth Mills of what
took place on the Monday, and by Mr. Jones of what took place on the
Tuesday night when Mr. Cook died.

Now, of the two classes of tetanus, to which should you refer the spasm
and other symptoms spoken to by those two witnesses?--To strychnia, or
one of the natural poisons containing it--nux vomica, St. Ignatius’s
bean, snakewood, and a poison called exhetwick. They belong to different
plants of the same genus, from all of which strychnia may be obtained.
There is no natural disease that I have ever seen or that I otherwise
know to which I can refer these symptoms which I have heard described.

When death takes place from tetanus or tetanic convulsions, does
consciousness continue?--As long as one can make an observation upon it,
it remains. When the animal is in a state of strong universal spasm it
is impossible to make any observation on its consciousness. The heart of
a human subject killed by strychnia has sometimes blood in it and
sometimes not. Whether the heart contains blood or not depends upon the
particular mode of death, or the dose varying. Spasms of the heart would
expel the blood.

Where death has taken place from strychnia I should not expect to find
it where the quantity taken is small, but where there is a considerable
excess over the quantity necessary to destroy life by absorption I
should expect to find it. Colouring tests are, I think, uncertain in
some respects. Vegetable poisons are generally more difficult to detect.
There is one I know for which there is no test I know of. The stomach
that was sent to Dr. Taylor to operate upon, from the description that
he gave of it to-day, was in a very unsatisfactory condition. If I had
been called upon to analyse such a stomach, I should not have
entertained any reasonable expectation of doing any good with it if I
had not been informed that there was a considerable quantity of
strychnia present. I have no doubt, from the evidence I have heard as to
the Leeds case, the Glasgow case, and the Romsey case, that they were
deaths from strychnia. The symptoms in these cases appear to me very
similar to those of Mr. Cook.

[Sidenote: R. Christison]

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE--From my own observation, I should say that
animals who die from strychnia die of suffocation--asphyxia; but in
another part of my book which is referred to, I leave the question open.
By asphyxia I mean stopping of the respiration.

Where is it in your book?--It is under the head of nux vomica, at the
bottom of page 898.

I do not find that meets the case?--It leaves the question open; it
takes place through an influence on the heart sometimes, and through an
influence on the respiration; it is now more open, particularly from the
cases which have occurred of death from strychnia.

In the animals poisoned by strychnia that you examined was there blood
in the right cavity?--Yes, in both.

You state in your book, and you tell me that when death does not take
place suddenly in a fit of spasms, the person continues to be affected
for twelve or fourteen hours, with small or milder paroxysms. Is that a
statement which, according to your subsequent knowledge, is correct?--I
have known the effects cease in a shorter time.

You state on page 903, after mentioning a case where the body was rigid,
“the state of rigidity, however, does not invariably occur; on the
contrary, in animals the limbs become very flaccid immediately after
death, but the usual rigidity supervenes at an early period.” I presume
the rigidity of which you speak is the rigidity of death,
rigor-mortis?--Yes.

You have a note--“I have not altered the statement as to this point in a
former edition, yet I strongly suspect that authors who describe the
spasms which produce death, and continue the rigidity after death, must
be inaccurate.” Is that your present opinion?--I think it is very
likely, the interval being very short, that the attention may not have
been attracted to the fact of there having been an interval of
flaccidity. There have been some cases mentioned, very strong
indications certainly, of the spasm having continued from the spasm of
life to what we call spasm of death; but I still think the differences
which are indicated in different cases may be explained on the
supposition that there has been a want of minute and accurate attention.

Now, you mention a case on page 906, where a boy, when he was touched,
was immediately thrown into a fit. Is it your present impression that,
in cases of poisoning by strychnia, there is a tendency to throw the
patient into a fit when touched?--That is the only case. In animals it
is very remarkable; it is not noticed in the generality of cases. I have
been struck with the fact that it has not more often been noted. Dr.
Watson’s book mentions one. It is not that the absence of it is noted,
but that it is not mentioned at all. I have invariably observed it in
animals, unless you touch them very gently indeed.

[Sidenote: R. Christison]

You stated that care was taken in administering strychnia to animals to
administer it to them fasting. Do you think it not likely it would
supervene more quickly if administered to an empty stomach?--Certainly.

If resinous substances were used in a pill, would they not be found in
the stomach on analysis afterwards?--No; if they were not acted upon
they might pass into the intestines and be carried off.

Then the strychnia would be discharged with them, would it
not?--Certainly, or gradually acted upon with the resinous substances.

I suppose if the resinous substances prevented the poison acting
rapidly, it would prevent its absorption into the blood?--For a time.

If so, the more likely to leave portions of it in the stomach or
intestines as the case may be?--The more likely.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--Would that materially depend on the
quantity of the dose?--Both on the dose and on the time during which the
pill was allowed to remain. It appears that colour tests are not to be
relied upon in the case of strychnia in an impure condition. In the
first place, you may not find indications of strychnia, and secondly,
they are subject to fallacy, even if the strychnia is pure, from other
substances not containing strychnia presenting similar appearances.


The Court then adjourned.




Sixth Day, Tuesday, 20th May, 1856.

The Court met at ten o’clock.


[Sidenote: John Jackson]

Dr. JOHN JACKSON, examined by Mr. JAMES--I am a member of the College of
Physicians. I have been in practice for twenty-five years in India, and
have seen cases of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus. Idiopathic is more
common in India than in this country. I have seen not less than forty
cases. It is common with children. In children there is a more marked
symptom of lockjaw, but in adults there is no difference between the
symptoms of idiopathic and traumatic. I have always seen idiopathic
tetanus preceded by a peculiar expression of the countenance, stiffness
in the muscles of the throat and of the jaw. In infants it will kill in
forty-eight hours; in adults, arising from cold, it is of longer
duration, and may continue many days, going through the same grades as
the traumatic form.

Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--The patient always appears
uncomfortable for some time before the attack comes on. His appetite and
desire for food are not much affected. He may take his food as usual
within twelve hours of the preliminary symptoms.

During the twelve hours, supposing the attack to be the first one under
which he suffers, does he seem not to relish his ordinary food?--His
attention is more directed to the stiffness of his mouth and the
stiffness of his neck.

You said to within twelve hours of the attack he relishes his food as if
no attack was impending, but does he not appear less desirous of food
and less inclined to eat it?--I have never heard that complaint.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--What interval has occurred in those
cases that have come under your attention between the preliminary
symptoms and the tetanic convulsions?--In an infant, not more than
twelve hours, and in an adult, from twelve to twenty-four hours;
sometimes more than that.

And from the commencement of the tetanic convulsions to death, what
time?--That will vary; three days to ten days; it may take place early
sometimes, perhaps in two days, but that is early.

Does that apply to traumatic as well as to idiopathic tetanus?--They are
both alike, when the disease sets in, as regards the course of the
symptoms.

Are the symptoms more or less severe in India than in this climate?--I
do not see there is any difference; when once set up, the symptoms of
tetanus are the same.

[Sidenote: John Jackson]

In all your experience, did you ever know a case in which the disease
ran its course and ended in death in the space of twenty minutes or half
an hour?--I have never seen it.

       *       *       *       *       *

[The rest of this day, after Dr. Jackson’s evidence, was occupied with
taking evidence that there was nothing in Palmer’s papers to show joint
transactions between him and Cook; as to Pratt’s and Padwick’s accounts;
as to Palmer’s pecuniary position generally; as to the forgery of his
mother’s name, and the forgery of an endorsement on a cheque for £375 of
Cook’s name, by which he passed into his own account that sum which was
intended for Cook.]


The Court then adjourned.

[Illustration: Mr. Serjeant Shee.]




Seventh Day, Wednesday, 21st May, 1856.

The Court met at ten o’clock.

Speech for the Defence.


[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--May it please your lordships, gentlemen of the
jury--I should pity the man who could rise to perform the task which it
is now my duty to attempt unoppressed by an overwhelming sense of
diffidence and of apprehension. Once only before has it fallen to my lot
to defend a fellow-creature upon trial for his life; it is a position,
even if the effort should last but for a day, of a nature to disturb the
coolest temperament and try the strongest nerves; how much more so when,
during six long days, in the eye of my unhappy client, I have been
standing between him and the scaffold; conscious that the least error of
judgment on my part might consign him to a murderer’s doom, and that
through the whole time I have had to breast a storm of public prejudice
such as has never before imperilled the calm administration of justice!
Gentlemen, it is useless for me to conceal what you know perfectly well,
what your utmost endeavours cannot wholly have effaced from your
recollection, that for six long months, under the sanction and upon the
authority of science, an opinion has universally prevailed that the
voice of the blood of John Parsons Cook was crying up unto us from the
ground, and that that cry was met by the whole population under an
impression and conviction of the prisoner’s guilt in a delirium of
horror and indignation by another cry of “blood for blood”! You cannot
have failed to have entered upon the discharge of the duties, which you
have, as I have observed, most conscientiously endeavoured to perform,
without having been to a great extent influenced by that cry; you could
not know that it would be your duty to sit in that box to pass between
the Crown and the prisoner; you may with perfect propriety,
understanding that the facts had been ascertained before a coroner’s
jury, and reading such evidence as was there taken, have formed an
opinion upon the question of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner; but
you cannot but know that whatever that opinion may have been it is your
duty to discard it, at least until you have heard the evidence on both
sides.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Gentlemen, the very circumstances under which we meet in this case are
of a character to excite mingled feelings of encouragement and alarm.
Those whose duty it is to watch over the safety of the Queen’s subjects
felt so much apprehension lest the course of justice should be disturbed
by the popular prejudice which had been excited against the prisoner, so
much alarmed that an unjust verdict might in the midst of that popular
prejudice pass against him, that a resolution was taken, not only by the
Queen’s Government and the Legislature, upon the motion of the noble and
learned judge, who presides here, in the House of Lords, that an Act of
Parliament should be passed to prevent the possibility of the ordinary
forms of law being, in the case of William Palmer, made the instrument
of popular vengeance. The Crown, under the advice of its responsible
Ministers, resolved also that this prosecution should not be left in
private hands, but that its own law officer, my learned friend the
Attorney-General, should take upon himself the responsibility of
conducting it properly, at once sternly in his duty to the public and
fairly to the prisoner at the bar; and my learned friend, when that duty
was entrusted to him, did what I must say will, in my opinion, for ever
redound to his honour--he insisted that in a case in which so much
prejudice had been excited all the evidence which it was intended on the
part of the Crown to press against the prisoner should, as soon as he
received it, be communicated to the prisoner’s counsel; everything, I
must say and tell my unhappy client, everything which the constituted
authorities of this land, everything which the Legislature and the law
officers of the Crown could do to secure a fair and impartial trial in
this case, has been done, and the whole responsibility, if unhappily
injustice should on either side be done, now weighs with terrible
pressure upon my lord and upon you.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Gentlemen, one great misfortune has befallen the accused--a most able
man who had been selected by him as his counsel many weeks ago has been,
unfortunately, by illness prevented from discharging that duty to him. I
have endeavoured, to the utmost of my ability, to supply his place; I
cannot deny that I am awed--that I am moved--by the task I have
undertaken; but the circumstances to which I have already adverted, the
national effort, so to speak, through the Government of the country, to
ensure a fair trial is a great cause of encouragement, and I am not
dismayed. I have this further cause for not being altogether overcome by
the duty which I have of defending the prisoner and of discussing the
mass of evidence which has been laid before you, that though, of course,
like everybody else, I knew generally and loosely, very loosely indeed,
the history of these transactions at Rugeley, I had formed, when the
papers came into my hands, no opinion upon them, no opinion upon the
guilt or the innocence of the prisoner at the bar, and my mind was
perfectly free to form what I trust will be declared by you a right
judgment in this case. I commence his defence, I say it in all
sincerity, with an entire conviction of his innocence. I believe that
there never was a truer word pronounced than the words which he
pronounced when he said “Not guilty” to this charge. If I fail in
establishing that to your satisfaction I shall be under a great
misgiving that my failure was more attributable to my own ability to do
justice to this case than to any weakness in the case itself; and I will
give you this proof of the sincerity with which I declare upon this
evidence my conviction of his innocence, that I will meet the case of
the prosecution foot to foot at every stage. I will grapple with every
difficulty which has been suggested by my able friend the
Attorney-General. You shall see that I avoid no point because I fail to
approach it, and if you find that I do thus deal fairly with you from
the beginning, and it is my duty to do so, I hope I may be sure, indeed
I know I may be sure, of a willing and considerate attention to an
address which must, I fear, be long, but in which there shall be no
observations, no tone, and no topic of discussion which do not properly
belong to the case.

Gentlemen, the case which the Crown undertakes to establish against the
prisoner at the bar, and to support by entirely circumstantial evidence,
is, or may be, shortly stated thus. They say that the prisoner having in
the second week in November made up his mind that it was his interest to
get rid of John Parsons Cook, deliberately prepared his body for deadly
poison by the slower poison of antimony, and afterwards despatched him
by the deadly poison of strychnia. No jury will convict a man of the
crime thus imputed to the prisoner, unless in the first place it be made
clear that he had some motive for its commission, some strong reason for
desiring the death of Cook; unless, in the second place, the symptoms of
the deceased before death, and the appearance presented by his body
after death, were consistent with the theory of death by strychnia
poison, and inconsistent with the theory of death from other and natural
causes; unless, thirdly, the circumstantial evidence against him is such
as to be inexplicable upon the supposition of his innocence. Now, it is
under these three heads that I intend to discuss the evidence that you
have heard; and it must be plain to you that if I adhere to that order
and method of treating the vast amount of proof which has been laid
before you, I must exhaust the whole argument, and leave myself no
chance without immediate detection of evading any difficulty in the
defence.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Before, however, I proceed to grapple in these close quarters with the
case of the Crown, as made by the Attorney-General, allow me, that you
may at once see the whole scope of the address with which I have to
trouble you, to claim its proper place in the discussion for a fact
which, though by no means concealed from you by the Attorney-General,
yet appeared to me in that address by which he at once seized upon your
judgment to have been thrown too much into the shade, the fact that
strychnia was not found in the body of John Parsons Cook. If he died
from the poison of strychnia, he died within two hours of the
administration to him of a very strong dose of it--he died within a
quarter of an hour or twenty minutes of the effects of that dose being
visible in the convulsions of his body; the post-mortem examination took
place within six days of his death--there is not the least reason to
suppose that between the time of the ingestion of the poison, if poison
was taken, and the paroxysm in which he died, there was any dilution of
it in the stomach, or any ejection of it by vomiting. Never, therefore,
were circumstances more favourable; unless the science of chemical
analysis is altogether a failure for detection of the poison of
strychnia, never was there a case in which it ought to have been so easy
to produce it. Now, the fact is, and it is beyond all question, that it
was not found. Whatever we may think of Dr. Alfred Taylor, of his
judgment, and of his discretion, we have no reason to doubt that he is a
skilful analytical chemist--we have not the least reason to suppose, we
know the contrary, that he and Dr. Rees, who assisted him, did not do
all that the science of chemical analysis could enable man to do to
detect the poison of strychnia. They had distinct information from the
executor and near relative of the deceased, either personally or through
his solicitor, that he, for some cause or other, had reason to suspect
the poison of strychnia; they undertook the examination of the stomach,
which, I think, upon the whole evidence, without adverting to that part
of it now in detail, you will be satisfied was not in an unfavourable
condition for a sufficiently accurate analysis, with the expectation
that if strychnia had been taken it would be found, and without any
doubt as to the efficiency of their tests to detect it; and yet in their
letter of the 4th of December they say, “We do not find strychnia,
prussic acid, or any trace of opium; from the contents of the stomach
having been drained away it is impossible to say whether any strychnia
had or had not been given just before death, but it is quite possible
for tartar emetic to destroy life, if given in repeated doses; and, as
far as we can at present form an opinion, in the absence of any natural
cause of death, the deceased may have died from the effects of antimony
in this or some other form.” Having afterwards attended the inquest, and
heard the evidence of Elizabeth Mills and Mr. Jones, of Lutterworth, and
the evidence of a person of the name of Roberts, who spoke to the
purchase of strychnia poison by Palmer on the morning of the Tuesday,
Dr. Taylor came to the conclusion that the pills which were administered
to Cook on the Monday and Tuesday night contained strychnia, and that
Mr. Cook was poisoned by it; and he came to that conclusion, though he
had expressed an opinion in writing that he might--and these are his
very words--have been poisoned by antimony, of which some trace was
found by him in the body, while no trace was found of strychnia.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Gentlemen, I am not about to discuss that part of the case in detail,
but I call your attention to it for the purpose of claiming for it its
proper place in this discussion, and that you may know at the
commencement of my address what the whole course of my argument will be,
and not be under the impression that, because I do not under the three
heads to which I have directed your attention advert particularly to
that head. I intend to pass it over. I tell you exactly what the case
for the defence will be, as to the point that strychnia was not found in
Mr. Cook’s body. Let me state it as fairly as I can--the gentlemen who
have come to the conclusion that strychnia may have been there, though
they did not find it, have arrived at that conclusion by experiments of
a very partial kind indeed; they contend that the poison of strychnia is
of that nature, that when once it has done its fatal work, and become
absorbed into the system, it ceases to be the thing which it was when it
was taken into the system; it becomes decomposed, its elements separated
from each other, and therefore no longer capable of responding to the
tests which, according to them, would certainly detect the poison of
undecomposed strychnia; that is their case. They account for the fact
that it was not found, and for their still retaining the belief that it
destroyed Mr. Cook, by that hypothesis. Now, it is only a hypothesis;
there is no foundation for it in experiment; it is not supported by the
evidence of any eminent toxicologist but themselves--it is due to them
to say, and to Dr. Taylor in particular to say, because it will be quite
out of my power to speak of Dr. Christison through any part of this
discussion except with the respect and consideration which is due to a
man of eminent acquirements and of the highest character; it is due to
Dr. Taylor to say that he does propound that theory in his book, but he
propounds it as a theory of his own; he does not vouch, as I remember,
any eminent toxicologist in support of it; and when we recollect that
his knowledge on the matter consists--good, humane man!--in having
poisoned five rabbits twenty-five years ago, and five since this
question of the guilt or innocence of Palmer arose, his opinion, I
think, unsupported by the opinions of others, cannot have much weight
with you; however, what I have to say now upon that point is, that I
will call before you many gentlemen of the highest eminence in their
profession, analytical chemists, to state to you their utter
renunciation of that theory. I will call before you Mr. Nunneley, a
Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, and Professor of Surgery at
the Leeds School of Medicine, who attended that case of strychnia poison
that took place at Leeds, and to which we have agreed that no reference
shall be made by name. I will call before you Dr. Williams, Professor of
Materia Medica at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, and surgeon
for eighteen years to the City of Dublin Hospital, who will tell you
that he also entirely rejects that theory, and believes that it has no
foundation in experiment or authority. I will call before you Dr.
Letheby, one of the ablest and most distinguished among the men of
science in this great city, Professor of Chemistry and Toxicology in the
Medical College of the London Hospital, and medical officer of health of
the city of London, who also rejects that theory as a heresy unworthy of
the belief of scientific men. I will call before you Dr. Nicholas
Parker, of the College of Physicians, a physician of the London Hospital
and Professor of Medicine to that institution, who concurs with Dr.
Letheby in his opinion; Dr. Robinson, also of the Royal College of
Physicians; Mr. Rogers, Professor of Chemistry to St. George’s School;
and lastly, I will call before you probably the most eminent chemical
analyst in this country, Mr. William Herapath, of Bristol, who totally
rejects the theory as utterly unworthy of credence--all of these
gentlemen contending, and ready to depose to it on their oaths, that not
only if half a grain, or the fiftieth part of a grain, but I believe
they will go on to say that if five, or ten, or twenty times less than
that quantity had entered into the human frame at all, it could be and
must be detected by tests which are unerring. They will tell you this,
not as the result of a day’s cruelty for ever regretted on five rabbits,
but upon a large and tried experience upon the inferior animals, made
and created, as you know they were, for the benefit of mankind; upon a
very extensive experience in many cases, as to many of them, of the
effects of strychnia on the human system. And not to detain you on this
part of the case, to which I only now advert, not intending to press it
on you later at any length, that you may see what the nature of the
defence in point of medical testimony will be, I will satisfy you by
evidence which I think must control your judgment, that the only safe
conclusion at which you can arrive is that strychnia not having been
found in Cook’s body, under the circumstances of this case never could
have been there. You will find that they all agree in this opinion, that
no degree of putrefaction or fermentation in the human system could in
their judgment so decompose the poison of strychnia as that it should no
longer possess those qualities which in its undecomposed state cause it
to respond to the tests which are used for its detection.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Having said so much I will now apply myself to what, in my judgment, is
an equally important, if not more important, question in this case, one
which I approach with no diffidence whatever except the distrust which I
have, under the circumstances in which I speak, of myself, and which, if
it were possible for me to write what I think upon it and then to read
it to you, I do not entertain the smallest doubt that you must be
convinced of the innocence of this man--the question whether, in the
second week of November, 1855, he had a motive for the commission of
this murder, some strong reason for desiring that Cook should die. I
never will believe that, unless it be made clear to you that it was the
interest of William Palmer, or that he thought it was his interest, to
destroy Cook--I never will believe, till I hear your verdict pronounced,
that a jury can come to the conclusion of his guilt. And it seems to me,
upon the evidence which has been laid before you, abundantly clear that
it not only was not the interest of William Palmer that Cook should die,
but that his death was the very worst calamity that could befall him,
and that he could not possibly be ignorant that it must be immediately
followed by his own ruin. That it was followed by his immediate ruin we
know. We know that at the time when he is said to have commenced to plot
the death of Cook he was in a condition of the greatest embarrassment.
It was an embarrassment which, in its extreme intensity, had come but
recently upon him, an embarrassment, too, in some degree mitigated by
the circumstance that the person upon whom these bills, which have been
stated to you to be forgeries, purported to be drawn was his own mother,
a lady of a very large fortune, and with whom he was on the most
affectionate terms. Still, he was in a condition unquestionably of great
embarrassment. My learned friend has raised the hypothesis of his having
a wish to destroy Cook upon the ground of this embarrassment. My learned
friend stated to you that the case of the Crown against the prisoner was
this, that, “being in desperate circumstances, with ruin, disgrace, and
punishment staring him in the face, he took advantage of his intimacy
with Cook, when Cook had been the winner of a considerable sum of money,
to destroy him and get possession of his money.” That is the theory of
the Crown. Now, let us test it as a matter of business, relieving, if
possible, our minds from the anxiety we must all feel when the fate of a
fellow-creature is at stake, as if it was a case in a private room for
the decision of an arbitrator. It is my misfortune not to be able at
times to speak otherwise than earnestly, but let us look at it as a
matter of business and scrutinise it in every corner. Was it his
interest that in the second week in November, 1855, Mr. Cook should be
killed by a railway accident? If it was not, we have no motive to
ascribe to it. If it was not, and more, if the contrary was clearly his
interest, no sensible man would believe that he deliberately plotted
and committed the murder. A long correspondence has been put in, the
material parts of which letters will, in a subsequent stage of the case,
be called to your attention. There is evidently a great deal in it that
does not touch the point in the case, but the learned judge, before the
end of the case, will direct your mind to a correct appreciation of the
contents. I watched them with an anxiety which no words can express.
Having had the advantage, for which I shall ever honour my learned
friend, of reading the correspondence beforehand, I found the history,
as told by the correspondence, filled up by the _vivâ voce_ testimony
which was afterwards given. I was aware, at least I firmly believed,
that in that correspondence the innocence of the prisoner lay concealed;
and I think that I shall be able to show you that it is demonstrative of
this proposition that he not only had no motive to kill Cook, but that
the death of Cook was the very worst kind of thing that could happen for
him. I shall not apologise to you, you would think it very inopportune
to do so, for going into the details of this matter. Allow me, confining
myself, as it is my duty, to the evidence in the cause, to call your
attention to the position in which these two men stood to each other.
They had been intimate as racing friends for two or three years; they
had had a great many transactions together; they were jointly interested
in at least one racehorse which was training at the stables of Saunders
at Hednesford; they generally stayed together at the same hotel; they
were seen together on almost all the racecourses in the kingdom, and
were known to be connected in betting transactions, and adventurers upon
the same horses at the same races. It is in evidence that just before
Cook’s death he said, in the presence of his friend Jones, addressing
Palmer, “Palmer, we have lost a great deal of money upon races this
year.” And though it is impossible, Cook being dead, and the mouth of
the prisoner sealed, and transactions of this character not being
recorded in regular books as the transactions in a merchant’s
counting-house are, to give you in the fulness of evidence the actual
state of their relations to each other, yet it is abundantly clear, and
I will make it more clear to you presently, that they were very closely
connected. When, in the month of May, 1855, money was wanted either by
Mr. Cook or Palmer, Palmer applied to Pratt for it. He wanted, I think,
£200 to make up a sum for the payment of a debt, he having, I think, a
balance of £190 in the hands of Pratt. Mr. Pratt would not lend it him
without security, and he proposed the security of his friend John
Parsons Cook, a gentleman of respectability and a man of substance.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Now, what the exact state of the affairs of John Parsons Cook at that
time was I do not know. Such a fortune as he had might be thrown down in
a week by the course of life that he was leading. A young man who is
reckless as to the mode in which he employs his fortune, and who has
only £13,000, may, if he likes, for a year or two pass before the world
as a man of much more considerable means; it is not everybody who will
go to Doctors’ Commons to ascertain what the exact amount of property he
derived from his grandfather was. He was Mr. Cook, of Lutterworth, a
gentleman who had a stud of racehorses, who lived expensively, and was
known to have inherited a fortune; he was a person whose friendship was
at that time probably, and probably continued to be, a matter of
considerable convenience to Palmer. You recollect, gentlemen, I am not
defending Palmer against the crime of forgery. I am not defending him
against the reckless improvidence of obtaining money at the enormous
discounts at which he obtained it. The question is, whether he is guilty
of murder. Palmer and Cook were then so circumstanced as early as the
month of May, 1855. They had had another transaction previously to the
date of November, 1855, which I will not advert to now, because it was
taken second in the case of my learned friend the Attorney-General; but
let us see what their position was in the second week of November, 1855.
Respecting that, we have the evidence of Pratt, and from the
correspondence which he explained to us there can be no doubt upon our
minds. Amongst a mass of bills, amounting altogether to £11,500, which
had been repeatedly renewed, there were two bills for £2000 each, which
became due in the last week in October; and there was another bill, or
two other bills, amounting to £1500 which had become due some time
before, but which were held over, as they say, from month to month,
Palmer, who was liable upon them, paying for the advantage of having
them held over at the end of every month, at what they call interest of
about 60 per cent. These three bills, or sums of £2000, £2000, and £1500
were the embarrassments which were pressing upon him in the second week
of November; and, be it observed, though pressing upon him, they were
pressed upon him by a man, who, no doubt, would have been glad to have
got the principal, but who would also upon anything approaching to
security have been very well pleased with the interest. How can capital,
if it be secure, be better employed than at 40 or 60 per cent. per
annum? As long as there was a vestige of good security, Mr. Pratt or Mr.
Pratt’s clients desired nothing better than that Palmer should continue
to hold the money.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Now, in that state of things, on the 27th of October, Palmer, in answer
to an urgent demand upon him for money on the ground of the security
becoming doubtful, came up to London, and Pratt insisted that, in
respect of one of those bills of £2000 which had just become due, as
Palmer could not pay it, he should pay instalments upon it in addition
to the enormous interest which he charged; and it was agreed at that
interview of the 22nd of October that £250 should be paid down, £250
paid on the 31st of October, and that as soon after as possible a
further sum of £300 should be paid, making in the whole a payment on
account of that bill of £800 to quiet Pratt, or, as Pratt said, to quiet
his clients, and induce them to let the bill stand over. On the 9th of
November that £300 was paid, and, when paid, a letter was written, which
I beg your particular attention to, and you will see how closely and
strongly it bears on the point to which I am now entreating your most
anxious consideration; a letter of the 13th of November, that is the day
when “Polestar” won the race, written by Pratt to Palmer, as
follows:--“Dear Sir,--Curiously enough, I find that the great point of
the office is, that your brother had delirium tremens more than once,
say, three or four times before his life was accepted, and that actually
their medical man, Dr. Hastings, reported against the life, as well as
Dr. Wardell. I think I shall be able to get a copy of the proposal
through a friend.” Palmer did not know what the proposal was, and
therefore probably it had been made by his brother. “The opinions of
several secretaries of insurance offices are that the company have not a
leg to stand upon, and from the mere fact of the enormous premium, it is
plain that the policy was effected on an extra rate of premium on
account of the true statement of the condition of health of the assured.
The enormous premium will go a great way to give us a verdict.” I do not
like to read only one passage from a letter, lest by chance I should
mislead, therefore I have read that portion of it; but now attend to
this--“I count most positively on seeing you on Saturday; do for both
our sakes try to make up the amount to £1000, for without it I shall be
unable to renew the £1500 due on the 9th.” What does that mean? Pratt
told us yesterday the three sums of £300, £250, and £250, and some other
small amount, making up the sum of £800, were instalments payable on the
bill overdue, and upon which Pratt had threatened to issue writs against
Palmer’s mother, and Palmer had gone almost down on his knees to beg him
not to do so; he said, “For God’s sake, do not think of writs.” Now,
that £800 being paid, Pratt said, “I shall only credit you for £600; I
must take £200 for the interest.” In his letter of the 13th of November
he says, “Do for both our sakes try and make up the amount to a
thousand”--that is, make the £800 up to a thousand pounds--“for without
it I shall be unable to renew the £1500. I must have a larger
instalment, or else I cannot keep this bill afloat for you.” He said so,
whether it was true or not does not matter in this case; that was the
representation which he made, and the duress which he put on Palmer;
and, in truth, it meant this--Make it up to a thousand, give me £200
more, or the writ shall be served on your mother. He does not say so,
but he said something to the same effect before, and it was a
representation that he could not satisfy the people whom he said he
represented without that additional sum. Observe, that letter is written
on the 13th of November, and Palmer gets it at Rugeley when he arrives
on that evening from the race at which “Polestar” won. Palmer, who was
at the races the first day, went away in the evening, and went to
Rugeley; when he gets to Rugeley, early in the morning of the 14th, the
next day probably, he gets this letter of Pratt’s pressing on him the
necessity of paying a further sum of £200. What does he do? See if it is
possible to doubt that at that time Cook’s life was of the utmost value
to him. He instantly returns to Shrewsbury; he sees Cook. They say he
dosed him. We will see how probable that is presently. He gets there on
the Wednesday; he sees Cook. Cook goes to bed in a state which I will
not at present describe; he gets up much more sensible than he went to
bed; goes upon the racecourse, and comes home with Palmer to Rugeley on
the next day, Thursday; he goes to bed when he gets to Rugeley; he gets
up still ill and uncomfortable, but able to go out, and he dines with
Palmer that day, Friday.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Now, I beg your attention to this letter. On that day, the 16th, Palmer
writes thus to Pratt--“I am obliged to come to Tattersall’s on Monday to
the settling, so that I shall not call and see you before Monday, but a
friend of mine will call and leave you £200 to-morrow, and I will give
you the remainder on Monday.” That is written on the 16th, the day they
dine together at Palmer’s house. Now, you recollect that the person who
ordinarily settled Cook’s accounts in racing transactions was a person
of the name of Fisher, the wine merchant, in Shoe Lane. He was called as
the first witness on this trial. That very day Cook writes to Fisher as
follows:--“It is of very great importance to both Palmer and myself that
a sum of £500 should be paid to a Mr. Pratt, of 5 Queen Street, Mayfair,
to-morrow without fail; £300 has been sent up to-night, and if you would
be kind enough to pay the other £200 to-morrow on the receipt of this,
you will greatly oblige me, and I will give it to you on Monday at
Tattersall’s.” Then there is a postscript which I will read, but make no
comment upon it now--“I am much better.” What is the fair inference from
these two letters? I submit to you that the inference is that at that
date Cook was making himself very useful to Palmer. Pratt was pressing
him for an additional sum of £200 when he had need of all his money, and
Palmer having communicated his difficulty to Mr. Cook, Cook at once
comes forward and writes to his agent to pay that £200. And the letter
shows more--you may have forgotten that letter, but it was read in the
first hour after the speech of my learned friend the Attorney-General;
you may have forgotten it, but I read it to you word for word--the
passage, “£300 has been sent up to-night,” shows that Cook knew all
about it, and probably had an interest in Palmer’s transactions with Mr.
Pratt; it was inserted merely for the purpose of putting a good face
upon it to Mr. Pratt, as a man does who, not having a farthing of the
sum that he wants to pay, will pretend that he has to pay more, in order
to represent that he has got a portion of what he wants to pay, and he
says, “Will you lend me a little more; I am not entirely dependent upon
you for the sum that I have to pay”; or it means that on that day £300,
which had come to their hands in some way or other, was by Cook made
applicable to the convenience of Palmer--one of those things it means;
whichever way you take it, it proves to demonstration that Palmer and
Cook were playing into each other’s hands in respect of that heavy
incumbrance upon Palmer; and that Palmer could rely upon Cook as a fast
friend in any such little difficulty as that; and though his
difficulties sound large when we talk of £11,500, the difficulty of the
day was nothing like that, because in the spendthrift, reckless way in
which they were living, putting on bills from month to month, and paying
what sounds an enormous interest per annum, the actual outlay on the day
was not always so considerable. I submit to you that letter shows that
on the 16th of November, when they say he was poisoning Cook, Cook was
behaving to him in the most friendly way, was acquainted with his
circumstances, willing to assist in the relief of his embarrassments,
and actually to devote a portion of his earnings to the purposes of
Palmer. It is perfectly plain, but I will make it plainer if you will
attend to me for a moment longer. You will remember that part of the
case of my learned friend is this. He says that he intended to defraud
Cook; that Palmer having left Cook ill in bed at Rugeley, ran up to town
on the Monday, intending to despatch him on the Monday night or the
Tuesday; that he ran up to town, went, not to Fisher, who was the agent
of Cook, but to Herring, who was his own agent, and told Herring that he
was authorised by Cook to settle his Shrewsbury transactions at
Tattersall’s, thereby getting command over Cook’s winnings; that he
applied them to his own purposes, and, having done so, determined to put
Cook out of the way. That is their case. We had the evidence of Fisher
on the first day. Fisher is evidently a shrewd, intelligent man; no
friend of Palmer’s. He gave, I do not mean to say improperly, I did not
wish to throw imputations, but he gave a twist to the dosing at
Shrewsbury against Palmer. On the Monday, as on the Tuesday, Cook,
though generally indisposed, was during great part of the day quite
well, according to the evidence; on the Monday he saw his trainer,
Saunders, he saw his two jockeys; he got up and was shaved; he was
comfortable the whole day, and the theory is that he was comfortable
because Palmer was not there to dose him--you will see how grossly
absurd it is presently. He was well on the Monday, quite well on the
Tuesday; now, if Palmer had gone up to London, representing that he
would do Cook’s business for him through Cook’s own agent, Fisher,
Palmer might be perfectly certain if that was done on the Monday Fisher
would write to Cook on that night to say that the thing was done and
made straight; Herring, you see, does do it the moment the thing is
settled between Palmer and Herring; Herring represents Palmer as saying,
“You must write me word about some part of the transactions”; he says,
“No, I shall write Mr. Cook word at Rugeley.” Do not you think Fisher
would have done the same? and if Cook had not known that Palmer intended
not to go to Fisher but to Herring, do you not think Cook would have
been surprised on the Tuesday morning at not hearing that he had seen
Palmer, and that the transactions were settled? Could Palmer, as a man
of business, have relied upon Cook’s not being alarmed at Fisher’s not
doing it? We had the evidence of Fisher, who says, “On the 17th of
November, at Cook’s request, I paid £200 to Mr. Pratt; his account in
the ordinary course would have been settled at Tattersall’s on Monday,
the 19th. I advanced the £200 to pay Pratt; I knew that Cook had won at
Shrewsbury, and I should have been entitled to have deducted that £200
from his winnings if I had settled his account at Tattersall’s; I did
not settle the account.” That explains the whole transaction. Cook and
Palmer understood each other perfectly well; it was the interest of both
of them that Palmer should be relieved from the difficulty of the
pressure of Pratt, and accordingly Cook said, “As to the settlement, it
shall not go through Fisher; we will have the £200 from Fisher; it shall
not be paid to him on Monday; I will let Palmer go up and settle the
whole thing through Herring.” And that is what was done; and accordingly
Fisher has never been paid since.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Now, there is a letter to which I will call your attention, of the 19th
November, 1855, from Palmer to Pratt--“Dear Sir,--You will place the £50
I have just paid you, and the £450 you will receive from Mr. Herring,
together £500, and the £200 you received on Saturday,” that is, the £200
that Fisher paid to Pratt at the express request of Cook “towards
payment of my mother’s acceptance for £2000, due 25th October, making
paid to this day the sum of £1300.” Can you doubt when you take all that
together--the dining together on the Friday--Cook writing that letter to
Fisher, saying it was of the greatest importance to him as well as to
Palmer that the £200 should be paid in order to pacify Pratt, can you
doubt that on that day Cook was a most convenient friend to Palmer, and
that he could not by any possibility do without him. But it does not end
there. Cook died on the Wednesday morning early, the 21st; if we want to
know what effect that death had on Palmer, and what interest he had in
it, Palmer’s mouth being sealed, we must get it from Pratt. Nobody else
that we know knows anything about it; Cook is gone. On the 22nd
November, the day after the death--and I am sure you will make some
allowance for a day having elapsed after the death of Cook before he
wrote--Palmer writes thus to Pratt--“Ever since I saw you I have been
fully engaged with Cook and not able to leave him.” Now, unless he
murdered him, that is the truest sentence that ever was expressed. He
watched the bedside of his friend; he was with him night and day; he
attended him as a brother; he called his friends around him; he did all
that the most affectionate solicitude could do for a friend that was
ill, unless he was plotting his death--“And I am sorry to say after all
he died this day, so that you had better write to Saunders; but mind, I
must have ‘Polestar’ if it can be so arranged; and should any one call
upon you to know what moneys Cook ever had from you do not answer the
question.” Then he says, “I sat up two full nights with Cook.” That he
sat up the whole of the night may not be true, but he was ready to be
called if Cook should be ill; and Elizabeth Mills says after the first
serious paroxysm, when she went to bed, she left Palmer in the
arm-chair, sleeping by the man whom they say he intended to murder. No!
murderers do not sleep by their victims in that way. What is the answer?
I read it to you in order that you may see what ruin Cook’s death
brought upon Palmer. The answer of Pratt is--and you will see how much
it increased the difficulties of Palmer--“I have your note, and am
greatly disappointed at the non-receipt of the money as promised, and at
the vague assurance as to any money. I can understand that your being
detained by the illness of your friend has been the cause of your not
sending up the amount.” Attend to this paragraph--“The death of Mr. Cook
will now compel you to look about as to the payment of the bill for
£500, due the 2nd of December. I have written Saunders informing him of
my claim, and requesting to know by return what claim he had for keep
and training”; so that the very first effect of Cook’s death was, in
Pratt’s opinion, who knew all about it, to saddle Palmer alone with the
sum of £500. He says, “The death of Cook will now compel you to look
about as to the payment of the bill for £500 on the 2nd of December.” We
will investigate the transaction out of which that bill arose, and you
will see, I venture to say, that I can satisfy you conclusively that the
transaction out of which that bill arose was a transaction for Cook’s
accommodation, for which Palmer had lent his name to accommodate Cook,
and for which upon Cook’s death Palmer became primarily and alone
responsible. It will be for you to judge, if I prove that to you,
whether it suited Palmer at that moment to stand before the holder of
that £500 bill--some client of Pratt’s--as the only man liable upon it,
and whether there was the same chance, supposing it had been for his own
accommodation, of putting it on, as they call it, after Cook’s death, as
there might have been before. But let me be fair to the prosecution, and
state to you now the view that the Attorney-General takes of that £500
transaction. As I told you, I mean to meet his case foot to foot, and to
show, and I hope to show him, that there is nothing in it; that if he,
as the law officer of the Crown, had had the option of taking up this
case or not, he would not have taken it up; that the Crown never would
have appeared upon it, but because the universal feeling of the country
was such as to render it impossible that the case should not be tried
after the verdict of wilful murder obtained on Dr. Taylor’s evidence;
and because the Crown, having seen the absolute necessity of its being
tried, felt that it would abandon the duty of protecting every one of
the Queen’s subjects if it did not take care that a man with so much
prejudice against him, that man leading the life that Palmer led, and
disgraced by forgeries to a large amount, as it is said, and a gambler
by profession, should not have a fair trial. There was no other way of
securing a fair trial for this man, as the Attorney-General at once
saw--there was no possibility of his being saved but by giving the
counsel who defended him all the information that my friend had himself.
We will see what his view is. My learned friend states it upon his
instruction in this way. He is bound, as I told you in the beginning, in
prosecuting this case to prosecute it strenuously; he is bound to put
the facts together according to his instructions in such a way that, if
they will and ought to establish guilt, it is brought home. Prosecutions
must be conducted in that way, or the guilty would escape in nine cases
out of ten. And therefore my friend, upon the view of the evidence--a
comparatively superficial one--thinks that this is the theory upon which
it appears probable that Palmer plotted the death of Mr. Cook. I will
read to you from my friend’s speech, with reference to the £500 bill
transaction; and, as I understand it, it is the greatest mistake that
was ever committed, and would not stand for a moment but for the popular
prejudice against Palmer. I think I can satisfy you that is so--“Pratt
still declining to advance the money”--that is the £1000 which Palmer
wanted him to advance--“Pratt proposed an assignment by Cook of two
racehorses, one called ‘Polestar,’ which won the Shrewsbury race, and
another called ‘Syrius.’ That assignment was afterwards executed by Mr.
Cook in favour of Pratt, and Cook was entitled to the money raised on
that security, which realised £375 in cash and a wine warrant.” They
twist it in this way, that Palmer, having forged the endorsement of
Cook, and being afraid of detection, put Mr. Cook out of the way. That
is the view they take of that case. I think I can satisfy you it is
impossible that that can be the correct view. It cannot, by any
possibility, as it seems to me. It is for you to judge. We know exactly
what took place; we had it from Pratt yesterday. What took place was
this. Palmer applied for the loan of £1000; Pratt said, “I can’t let you
have it.” Palmer said, “Will you discount a bill for £500?” Pratt said,
“Not without security.” Palmer said, “What security will you take; it is
for the accommodation of Mr. Cook? I have undertaken to get the enclosed
bill cashed for Mr. Cook; you had a £200 bill of his.” He reminds him
that he had been paid a £200 bill, and he says, “He is a very good and
responsible man; will you do it, and I will put my name to the bill?” So
that it was represented to Pratt as a transaction for the accommodation
of Cook; and Pratt’s answer is, “If Mr. Cook chooses to give me his
security I have no objection, but he must execute a bill of sale of his
two racehorses, ‘Polestar’ and ‘Syrius,’ and he must execute a power of
attorney, and signature to it must be attested by some solicitor in the
country, so that I may be quite sure that it is really a valid security;
and upon those terms, if you will get all that done, and Mr. Cook will
submit to all that, I will give him £375 in money, £65 wine warrant,
charging him £10 for expenses, and £50 for discount”--making up the sum
of £500; that is what Pratt is willing to do. There is no doubt at all,
you know, that Cook attached the highest value to “Polestar”; he was not
going to execute a bill of sale with a power of attorney to enable the
mortgagee or assignee to enforce it at once; he was not going to do
that, and not get any money for doing it; he knew the value of
“Polestar” and “Syrius”; “Polestar” was probably backed for the
engagements on which he won the money at Shrewsbury. My friend says he
never received that £375; it is in the last degree improbable that he
never received that money; I put it to you as men of sense that he must
have received it; do you think that he remained after executing the bill
of sale on the 6th of September the whole time from that day to his
death without writing to Pratt--“Why, you have the bill of sale of my
two horses, and I have not got any money upon them”? Is it credible,
can you believe Cook, who was as much in want of money as Palmer; do you
think he would throw away his property in that way, and let Pratt obtain
from him a bill of sale and get no money upon it? It is incredible; the
only pretence for setting it up is this, it is a perfectly fatal one
that will not stand before sensible men for a minute. Along with the
cheque for £375 he sent £315 to Palmer for his own purposes; but my
friend says Palmer, having got this cheque for £375 payable to order,
fraudulently appropriated it to himself; forged the name of Cook upon
the back of it, and kept Cook in ignorance of the transaction. Is it
credible, that during three whole months Cook, who knew that he had
executed a bill of sale of his two racehorses, and I will show you was
in want of money, should have allowed it to remain so? Is it not much
more probable that the signature of Cook was put on there with his full
knowledge? It is not suggested that there was any attempt at imitating
his handwriting. Is it not more probable that Cook, who wanted the ready
money, and who would probably be put to inconvenience if he did not get
the ready money, but only the means of getting it two days later--that
Palmer should let him have the £315 cash which was sent up, and Palmer
take the cheque? I will show you there is reason for believing that to
be the case; I will put it to you, in the first place, whether it is
probable he would be silent for three months. Palmer writes, “I will
thank you to let me have the £315 by return of post if possible; if not,
send it to me by Monday night’s post to the post office, Doncaster. I
now return you Mr. Cook’s paper, and he wants the money on Saturday if
he can have it; I have not promised it for Saturday, so please to
enclose it with mine in cash in a registered letter, and he must pay for
its being registered.” So that you see Palmer wanted it to be sent like
his own, and Cook wanted it to be sent in cash. “Do not let it be later
than Monday night’s post.” Pratt writes acknowledging the receipt of the
document, saying he will send him his money to Doncaster, and endeavour
to let Cook have his money at the same time. On the 10th of September
Palmer writes to Pratt that he must send him for Mr. Cook £385 instead
of £375 and the wine warrant, so that he can hand it to him with the
£385. Accordingly, here is an intimation that Cook, who wanted the money
on the very day, was inconvenienced by only getting a cheque on London
which he could not immediately change, and therefore Palmer gave him the
money and took the cheque. It is remarkable, when we look at the banking
account of Palmer at Rugeley, the £375 is paid in by somebody to
Palmer’s account, but the £315 is not paid into Palmer’s account at all;
that is the only sum paid in on that day, so that I put it to you upon
these facts, Pratt saying in a letter which accompanies the money, “I am
obliged to send a cheque for Mr. Cook, for I have not received the
money, which I shall do no doubt to-morrow”; so that not being able to
send cash to the full amount he is obliged to do that which did not suit
Cook; he sent him a cheque which he could not cash on the day he got it;
he is obliged to send it to London unless he could find some friend down
there, and that delays him for a whole day. I submit to you as the true
version of the transaction that the bill was accepted for Cook’s
accommodation; Cook gave as security for it the two horses, “Polestar”
and “Syrius”; Cook never complained to Pratt during the rest of his life
that he had not received the money upon it. It appears in the
correspondence that Cook wanted the ready money, and that he wanted it
on Saturday, and it would be probably inconvenient if he had got it a
bit later than Monday; though Palmer would not promise to get it sooner
than Tuesday. What says Palmer in his letter, which is not written for
the purpose of this case, but written at the date of this transaction,
that he, Palmer, would let Cook have the cash that was sent, and he
himself take the cheque with Cook’s authority, and put Cook’s name on
the back of it; and how else can you account for the silence of Cook,
for the fact that the £375 is paid into the account of Palmer at
Rugeley, and no trace of the other large sum of £315? That is well
worthy your consideration. You cannot account by any reasonable mode for
the fact that the security given for that £500 was Cook’s horses, and
Cook remaining quiet about it for three months after he had executed a
regular bill of sale, except the supposition that it was for Cook’s
accommodation, and Cook got the best part of the money; and, if so,
Palmer’s name being on the bill, what is the effect of Cook’s death?
Gentlemen, what Pratt, who knew all about it, says is, “The death of
Cook makes you liable for that sum of £500 due on the 2nd December.” I
submit to you, on the second ground of motive, which my learned friend
suggested, the case has altogether failed, and that it is perfectly
clear that at the date of Cook’s death Pratt was of opinion that the
death of Cook threw a further liability on Palmer of £500; he tells him
so in that letter. How could it be his interest to kill him? We already
find the difficulties which Cook’s death brings upon Palmer; the bill of
£500, the danger of the loss of “Polestar,” which he wanted very much to
have, and which Pratt would, of course, unless Palmer paid the £500,
send to the hammer, and realise so shortly; we find that inquiries were
at once apprehended on the part of Cook’s friends as to the money Pratt
had paid to Palmer out of those two bill transactions, and the value
which Mr. Cook had received for any endorsement which he had given.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Just see another transaction of that date; it is not quite so clear, as
it strikes me, but yet it makes it to my mind exceedingly improbable
that Palmer should have desired the death of Cook. Exceedingly
improbable! Mr. Wetherby told us to-day that though frequently stakes
won at a race were sent up by the clerk of the course to the winner’s
bankers within a week, it was not always so, and it would not be a
matter of complaint if it was not. On the 20th of November, the day
before Cook dies, and on which he was perfectly comfortable and happy,
enjoying the society of his friend Mr. Jones, with whom he was on terms
of the greatest intimacy, and to whom he could confide any troubles that
he had, and who appears to be a gentleman in every way respectable and
intelligent--on that day Cook was well, and Mr. Jones was with him, and
there is no doubt that on that day, according to the evidence of Mr.
Wetherby, he did sign and give this cheque for £350. If Palmer killed
him that night, and by any chance the £350 should not have been sent up
by Mr. Frail, so as to be there on the next morning, he (Mr. Wetherby)
would not pay that cheque, and would never pay it after notice of Cook’s
death, though the money should come up. He never did pay it. The end of
that transaction was this, that Mr. Frail did not send it up, but made a
claim upon Cook in respect of it. Cook’s executors disputed that, and
Cook’s executors finally recovered the money, but they did not send it
up to Mr. Wetherby. I do not put it as strong as the other case, because
Palmer might think that the money would be there; but he also might
think that it would not be there. It is not at all likely that, having
got the cheque for £350 from Cook, he would run the risk of losing that
money by destroying him in the night, Cook’s friends being there, and
sure to institute an immediate inquiry into his affairs. Is that
probable? I submit to you it is not. It is not likely that Palmer could
have got a cheque for £350, or Cook should have given it to him, which
should not be payable until the next day, when there might be no funds
to meet it; and with that uncertainty, is it likely that Palmer should
destroy Cook. That, therefore, is in the last degree improbable. It does
not end there--what they have said on the other side is, you know, that
he got this cheque fraudulently--he got possession of this money, and
then, lest Cook should detect it, he destroyed him. It is not at all
probable that that would answer his purpose. The moment the breath was
out of Cook’s body his friends would surround the corpse. He might be
perfectly certain that Mr. Jones would go to Mr. Stevens, that Stevens
and Bradford, his brother-in-law, would be down, and that a post-mortem
examination would take place, and instead of settling with Pratt as to
this £500 bill and the £350 cheque, he would have to settle with hard
men of business, men who cared nothing for him, looked upon him as a
blackleg, and would care neither for his feeling, his interest, nor
anything, but would let him go to ruin which way he liked, not stirring
a finger to save him. Do you think that was probable? I submit to you
not. It does not end there. We know from Herring that at that very time
Herring held one bill for £500 on which Cook’s name was.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I do not think there is any proof of that.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Whether it be so or not as to the £500, he had three
£200 bills, one of which, I think, was drawn by Cook and accepted by
Palmer, and the other two drawn by Palmer and accepted by Cook, or the
other way.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--You are quite right as to the £500.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--And another bill of £500, which my friend stated and
gave proof was not his mother’s signature. So that there was a bill for
£500 not in her handwriting to which Cook was a party, for all of which
Cook either in whole or in part, unless he rushed upon his own ruin,
must provide; in respect of which, for the accommodation of Palmer or
not, Palmer could go to Cook and say, “Now, Cook, it is true enough all
these bills are for my accommodation, but what is the use of your making
a fuss about that? If I cannot pay, you must, or your stud will be sold
up; had you not better give your name to some more bills and make it
easy?” If he put Cook to death that was gone. Again, in addition to the
£500 bill, for which the bill of sale on “Syrius” and “Polestar” was
given, the bill for £500 held by Herring was a forgery, according to
their case, which there would be no excuse for not meeting; a £500 bill
in the hands of a man who wants the money is not so easily put on; that
£500 bill would very soon find its way to his mother. It would not have
suited Palmer that his mother should know--his mother was a woman of
large fortune, a respectable person I am told--she disliked his gambling
propensities though she liked her son; neither did the excellent and
most honourable man his brother, before me, who stands by him now, but
who was estranged from him simply because he disapproved of his
gambling, neither would he have given to him any countenance. If Palmer
was pressed to pay that £500, and Cook was dead, there was nothing to
save him from the exposure. Nothing! If you doubt what I say is the
truth, look through the whole of the case--find me in any portion of
this most voluminous evidence the slightest trace that there was a man
in the world who would lend his name to Palmer to enable him to get
money. Is not the fact that he forged, if he did forge, the name of his
mother conclusive that he had no other resource? Is there the least
trace of evidence that he had any other resource than the good nature,
the easiness, perhaps the folly, of Cook, who could have renewed these
bills for him--the three £200 bills and the £500--and put them on as
they say? And was it not quite certain that if Cook, the acceptor of
them, dropped, the claim would come upon Cook’s executors, and then the
executors would ascertain all about it and sell him up? When you come to
think of it, is it credible that the man under those circumstances
should desire to bring not merely the creditors and executors of
Cook--who might be supposed, though Mr. Stevens is not one of that
class, to have some pity for Cook’s friend--but men of business, down
upon him, who have no right to have any pity? A man dies, his affairs
are put into the hands of solicitors; they have a plain duty to perform,
they cannot be compassionate, they must be just; they must see the
rights of their clients the executors established in due course of law,
and compromise and arrangement with them is wholly out of the question.
Can you find in any part of this case a single living person who was
willing to have done for Palmer what Cook had been doing for him for two
or three years? Does it appear that there was one? Does it appear that
Cook was a close-fisted fellow, and did not care to do Palmer a turn?
When Palmer needed the £200, which the harpy wanted from him, Cook at
once wrote and said it is a matter of great importance to him as well as
Palmer that this £200 should be paid; and he even risked the displeasure
of Fisher in doing it. Then, again, Cook was in his senses perfectly on
the Tuesday. He cannot have been very rich at that time. He gave him the
cheque for £350. How is it possible to conceive that under those
circumstances Palmer should have an interest in the death of Cook, and
yet what is the theory of the Crown? That Palmer was convinced that he
could settle his affairs as to Cook better with Mr. Stevens than he
could with Cook himself--settle these word-of-honour transactions; these
things, half of which would not bear inquiry in any way as reasonable
business transactions, with a shrewd and probably a penurious
man--deliberately thought that it would answer his purpose better to
come in contact with his executor, Mr. Stevens, whom Mr. Jones might
rush up to town and bring down with him. I submit to you with
confidence, though what I say may be inconsistent with the views
generally entertained by the public--the public, however, have never had
an opportunity of looking at all these letters--but it seems to me as
clear as anything can be, that it was the manifest interest of Palmer
that Cook should live. But, in addition to its being his interest that
he should live, was it safe for him that he should die? Palmer was a man
who added to a shrewd knowledge of the world a knowledge of his
profession, and, among other things, a knowledge of chemistry. Palmer
knew perfectly well, and he had studied his profession sufficiently when
he was a young man to know perfectly well, that, if strychnia was
administered, it would in all probability throw the victim into horrible
convulsions in a very short time, and in a way so striking as to be the
talk of a small neighbourhood like Rugeley for a month or two, which
would be time enough to alarm everybody, and to provoke inquiries into
the circumstances of the death, which must certainly end, or in all
probability end, if he was guilty, in his conviction. If that was so,
was he so circumstanced at that time as to make it safe for him to run
the risk of such suspicions? His brother, Walter Palmer, had died in the
month of August, and his only hope, unless his mother forgave him or
recognised those acceptances, his only hope of extrication from his
difficulties was the getting the amount due by the Prince of Wales
Insurance Company to him as the assignee of the policy on Walter
Palmer’s life; that was his only chance. He had a chance that way, and
it is plain that it was so good a chance, as I will show you presently,
that he refused an offer of return of premium from the company; it does
not appear what the amount was--and Pratt, who was his attorney,
believed the chance to be so good that he had actually got the discounts
of these large sums of money upon it, and had resolved, under the
directions of Palmer, to put it in suit. It was really the only
unpledged property he had, and how was he situated respecting it? It is
plain from the letters which were put in yesterday, and it is further
plain from a piece of evidence to which you will, I am sure, find it
worth your while to pay great attention. We had Mr. Deane called
yesterday, who is the attorney to the Prince of Wales insurance office;
and for some time--though it had ceased just at that time--but for some
time previously to this month of November, the insurance company, which,
I believe, is not a very old insurance company, were annoyed at being
called upon to pay so large a sum, and they determined to do all they
could to resist it. They accordingly sent down Inspector Field to
Stafford and his man Simpson to make inquiries, which he could not do
without talking and insinuating suspicions and raising a cloud of doubt
and conjecture about Palmer, and this had been going on for some
considerable time. Now, observe the evidence of Deane, and you will see
if it is not so. He says, “The name of my firm is Chubb, Deane & Chubb.
I had been to Rugeley some time previously to the inquest. I know Field,
the detective officer; we were solicitors to the Prince of Wales
insurance office; it was in our employment that Field went to Rugeley;
he was at Rugeley only a part of one day; he was at Stafford for three
or four days altogether; he did not see the prisoner Palmer; this visit
had been preceded by that of another officer named Simpson. Simpson
went from Stafford to Rugeley with myself and Field; he told me he had
seen Palmer; I think he went into Staffordshire in the first week in
October.” Then my learned friend asked him what they went down for; he
said that they went down to make inquiries as to the habits of life of
Mr. Walter Palmer, of whose death the Prince of Wales insurance office
had shortly before received notice; so that you see just before the
death of Cook Palmer knew himself to be an object of suspicion, but he
acted as if he thought it was the most unfounded and unwarrantable
suspicion, putting the policy of insurance into the hands of an attorney
to enforce payment of it, and the office meeting the claim by
insinuations and inquiries which were of a nature to destroy his
character and to bring around his head the suspicion of another murder.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Gentlemen, that that was so I will show you by the letters which were
put in yesterday. You see that the pressure by Pratt upon Palmer to meet
the two £1000 bills never took place until the office disputed the
payment of that policy. All went as smooth as possible so long as Pratt
held what he believed to be a good security, the policy upon Walter
Palmer’s life, who was dead; but when they began to dispute it, then you
will find that Pratt writes to Palmer and tells him the situation of
things is quite changed; he could manage the bills very well while that
policy was undisputed; but now it is disputed that quite alters the
state of things; he says, as he had somewhat anticipated, he finds they
can do nothing till the 24th, that is nothing towards compelling the
office to pay, because insurance offices generally take three months to
pay; and then, stating some other circumstances, he says, “This you will
observe quite alters the arrangement, and I therefore must request you
to make preparations for meeting the two bills due at the end of this
month”; that was where the difficulty was, that was where the pinch was.
Then, he says, he shall not flag in his exertions, and so on, and he
refers to the circumstances connected with the dispute; Mr. Pratt
says--“You, Palmer, know whether they have any ground to dispute that
policy upon your brother’s life; you are enforcing it, and if you have
no right to do it it is at your peril.” That is what it means, and then
he goes on to say, “We must try and make them pay”--that was the
position in which Pratt, who was acting for him, stood as to this Prince
of Wales insurance office. He says, “In any event, bear in mind that you
must be prepared to cover your mother’s acceptances for the £4000 due at
the end of the month”; there was the pinch, the office would not pay,
the £4000 was becoming due, the holder of the bills saw he was without
security, and if anything occurred to increase the suspicions of the
insurance office, which was very reluctant to pay, the £13,000 was lost
for ever, lost beyond hope. Gentlemen, that £13,000 is sure to be paid
unless that man is convicted of murder; and that has a great deal to do
with the clamour and alarm which have been excited. So sure as that man
is saved, and saved I believe he will be, that £13,000 is paid; there is
no defence, no pretence for a defence--the letters of the office make
that plain; they took an enormous premium--knowing that the man was only
thirty, they took a premium for a man of fifty.

Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL--That is not in evidence; do you mean to prove
that?

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I do not know whether I can show that to be the
actual premium, but the letters which were put in show that the premium
was enormous; and I say that as sure as he is saved that £13,000 is good
for him, and will pay all his creditors.

Now, observe the position in which he was at the moment--all the
correspondence turns upon that. This correspondence saves the prisoner,
if there is common sense in man.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Now, observe, there is another letter from Pratt containing this
passage, “I have your note, acknowledging receipt by your mother of the
£2000 acceptance, due the 2nd of October; why not let her acknowledge it
herself? You must really not fail to come up at once, if it be for the
purpose of arranging for the payment of the two bills at the end of the
month; remember I can make no terms for their renewal, and they must be
paid. I will, of course, hold the policy for as much as it is worth,”
and so on. At this time Simpson and Field were making inquiries how a
young man of thirty had died, who had had delirium tremens three times,
as their own physician, Dr. Hastings, and Mr. Wardell had informed them.
Then in a postscript he says he “casts no doubt upon the capability of
the company to pay, but that in the nature of things, with so large an
amount in question, it is not surprising that, if they think they have
grounds for resisting, they should temporise by delay.” Does not that
show that at that date at least, the 6th of October, suspicions were
hanging in menacing meteors about Palmer’s head, which would come down
with irresistible momentum and crush him upon suspicion of a sudden
death by murder? Do you believe that a man who wrote what the effects of
strychnia were in his manual would risk such a scene as a deathbed by
strychnia, in the presence of the dearest and best friend of Cook--a man
whom he could not influence, a medical man, who liked him and loved him
well enough when he knew he was ill to sleep with him in the same room
that he might be ready to attend to him in case he wanted assistance
during the night? Is that common sense; are you going to endorse such a
theory as that upon the suggestion of Dr. Alfred Taylor about the
effects that strychnia produced upon his five rabbits? Impossible,
perfectly impossible! as I submit to you. But to proceed--I will prove
to you, most clearly, the position in which he was. On the other side of
the letter of the 10th of October Mr. Pratt writes, “Copy of solicitors’
reply”; that is, the solicitors to the Prince of Wales insurance office.
He says, “I may add that I hear the office have been making inquiries in
every direction.” To be sure, Field was employed; he is not now in the
police, but he is employed as a detective officer; he was at Stafford,
and was at Rugeley, and was making inquiries in all directions;
inquiries could be made at Stafford as well as Rugeley, and all that had
taken place at Rugeley just as easily ascertained there as at Rugeley
itself; whatever had taken place there would be known. He says they have
been making inquiries in all directions. It is plain, then, that he knew
that suspicions were then rife, or that they were endeavouring to create
suspicions, against him about the policy on the life of Walter Palmer.
Here is the very letter which the company wrote in answer to the claim,
dated 8th of October, 1855; it is from Messrs. Chubb, Deane & Chubb, the
solicitors to the office, addressed to Thomas Pratt, Esq., acknowledging
the application; and shortly afterwards Messrs. Chubb send a reply to
the application--there is no date to it, but it is enclosed in a letter
of the 18th of October from Pratt to Palmer. After apologising for not
answering the letter of the 16th instant, owing to the absence of Mr.
Deane, they refer to the “local investigation having been made, and
decline to pay the claim upon the ground that the facts disclosed in the
course of the inquiry are such as fully to warrant them in doing so.”
These are letters which my learned friend thought it right to put in
yesterday; they are evidence for the Crown, and what is the inference
from them? Judge, if you please, from some of the letters to Pratt, and
the one which I read first from Pratt to Palmer. Palmer determined that
the policy should be paid; he took the advice of Sir Fitzroy Kelly. I
see here it is said, “The case will be laid before Kelly to-morrow.”
This letter came just before the end of the long vacation; the time to
take proceedings had only just commenced, in any event, because the
three months had only just expired. But so sure as anything happened by
foul play to Cook, he had no more chance of getting the £13,000 than
£130,000 from the Prince of Wales insurance office--none whatever. That
was the only means he had at that time of extricating himself from those
incumbrances.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Gentlemen, I have detained you a long time upon this, but not, I trust,
too long, if the view I have submitted be one worthy of your
consideration. I infer from all this that Palmer had no interest
whatever to put Cook to death; that it was contrary to his interest in a
pecuniary point of view, and brought claims upon him, some of them
small, others of a larger amount, of which he might have shared the
liability with Cook, if not have thrown it entirely upon Cook; that it
forced an immediate settlement of the affairs of Cook, not with Cook
himself, who was an easy man--it is plain he was--and probably their
solicitors, and that therefore in a pecuniary sense he had every motive
of interest to desire that Cook should live; and further, he had no
chance of getting a ready payment from these documents--but with hard
and exacting executors of the £13,000, no chance of the sudden death of
Cook passing without suspicion and inquiry, and therefore he could not
think it safe for him that he should die.

I cannot, I think, be so much mistaken as that a considerable portion of
these observations is not well worthy your attention. I humbly contend
that the suggested motive altogether fails; and I conclude that head of
the observations which I have to address to you by saying that I submit
respectfully to you, to the Court, and to my learned friends that that
portion of this case has failed. It could not be the interest of Palmer
that Cook should die.

I now proceed to the next head, and it is impossible in dealing with
this evidence to observe altogether the order of date. I must group the
facts as well as I can in order to deal with the whole of the evidence.
The question is whether the symptoms of Cook before his death and the
appearance presented by his body after death were consistent with the
theory of his having died by strychnia poison, and inconsistent with the
theory of his having died from other and natural causes. It is under
this head, gentlemen, that I shall discuss, I hope not at undue length,
the medical evidence in this cause, and present to you such observations
as occur to me upon the witnesses who have been called to support the
view which the Crown takes of the effect of that medical evidence.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

For this purpose let us briefly, in a sentence or two, run over the
facts. Cook died on Wednesday morning, the 21st of November, at one
o’clock, in violent convulsions; he died in the presence of Mr. Jones.
It was no sooner light than Jones posted up to town to see Cook’s
stepfather and executor, Mr. Stevens, who came down, and was introduced
to Palmer. Palmer took him up to the corpse, and uncovered the corpse to
the thighs--brave man he must have been, if he was a murderer, to do
that--uncovered the corpse to the thighs before him. Stevens observed
the body, and wondered he could have died, he looked so calm, so
composed, so well, so little emaciated; he observed, indeed, some slight
rigidity about the muscles. I refer to his deposition. I am not sure
whether Stevens’ deposition was read--but it is evidence supplied to us.
He took his hand, and wondered that he should have died; his suspicions
were immediately aroused. He dined that day at Rugeley, and asked
Palmer to dinner with him, and questioned him about the betting-book;
got angry that it was not produced, dissembled with Palmer,
cross-examined him, went up to town, met him afterwards at the station
at Euston Square, afterwards at Rugby, afterwards at Wolverton, again at
Rugeley, and at last threw off the mask, and, addressing him in a tone
to which I shall call your attention presently, gave Palmer clearly to
understand that he suspected him, and intended to probe the whole matter
to the very core. He resolved upon a post-mortem examination, and a
post-mortem examination took place. The appearances which were presented
at the death of Cook were such as might have been expected by those who
had been acquainted with his course of life and his general health, his
pursuits--it is a pity to say anything hard of him--his vices--I will
not say more than this--his vices, and the company, the drinking, idle,
racing company which he kept. His father had died at the age of thirty,
his mother about the same age, a year or two after she had married Mr.
Stevens; his brother was delicate, his sister was delicate; he was
believed by his physicians to have something of a pulmonary complaint,
and, when his body was opened, his lungs were found to be emphysematous,
that is, their air vessels were distended with air. On further inquiry,
for I take both the examinations together, it was found that for a
length of time he had been troubled with a very ugly sore throat--a sore
throat bad enough to render it necessary that it should be constantly
touched with caustic, as well as his tongue; he would not have been able
to swallow without it. The tonsils of his throat were at the very time
he left for Shrewsbury races, though much better than they had been,
sore and inflamed--one of them was very nearly gone, the other was very
much reduced in size; and he knew so much better about himself and the
cause of it all probably than his medical adviser, that he very much
preferred mercury to any other specific for his complaint. He had,
besides that, traces about his person which have been so often referred
to, the result of disease, that they need not be more particularly
mentioned than they have been already, as to the extent of which and the
character of which some little doubt exists; but they did not come by an
ordinary and chaste mode of life, you may depend upon it; and
altogether, as far as it went, he seems to have been about as loose a
young man as one is in the habit of meeting, without being utterly lost
to all sense of honour and propriety, which I do not mean to suggest
that he was.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

His body was opened; the soreness of his tongue was manifest; I rather
collect that it was not actually sore at the time of his death--yet that
there were what they call follicles, and symptoms, if not recent, at
least not very ancient, of actual ulcers; the inside of his mouth, too,
had been ulcerated, or the skin taken off by some sort of soreness
attributed to decayed teeth. We all of us probably have decayed teeth;
but that does not happen to us which happened to him--it was sore on
both sides. The sores about his mouth he thought himself were
syphilitic, and could not be persuaded by the very respectable
gentleman, Dr. Savage, to attend readily to his advice. He thought he
was not weak enough, I think he said fool enough, to take quack
medicines; but weak enough to take the advice of any medical quack who
had assurance enough to give advice to him, believing that the best
thing for his complaint was mercury; and he was apprehensive, I believe,
that what are the worst symptoms of that disease for which mercury is
given, namely, spots upon the body, would make their appearance, and
that possibly (I believe such things do happen) some day or other he
would find on the morning of a race his face covered with large
copper-coloured blotches, which would plainly show what life he had been
leading. That was the sort of man he was. Many such a man has reformed
and become a good and respectable member of society. I should be sorry
to say anything unduly harsh upon a man who is gone; but the state of
his health is a material subject for our inquiry here. It is plain that
he had in his own opinion been affected by virulent syphilis, and that
that had not corrected his habits, for he had become recently diseased.
The medical men who attended him before concurred in this opinion; and
when his body was opened, in addition to all those plainer symptoms of
illness to the eye, on the second post-mortem examination, there was
between the delicate membrane which covers the spinal marrow, and which
is called the arachnoid, I believe--I think I am right--there was
pressing upon the arachnoid, and embedded to some extent in the next
covering, not so delicate, though still delicate, called the dura mater,
granules, as given in evidence, of such an extent as I will satisfy you
by men competent to inform you would, if his body had been opened in the
dead-house of any hospital in this metropolis, have been said and
determined to be the cause of his death.

Such was the condition of Cook, only partially discovered on the
post-mortem examination which took place at the desire of the executor,
Mr. Stevens. That examination was not conducted with that entirety, so
to speak--with that thorough determination to investigate the whole
matter--that afterwards was thought to be necessary.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Dr. Taylor attends the coroner’s inquest, which is held in consequence,
I presume, of his letter. I do not know whether that is so or not, but
in consequence of suspicions entertained, and probably in consequence of
the letter which he sent in answer to Mr. Stevens’ inquiries, and he
hears the evidence of Jones, and of Mills, and of Roberts, and of
others; but I call your attention to the evidence of those three
witnesses, because I think, in fairness to Dr. Taylor, it must be
presumed that they principally influenced his opinion. Now, then, I say
that upon the loose evidence of chambermaids, and waitresses, and
housekeepers, against the opinion of the medical man who attended Cook
in his last illness, or, at any rate, with no encouragement, as I will
satisfy you presently (for there is an observation to be made upon
that)--with no encouragement from the medical man, Mr. Jones, the
surgeon at Lutterworth, who was of an age and character, having seen the
whole illness, to form an opinion upon the matter--Dr. Taylor, having
heard the evidence of Elizabeth Mills, and the evidence of Mr. Jones,
and of Roberts, came at once boldly to the conclusion that his notion
that antimony was the cause of death was a mistake; and he had the
incredible imprudence--an imprudence which has led to all this dreadful
excitement--an imprudence which has rendered it necessary that this
inquiry should take place in this form and in this place, if at all--to
state upon his oath before that jury that he believed that the pills
which were administered to Cook on the Monday and Tuesday night
contained strychnia, and that Cook was poisoned by it.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Allow me for a moment to ask your attention to what the real character
of that opinion was. That opinion as delivered was irrevocable. By it
Taylor’s reputation was staked against Palmer’s life. Instantly followed
by the verdict of wilful murder it flew upon the wings of the Press into
every house in the United Kingdom. It became known that, according to
the opinion of a man whose whole life had been devoted to science, a
gentleman of personal character perfectly unimpeachable, a man who stood
well with his friends in the medical profession--that on his opinion,
not conjectural, not delivered, as an opinion of the kind might properly
be delivered, in a private room, to persons on whose discretion reliance
was placed, but delivered upon oath in a public room, in the public inn
of a little village where everything that took place was known--and he
must have known, I cannot but think, that suspicions had been, as I say,
and as I think you will be satisfied unduly, excited about the death of
Walter Palmer--that, according to his opinion, Cook’s death had been
caused by strychnia. “In fact,” said Dr. Taylor, “though I find no trace
of strychnia, and though there is nothing to induce me to believe that
there is strychnia in the body, except the suggestion that on the
Tuesday Palmer bought it off Roberts” (which would not account in any
way, supposing the mere purchase of strychnia could account for
anything, for the paroxysm on Monday night), “yet, having heard that
evidence, knowing that I have failed to discover the presence of
strychnia, I will undertake upon my oath to say, and on my credit
publish to the whole world, that the pills which were given to him on
Monday and Tuesday night contained strychnia, and that he died from
that poison.” Observe what it amounts to. It ascertains, not upon
scientific, or well-informed, or consistent testimony, but upon
testimony ill-informed, of the humblest class, the least fitted to
detail accurately the symptoms of such a disease as it is imputed to be,
on evidence not consistent with itself, as respects the evidence of
Elizabeth Mills in all particulars, or with the evidence of a much
better informed person, Mr. Jones, or with the opinion of Mr. Jones--it
ascertains, and pronounces positively, that the disease of which Cook
died was not simply convulsions of a tetanic form, however violent--not
convulsions with many features of tetanus, but that it was actual
tetanus, and that description of it which could only be caused by one
poison, and that poison strychnia. That is the evidence--he lays that
down as a proposition on which he is perfectly satisfied to rest, and on
that the verdict goes.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Gentlemen, let me ask you in what position we are placed for the safety
of our lives and families if, upon such evidence as this, upon
suspicions so excited and so sanctioned by hasty opinions of medical
men, we are liable every time a sudden death takes place in a family to
be put upon our trials on suspicion of foul play to those with whom we
live? In the cases which are usually discussed in this Court, witnesses
are called to give evidence respecting processes and means of arriving
at truth with a knowledge of the facts in question, with the operation
of which processes the prosecuting counsel, the judge, and the jurors
are as well acquainted as the witnesses themselves. The witnesses come
to speak to facts, a great portion of which are within the ordinary
knowledge and appreciation of mankind; but if science is admitted to
dogmatise in our Courts--science not exact in its nature--science not
successful, but baffled even by its own tests--science bearing upon its
forehead the motto that “a little learning is a dangerous thing”--if
that is to be introduced to state processes of arriving at truth,
conclusive to its satisfaction, but which we cannot follow, and opinions
respecting the cause of death which those processes have not discovered,
judges and jurors will have an amount of responsibility thrown upon them
too great for human nature to bear. This gentleman, Dr. Taylor, if he
had found the poison by his own tests, after long experience of their
efficacy, would have been a very good witness to have proved
unquestionably that strychnia was there; but not having found it, not
having seen the patient, and knowing nothing about him but what
Elizabeth Mills told him, and what he heard from Mr. Jones, who did not
agree with him, or who gave no evidence agreeing with him--with no
better means of information than that he thinks himself justified, upon
his oath in a public Court, to say that the pills administered by the
medical man (of course, he did not mean to impute any misconduct to Mr.
Bamford) contained strychnia, that murder was committed, and Cook
poisoned by it. If he is allowed to say that, what family and what
medical practitioner is safe? Gentlemen, I beg to ask you on what ground
does he say that? Not on any peculiar knowledge, for he has not any
knowledge as to the effects of strychnia more than any of us--myself, if
you please; for when we come thoroughly to look into it he does not
appear, of his own knowledge, to have seen a single case of strychnia in
the human subject; and yet he has been daring enough, knowing that the
consequences would be disastrous to this man--knowing perfectly well
that all the world, or, at all events, the great majority of the world,
would take for granted that a medical man in his position would not give
a hasty opinion--he has the incredible courage to declare, on his oath,
that the pills that were given, as far as he knew, by Dr. Bamford,
contained strychnia, and that Cook was poisoned by them!

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

I have said “a little learning is a dangerous thing,” and it appears to
me that there never was a case in which the adage was so applicable as
it is in this. Of all the works of God, the one best calculated to fill
us with wonder and admiration, and convince us of our dependence on our
Maker, and the utter nothingness of ourselves, is the mortal coil in
which we live, and breathe, and think, and have our being. Every minute
of our lives functions are performed at our will, the unerring accuracy
of which nothing but Omniscience and Omnipotence could have secured. We
feel and see exactly what takes place, and yet the moment we attempt to
explain what takes place, the instant we endeavour to give a reason for
what we know, and see, and do, the mystery of creation--“God created man
to His own image; to the image of God created He him”--arrests our
course, and we are flung back upon conjecture and doubt. We know in a
sense--we suppose--that the soft medullary substance which is within the
cavity of the head is the seat of thought, of sensation, and of will. We
know that that soft medullary substance is continued down the middle of
the back, protected by a bony duct or canal, within which bony duct or
canal it lies embedded; and we know that from the sides of this bony
duct and from this medullary substance proceed an infinite variety of
nerves, the conduits of sensation from all parts of the body to the
soul, and of muscles connected and dependent on them, the instruments of
voluntary motion. This we know, and we know that by that process all the
ordinary actions of our lives, at our own will, are effected with the
most wonderful precision. Sometimes, however, these nerves and muscles
depart from their normal character, and, instead of being the mere
instruments of the will of the soul, become irregular, convulsive,
tumultuary, vindicating to themselves a sort of independent vitality,
totally regardless of the authority to which they are ordinarily
subject. When thrown into this state of irritation and excitement their
effects are known by the general name of convulsions. It is remarkable,
unlike most other fine names, they are not a modern adaptation. The
ancients had them to express the very same thing; the spasmodic and
tetanic affections were known then, and as much about them hundreds and
thousands of years ago as is known now. Tetanic convulsions have
in later times been divided into two specific branches of
tetanus--idiopathic and traumatic. We have heard a great deal of these
two descriptions of tetanus. One question my lord asked, which was
answered by Dr. Todd--it would have been more satisfactory if my lord
had asked what the meaning of the English of “idiopathic,” viz.,
self-generating, was; the answer given to the question, What does
idiopathic mean? was “constitutional.” True, but that means nothing, or,
if anything, it means “unaccountable.”

LORD CAMPBELL--Without external injury.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Just so, my lord; without external injury, but
attributable to no known cause, unless in some few instances, perhaps,
where there is some injury in the interior of the body; but the meaning
of the word “idiopathic” is unquestionably what I have stated; not that
it follows they never can be traced to a cause, but that they constantly
occur in which the cause may be attributed to one thing or to another,
and in that case we say that it is idiopathic tetanus, because we cannot
with certainty say it is traumatic, that is, arising from any external
injury.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Now, gentlemen, we have had a great deal of evidence produced by my
friends directed to show--assuming that the disease of which Mr. Cook
died was tetanus--that it must have been strychnia tetanus. It is a mere
assumption they begin with--the merest assumption in the world. I will
give you my reasons for saying so, and I think I am justified in so
saying. That the deceased died in convulsions is beyond all question, or
immediately after convulsions; that they were convulsions that had
occurred exactly or about the same hours on the previous night, and
something like those which had occurred on the night preceding,
something which he described as madness for two minutes, is beyond all
doubt. What pretence is there for saying they were tetanus at all? Mr.
Jones was examined, and I will read to you presently what the evidence
he gave was. Mr. Jones, in the copy of the depositions delivered to me,
stated that Mr. Cook died of convulsions, and in the copy of the
depositions, which he signed and read over and corrected, there was not
a word of tetanus. My learned friend interposed, and said, on looking
to the original depositions, it did appear that he had mentioned it, and
he said so because in the course of his examination he found a
half-written word, “tetinus”--he availed himself of it, not unfairly, to
suggest, that though he did not positively say it was tetanus, yet that
what he observed was something which put him in mind of tetanus. It bore
some of the characteristics of a tetanic convulsion; but, gentlemen, it
may do so, and yet not be tetanus; and I submit to you that it is bad
reasoning, and I will prove it presently. I put a question to the
witness on the subject. It is bad reasoning to say without positive
proof of the fact that it was tetanus, and it cannot be traumatic
tetanus, because it did not appear it had presented the distinct
features of traumatic tetanus, and therefore it must be tetanus by
strychnia. That is the argument. They assume it cannot be traumatic
tetanus, they have not discovered the poison, but still they say it must
be tetanus by poison!

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Let us see whether there is any pretence for saying anything of the
kind. My learned friends may tell me, if you venture to impeach the
authority of a man like Dr. Taylor, who, though he had no knowledge on
the subject, undoubtedly is a gentleman of great leading in his
profession, and a gentleman who has written a book, which I will not
treat as a book not worthy of being attended to because I think it right
on this evidence to attack a particular part of it--if you choose to say
his opinion is not to be depended upon, it is incumbent on you to
suggest some other theory of the cause of Cook’s death which will
explain the evidence given, and prove not merely negatively it is not
what we say it was, but prove affirmatively it is something else. I say
I am not called on to do any such thing. The Crown is the party, or
rather those out of whose hands this case has been taken by the Crown,
who have thought proper to impute the death of this gentleman to the
poison of strychnia; they have followed the trail which has been dragged
before them by these toxicologists; and, relying on their judgment and
discretion, they have made quite sure they will be enabled to establish
the fact that it was not either by traumatic or idiopathic tetanus, but
by tetanus of strychnia, that he had died. I say I am not bound to
suggest any theory upon the subject. It cannot be expected that in the
defence I should do so; and, in point of logic, it is not reasonable,
when we contradict the fact which it is for them to prove, that our
denial of that fact and our reasons should be weakened because we cannot
conclusively fix the cause of death, or explain the cause of death in
any other way. If we can satisfy you that into any one of the numerous
varieties of convulsions this gentleman might have fallen, and might
have been either asphyxiated, or by some sudden spasm deprived of life
in a way different from asphyxia--it is quite enough for us to prove
the probability of that, unless they show conclusively that the
circumstances and symptoms which attended his death are irreconcilable
with any other theory than that of strychnia poison. Let us see what the
symptoms were. I will take the liberty of reading them in the first
instance from the depositions, because it is only fair to a person whose
judgment I dispute that you should have placed clearly before you the
evidence on which they rely.

The Court here adjourned for a short time.

Gentlemen, I have observed in the course of this inquiry, whenever there
has been a question of what a witness has said on a previous occasion
before a coroner, my lord has thought it right to have the whole of the
document read. Now, I propose to read--unless I am corrected by my lord,
when, of course, I shall immediately submit--I propose to read, for the
purpose of my present inquiry, only that part of the deposition which
describes the symptoms.

LORD CAMPBELL--You may read any part of them, completing the sense of
the part which you read.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I am much obliged to your lordship; and my object in
so doing is this, I will read all the deposition of Mr. Jones, though in
truth, in my view of the case, the deposition of Mr. Jones is not so
favourable to my case as his evidence in open Court. If there be a
difference, the evidence in open Court is more favourable than the
deposition; but substantially they are the same. What I propose to do
now is to call your attention to the statements of Elizabeth Mills and
Mr. Jones before the coroner of the symptoms they observed in Cook on
the Monday and Tuesday nights; and having done so, without accepting any
challenge which may be made by my friend to account for the symptoms, I
will submit to your judgment, on authority which cannot deceive you,
whether those symptoms are not more probably accounted for by the
convulsions which are not tetanic at all, and certainly not tetanic in
its distinct character of strychnia tetanus, but to be classed under
those general convulsions by which it constantly pleases Providence to
strike man down without leaving a trace of their course in his system.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Gentlemen, what I have to submit to you is this, that the symptoms
described in the depositions of Elizabeth Mills and Mr. Jones were such
as to make it quite unjustifiable to resort to the hypothesis of tetanus
of any kind, much less of strychnia tetanus. You will recollect--I will
not repeat it--the peculiarity of the constitution of this young man,
and the evidence of occasional functional derangement, not particularly
at that time, which involve grave consequences, to which I have already
called your attention. I submit to you, on the authorities on matters of
this kind, it is much more probable that Cook died in general
convulsions, not tetanic at all, than that he died from idiopathic,
traumatic, or strychnia tetanus.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

I have mentioned all that I intend to say about his bodily
infirmities--let us now see what has been the state of his mind. He went
to the Shrewsbury races in imminent peril of leaving them a ruined man.
Mr. Stevens told Palmer, and we have heard nothing to the contrary, that
if anybody had claims upon him, there would not be four thousand
shillings to meet them. We know, from the necessity under which he was
to raise sums of money at exorbitant interest, that he must have been in
circumstances of the utmost embarrassment--that it was impossible,
morally speaking, unless some wonderful success on the turf restored his
fortunes, that he could stand his ground at all; and it is in this state
of mind, and with health, at all events, not strong, and a constitution
exceedingly delicate, that he had been for a length of time cherishing
the hope that “Polestar,” which was hardly his, for it was mortgaged,
and which must become another person’s if it did not win at
Shrewsbury--in all reasonable probability he had been cherishing the
hope that “Polestar” would win, and that he by that winning would
possess himself at once of the stakes, which my learned friend stated,
and I think it was proved, amounted to nearly £400, besides some
considerable winnings to the amount of £600 or £700 by bets on the
mare--upwards of £1000 altogether. That has been mentioned several
times. Fancy the condition in which that young man rose from his bed on
the Tuesday morning. He must have known and felt when he went down to
breakfast, “This night I am either a beggar, or a man with hopes of
recovering myself, and with the means, at least for the time, of keeping
up my appearance of respectability.” He goes to the races--another race
takes place before his mare, “Polestar,” is brought to the goal. He
waits for it in a state of feverish anxiety and expectation--the hour
that intervenes appears to him everlasting. At last the horses start,
and his mare wins easily--he is the winner of £1000. We may suppose that
to be the sum. What effect has it upon him? Mr. Jones tells us the
effect. He is unable to speak for three minutes. He is saved, not merely
in purse but in honour and character--saved before his relatives and
friends. He will not be a disgrace to them yet, at all events; he may
retrieve his fortunes, and become an honourable and respectable man.
Conceive him to be a man with right feelings--and it is not because a
man falls into the ways of promiscuous licentiousness that he is devoid
of all honourable feeling--conceive him to be an honourable man, a man
who loved the memory of his father and his mother, who valued the
respectability of his family, and who had a desire to appear before his
sister, Mrs. Bradford, as an honourable man, instead of being known to
her as a levanter and a blackleg, driven from all honourable society.
The effect of his success is that for three minutes he cannot speak,
though he is with his intimate friend Mr. Jones. He goes back to the
inn, though he has to some extent recovered himself, in a state of
elation, of which it is my duty to say that one man said he was not more
elated than other people when they have won, but still, depend upon it,
overjoyed, and with a revulsion from the despair in which he was, which
must have convulsed, though not in a sense of immediate illness, every
fibre of his frame. His first and his natural inclination was to
entertain his friends, and he gives a champagne dinner. The evidence is
that he did not drink to excess; that is the evidence--but he had
champagne, and we all of us know that when there is champagne there are
other things besides, and it very often happens it is not because
champagne is drunk the company do not drink as much of other wines. What
in ordinary parlance is called a champagne dinner is a good, luxurious
entertainment, in which there is no stint and not much self-restraint. I
do not mean to say he was drunk. The evidence is he rose from table not
drunk, and therefore it is not for me to say, and the evidence will not
justify me in saying, he was. That evening he did not spend in the
company of Jones. I do not think it is very clear in whose company he
spent it after the dinner was over; but we find him the next night,
Wednesday, at the Unicorn, with Saunders, the trainer, Mr. Palmer, and a
lady. The next morning is cold and wet. He went on the ground, and was
observed by Herring standing in the wet, who remonstrated with him for
so doing. He was taken ill that night, and you will hear what his
symptoms were. I shall call your attention to those under the third head
of what I have to address to you. He sent for a doctor, who recommended
an emetic. The poor man seemed to know more about it than the doctor. He
said he could do it with hot water and a toothbrush. Perhaps he had
often relieved his stomach in that way. He was unwell that day, and was
ailing till his death at Rugeley. That is the general history, as far as
the mental excitement can be referred to--great reason to apprehend ruin
when he went to Shrewsbury; immediate, sudden, yet only partial recovery
from his embarrassments at Shrewsbury; and home to Rugeley to meet them
again in their full intensity, all the winnings and twice the sum,
unable to save him from the ruin he had brought on himself. All the
property he appears to have had at the time was “Polestar” and “Syrius,”
and they were mortgaged for debts due to Pratt. He may have had some few
hundreds in money. It is with a weakened body and an irritated and
excited mind that he is affected with a sickness at Shrewsbury, which
clings to a system incapable of being recruited by the ordinary
necessary food, without which the strongest man gives way, excites his
nerves, and makes him in imminent danger of falling a victim to any
convulsive attacks to which his constitution would be likely to be
disposed. Depend upon it, the thoughts of that young man, when he
retired to bed, were not the thoughts with which you lay your heads upon
the pillow. He had much to think of which he regretted, much to
deliberate upon which was of a nature to excite in his mind the most
serious apprehensions. There was neither credit, nor honour, nor
anything in his career which would make him respect himself, or
respectable in the eyes of others. His rest was only imperfect at the
best, and after the gratifications of the animal appetite to which
people in some instances resort to alleviate the unhappy recollections
of the moment, he had no resource. He desired no society so much as the
society of Palmer. His residence was at the Talbot Arms, which was, in
fact, a residence with Palmer. He does not appear to have had a
sitting-room to himself; he does not appear to have frequented the
coffee-room. He had a bedroom at the Talbot Arms, and his real home,
where he often was, and would have been nearly altogether but for his
illness, was Palmer’s house over the way. That was his condition at
Rugeley. He is taken violently ill on Sunday night. We had nothing but
his own description of it; but what is that description? He had been
poorly for some time. For two nights he had been taking opium pills
prescribed by Mr. Bamford. Mr. Bamford is an aged man, but there is no
doubt a respectable man, and a man who would be likely, I think we might
fairly infer, to consider what the complaint was and prescribe
accordingly. In the middle of the night, at twelve o’clock, he was
awakened from a dream in a state of affright. He says he was nearly mad;
he rang the bell, but nobody would come.

LORD CAMPBELL--He thought they would not hear him; he thought they had
gone to bed.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Yes; that is so; I am much obliged to your lordship.
He states he was mad for two minutes, and what did he ascribe it to?
Nothing but sudden alarm at the noise of a quarrel in the street. Does
that happen to us, gentlemen? Does it happen to those of us who live
regular lives, and who are of good average constitution? Do we awaken in
a state that we can describe as madness, and without any mode of
accounting for the paroxysm but a quarrel in the street? It must have
been a very high state of nervous excitement. It must have been
something violent while it lasted--transient in its character--but
something that arose from a disordered state of the stomach and an
agitated and anxious mind, probably in some degree weakened by the
medicine he was taking, the calomel and the morphia.

The next day, the Monday, he was well the whole day; not well in the
sense of being strong and able to take a walk in the fields, or mount
his horse and gallop about the country, but well in the sense of being
able to get up, after trying to breakfast in bed, to talk of sending for
the barber, and, I believe, actually sending for him; of seeing his
trainer and his jockeys, and discussing his plans for his next
campaign--well to that extent, but not out of his bedroom, taking no
substantial food, not vomiting much that day, though a little I think in
the morning, which is ascribed by the theory of the Crown, or by those
whose case the Crown has been forced by public opinion or by public
excitement to take up, to Palmer’s absence all that day. We do not hear
that Cook took anything solid. We do not hear that he lunched at one
o’clock, and then, as most probably he was in the habit of doing, took
his beefsteak and his leg of mutton, or his chicken, at five or six
o’clock. He had no insuperable dislike to brandy and water; he could, on
occasion, take his glass or two, though Palmer was not there; but he
does not appear to have been in the condition, ill as he was, to have
any gratification in food or drink of any kind; and Palmer was in London
all the time. Then, in the middle of the night, at twelve o’clock, he
was seized with a paroxysm, which Elizabeth Mills describes. We will
take her description. That is the account of Cook’s illness on Monday
night. It might have been a much less serious fit than the one on the
Sunday night. Nothing took place which could justify any man in saying
that he was mad for a minute--nothing of the kind. But let us be fair.
Afterwards, in talking of it, he says, speaking to Elizabeth Mills, “Did
you ever see anybody in such agony as I was last night?” We have the
description of Elizabeth Mills, and his own statement afterwards; “I saw
him again about seven o’clock, and he asked me whether I ever saw
anybody in such agony as he was the previous night.” Not to tie the
young woman down to a word, the fair inference of the whole of that
statement is that for some time during the whole of that paroxysm he was
in pain, and in great pain, but that he never lost his senses. He could
not very well be in such a state as that which he described on the
Sunday night. Now, let us have the statement of Mr. Jones, who is, we
must take it, a perfectly competent man, and whose evidence must be
attended to. Mr. Jones was requested to go there by Palmer, Palmer
having written to him on the Sunday. He was not able to go then, being
himself indisposed, and he could not get there till Tuesday. He went
there on the Tuesday, and got there by three o’clock, and he was for
some time with Cook alone.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Now, just observe the consequence of that, looking at the circumstances
of this case. Mr. Jones was the most intimate friend, as far as we can
judge, that Cook had. Probably he was. He had a great regard for Mr.
Stevens, who had been the husband of Cook’s mother, but he was not so
intimate with Mr. Stevens. Mr. Stevens was probably a gentleman who did
not approve--in fact, he frankly told us he disapproved--of the course
Cook was pursuing. Probably he was more austere to him during life than
we should imagine from the way he speaks of him after death. His best
friend seems to have been Mr. Jones. No doubt Mr. Jones, though he was a
respectable man, did not take on himself to rebuke or reprove Cook for
what he might think it not correct to do. He lived in his house at
Lutterworth, and appears to have been on such good terms with Cook that
Palmer knew it would not be disagreeable to Cook if Mr. Jones would come
and stay and sleep in the same bedroom, and so long as he required the
attendance of a friend; and, as far as we can understand, Mr. Jones has
Cook to himself from three to seven o’clock. He has him to himself for
some considerable time. You know part of the suggestion in this case for
the Crown is that Cook thought that Palmer had played false with him at
Shrewsbury; part of the suggestion in this case is that Cook thought at
Shrewsbury Palmer laid a plan for circumventing him, and of getting his
money. Mr. Jones had the opportunity, during the afternoon, if Cook had
wished it, of being the recipient of the whole confidence of Cook; Cook
might have said to Mr. Jones, “I am glad you have come; I have been
acting the fool with Palmer; I suspect him; I think he means to get my
money.”

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--You must not say that. You would not let me ask
him any questions about it.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I do not say that it did pass. I use it in this way,
it might have passed, and that it did not is clear, because Mr. Jones
entertained no suspicion of the kind; he having been with Cook during
the whole of the evening shows that it did not pass, and that nothing
occurred in the entire and unbounded confidence which may be supposed to
have existed between Cook and Mr. Jones to raise a suspicion in the mind
of Mr. Jones; and so much was that the case that, at the consultation
which took place between seven and eight o’clock on Tuesday evening,
between Mr. Jones and Palmer and Mr. Bamford, as to what the medicine
ought to be, the fit of the Monday night was never mentioned; it was not
alluded to at all.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Gentlemen, that is a very remarkable fact; it is remarkable in two ways;
the Crown might say it is remarkable in this sense, that Palmer knew it,
and said not a word about it. But it seems it was a matter, in the
opinion of Cook, so little serious, that he never said a word of it to
Mr. Jones, because, if Cook had thought that those words which he used
to Elizabeth Mills were not an exaggerated description of what had
occurred, do you not think, when Mr. Jones came to see him, and felt his
pulse, and inquired what his symptoms were, that Cook would have said
(he being in full possession of his senses), “You cannot judge now from
my appearance how I am--I was in a state of madness last night--I was in
the greatest possible agony--I do not know what it was--I was attacked
in the middle of the night in such a way that I thought I was going to
die”? As he had Mr. Jones with him, would he not have mentioned that in
the conversation? My inference from that is, that in all probability
this first statement of Elizabeth Mills was the correct statement of
what occurred; and if we find it is consistent with what Mr. Jones says
as to what occurred the next night in its general character, it would be
very nearly the same on both nights. We may reasonably infer that
anything in excess of that, on which the medical evidence was given, has
been the result of imagination, and not so strictly consistent with the
truth as the original statement. Let us see what Mr. Jones says. (The
learned Serjeant read a portion of the deposition of Mr. Jones before
the coroner.) Observe the significance of that. Palmer, in the presence
of Mr. Jones, brings up two pills, which it is supposed were the pills
that poisoned him--pills containing a substance which sometimes does its
work in a quarter of an hour, which has done it in less, but never
hardly exceeds half an hour; and so we are to be asked to believe that
Palmer, Jones being present, and Cook in his presence objecting to take
the pills, positively forced them down his throat, at the imminent peril
of his falling down, like the rabbit, in two or three minutes afterwards
in convulsions evidently and manifestly tetanic. He states what did take
place. (The learned Serjeant read a further portion of Mr. Jones’
deposition.) But, as I am reminded by one of my lords, that in the
course of the examination of Mr. Jones the word “tetanus” is used, it is
right I should say a word on that, lest I should forget it. The word
“tetanus” is not in the deposition, and it is very remarkable that the
suggestion which has been put forward by the Crown was the suggestion of
Dr. Taylor. I do not think it is impossible that Mr. Jones, when he gave
that evidence, had in his mind’s eye what he had seen that night and not
seen very correctly. He had not light enough to see the patient’s face.
There was only one candle, and he could not tell whether there was any
change in his countenance on the Tuesday--a very important symptom. They
say it cannot have been tetanic, because there is a peculiar expression
in the face--a fact which nobody observed. It was too dark, in this case
of Cook’s, to take notice. Mr. Jones gave his evidence, and he is a
competent professional man, and it is quite clear that the notion of
tetanus, tetanic, tetaniform, or something like tetanus, must have
entered into his mind, because the clerk has put down “tetinus”; he
probably had not heard of the word before, and the probability is
something like it was used. He said he did use it, and afterwards it was
struck out, and Mr. Jones corrected his deposition, read it all over,
and signed it, and left it with the word struck out. There are strong
symptoms of “compression,” that is, one word struck out; then afterwards
there is the word “tetinus,” and then those two words are struck out,
with Mr. Jones’ entire approbation, because otherwise he would have
corrected it when he signed it; and he said he read it over, and the
words “violent convulsions” were substituted. What is the fair inference
from that?--that the man who saw Cook in the paroxysm did not think
himself justified in saying it was tetanus. It might be very like; it
might have a tetaniform appearance; but it was not tetanus.

Gentlemen, I will call your attention to the features of general
convulsions. I cross-examined several of the medical witnesses for the
purpose of inducing what I consider to be a true belief as to this case,
that the convulsions in which Cook died were not tetanus or tetanic
properly speaking; but that they were convulsions of that strong and
violent character which are tetaniform, though not classed under
idiopathic or traumatic tetanus, but under the head of general
convulsions.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Gentlemen, I now propose to read a description of general convulsions
from the work of Dr. Copland. I called the attention of the very learned
gentlemen who were examined for the Crown to what was laid down in that
work, which is admitted to be one of authority, and I cannot conceive
how you, to whom this matter of fact is to be submitted, can form an
opinion whether or not my theory, or rather my belief, that he died by
the visitation of God, in violent general convulsions, be a probable
one, unless you hear from what was not written for the purposes of this
case what the features of general convulsions are; so, if you please, I
will read to you what I have myself copied from the work of Dr. Copland.
This, I may say, as I am upon the point, that the only persons in the
profession who can be supposed to have any competent or reliable
information on the subject of tetanus, not traumatic, are physicians;
and not one physician--properly so speaking--not one of that most
honourable body of men who see the sudden attacks of patients in their
beds, and not in hospitals, has been called to speak to this. Dr. Todd
was called, and Dr. Todd gave his evidence in a way to command the
respect of everybody; but Dr. Todd is a gentleman whose practice does
not appear to have been so much that of a physician as that of a
surgeon; he is physician to the King’s College Hospital, and has held
that office about twenty years; he has lectured on diseases of the
nervous system and tetanus, but he does not appear to have been a
physician in general practice.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Gentlemen, I am instructed--I shall be able to show--by eminent men that
what I am about to read from Dr. Copland’s book, as part of my speech,
is a true description of convulsions that are not idiopathic or
traumatic, but of a general kind. He first gives the definition of
“general convulsions,” which he says are “violent and involuntary
contractions of a part or of the whole of the body, sometimes with
rigidity and tension (tonic convulsions), but more frequently with
tumultuous agitations, consisting of alternating shocks (clonic
convulsions), that come on suddenly, either in recurring or in distinct
paroxysms, and after irregular and uncertain intervals.” We will see
what he says about it--“If we take the character of the spasm in respect
of permanency, rigidity, relaxation, and recurrence as a basis of
arrangement of all the diseases by abnormal action of involuntary
muscles, we shall have every grade, passing imperceptibly from the most
acute form of tetanus through cramp, epilepsy, eclompsia, convulsions,
&c., down to the most atonic states of chorea and tremor. Also if we
consider the affections called convulsions, and which are usually
irregular in their forms, with reference to the character of the
abnormal contraction of the muscles, we shall see it in some cases of
the most violent and spastic nature, frequently of some continuance, the
relaxations being of brief duration, or scarcely observable, and in
others nearly or altogether approaching to tetanic. These constitute the
more tonic form of convulsions, from which there is every possible
grade, down to the atonic or most clonic observed in chorea or tremor.
The premonitory signs of general convulsions are, _inter alia_, vertigo
and dizziness, irritability of temper, flushings or alternate flushing
and paleness of the face, nausea, retching or vomiting, or pain and
distension of the stomach or left hypochondrium, unusual flatulence of
the stomach and bowels, and other dyspeptic symptoms. In many instances
the general sensibility and consciousness are but very slightly
impaired, particularly in the more simple cases, and when the proximate
cause is not seated in the encephalon; but in proportion as this part is
affected primarily or consecutively, and the neck and face tumid and
livid, the cerebral functions are obscured, and the convulsions attended
by stupor, delirium, &c., or pass into or are followed by these states.
The paroxysm may cease in a few moments, or minutes, or continue for
some or even many hours. It generally subsides rapidly, the patient
experiencing at its termination fatigue, headache, or stupor, but he is
usually restored in a short time to the same state as before the
seizure, which is liable to recur in a person once affected, but at
uncertain intervals. After repeated attacks the fit sometimes becomes
periodic (the convulsio recurrens of authors). The most common causes
are, _inter alia_, all emotions of the mind which excite the nervous
power and determine the blood to the head, as joy, anger, religious
enthusiasm, excessive desire, &c., or those which greatly depress the
nervous influence, as well as diminish and derange the actions of the
heart, as fear, terror, anxiety, sadness, distressing intelligence,
frightful dreams, &c., the syphilitic poison and repulsion of gout or
rheumatism.”

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Now, do you believe that if Dr. Taylor had read that before he went to
the inquest he would have dared to say that this man died of strychnia
poison? Is there one single symptom in the statement made in the
depositions of Elizabeth Mills and Mr. Jones which may not be classed
under one of the varieties of the degrees of convulsions which Dr.
Copland describes? Now, it is not for me to suggest a theory, but the
gentlemen whom I shall call before you, men of the highest eminence in
their profession, not mere surgeons of hospitals who never see anything
hardly except it is of that nature, that is, of the traumatic
kind--gentlemen, do not suppose that I should be capable of speaking
disrespectfully of Sir Benjamin Brodie, or of any of the gentlemen
called except in terms of the highest respect; but they are surgeons of
hospitals, and obtain a certain experience as to those misfortunes under
which, through violence, the human frame suffers; who have not so much
opportunity of witnessing and of knowing the symptoms of the class of
convulsions which constantly attack people in their own residences in
the dead of the night--those convulsions which heads of families and
brothers and sisters are most anxious to conceal from anybody but the
medical man--those convulsions, the known existence of which deprives a
young woman of the hope, or a young man of the hope, of marriage. It is
the men who have that sort of experience--the general practitioners--men
who enjoy the entire confidence of numerous families, and have the
opportunity of visiting, in the way of their profession, the poor at
their lowly dwellings, suffering under sudden convulsions when affected
by serious disease--those are the men that we want to tell us about
convulsions. Do not let me mislead you for a moment--the evidence I have
read to you is not the whole of the evidence of Elizabeth Mills. There
is her evidence, differing in some material particulars from the
evidence given by her before the coroner. As to Mr. Jones, the evidence
does not so much differ, though there may be some particulars in which
there is a difference--and there is one remarkable one. He said in his
depositions, “The body was resting on its head and its heels”; but in
his evidence he says, “It was so bent that if it had been turned on its
back, it would, or might, have rested on its head and its heels”--that
is, if it did not rest on the back; but he in substance says it did. Mr.
Bamford says he found it resting on its head, its back, and its heels,
thereby excluding the supposition that a part of the body was not
supported by the back. However, before I go to that, perhaps you will
permit me to call your attention to the symptoms of traumatic disease.
My belief is, and I submit it to you, and it is what I shall hope you
will confirm by your verdict, that this complaint was not strychnia
tetanus at all, but it was, according to this description--the
description to which I will call your attention--it may well have been
some form of traumatic tetanus or idiopathic tetanus--there being no
broad general distinction or certain confine between idiopathic or
self-generating tetanus, or tetanus not arising from any extreme hurt or
any violence to the interior part of the system; and many forms of
convulsions, that is tetaniform, are pretty much the same as idiopathic
tetanus, and we have had numbers of medical gentlemen who have told us
they never saw a case of idiopathic tetanus. The answer to that is, you
have had very limited experience. They are not very frequent; but there
are gentlemen here who have seen cases of idiopathic tetanus, and they
are not of such unfrequent occurrence by any means. There is one
gentleman who is here, and whom I will call before you--a gentleman who
attended at the bedside of the lady at Leeds who was suffering under
strychnia, who has himself seen four cases of idiopathic tetanus; and
there are other gentlemen here who have seen them also--they are not so
rare, but they very rarely fall under the notice of surgeons of
hospitals; they are not so frequent as traumatic tetanus. Cases of
traumatic tetanus do frequently supervene from the operations of the
surgeons themselves; sometimes after operations, however skilfully
performed, a lockjaw is the consequence. The persons to give you
information on the subject are the general practitioners.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Now, we shall see that none of those symptoms which were spoken to on
the day of the inquest by Elizabeth Mills and Mr. Jones may not range
under one of these forms of tetanus, the idiopathic or traumatic. The
idiopathic mingling in all directions with general violent convulsions
is not to be distinguished from them, inasmuch as convulsions have
constant tetaniform appearances; and the meaning I take it of that is
this, it is true, as Dr. Watson says in a passage which I called to the
attention of one of their witnesses--it is true that in four cases out
of five traumatic tetanus begins with a seizure of the lower jaw,
unless, as Sir Benjamin Brodie tells us, it may begin, as it did in two
cases which he attended many years ago, in the limbs. He told us so when
he was here; it began there before it attacked the jaw; but generally
trismus or lockjaw is the first symptom. But there is a fifth case in
which it is not, and Mr. Curling told us that that was about the
proportion--four out of five; so that even traumatic, or that kind of
tetanus which sets in after a wound, does not always begin with some
affection of the jaw or neck. Now, gentlemen, having gone so far, and
having endeavoured to satisfy you that the symptoms which were spoken to
by those two witnesses on the depositions may be the symptoms, as I
think--that is to say, as I am told, having no experience of my own in
the matter--that these symptoms are rather referable to that violent
description of general convulsions than to any form of tetanus, let us
go to the question, whether or not the symptoms are consistent with what
we know of tetanus produced by strychnia, because if we are satisfied on
a full inquiry that they are not consistent with the symptoms
unquestionably produced by strychnia tetanus, then the hypothesis of the
Crown entirely fails, and John Parsons Cook cannot have died of
strychnia poison.

Now, gentlemen, whether that be so or not will depend in a great degree,
as it strikes me--but, of course, it is entirely for you--on what you
think of the evidence of Elizabeth Mills; but before I go to the
evidence of Elizabeth Mills I will call your attention to what the
description of strychnia tetanus is, as given us by two very eminent
gentlemen who were called the other day for the Crown--Dr. Taylor and
Dr. Christison; and if we find on looking at it that that description of
the poison of strychnia tetanus, given by them, is a different thing
from the picture first given of the complaint, of the paroxysms of John
Parsons Cook by Elizabeth Mills and Mr. Jones, I think it would be
rather too bad on their mere opinion to say that this is strychnia
tetanus. Let us take Dr. Taylor’s description of strychnia tetanus--I am
not sure whether Dr. Taylor stated he had ever seen strychnia tetanus in
the human subject; however, we must be just to Dr. Taylor. Dr. Taylor
has had an extensive reading upon the subjects upon which he writes, and
it is not to be supposed that Dr. Taylor would hastily set down in his
book what he did not find established on high authority; therefore,
though having it at second hand, Dr. Taylor knows something upon the
subject.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Now, Dr. Taylor, in his work on strychnia poison, has this under the
head of strychnia, “that from five to twenty minutes after the poison
has been swallowed the patient is suddenly seized with tetanic symptoms,
affecting the whole of the muscular system; the body becomes rigid, the
limbs stretched out, and the jaws so fixed that considerable difficulty
is experienced in introducing anything into the mouth.” On both the
depositions and the other evidence it is stated that Mr. Cook was
sitting up in bed, beating the bed-clothes, frequently telling the
people about him to go for Palmer, asking for the remedy, and willing to
take whatever was given him; there was no considerable difficulty in
introducing anything into the mouth, and the paroxysms, instead of
beginning within from five to twenty minutes after the poison was
supposed to have been swallowed, did not begin for an hour and a half
afterwards. Dr. Taylor further on states, “After several such attacks,
increasing in severity, the patient dies asphyxiated.” That there were
some of these symptoms in this case there can be no doubt, and there
will be some of them in every case of violent convulsions, yet it is not
the description of such a case as that of John Parsons Cook. Now, let us
see what Dr. Christison says--“The symptoms produced by strychnia are
very uncommon and striking--the animal begins to tremble, and is seized
with stiffness and starting of the limbs. Those symptoms increase till
at length the animal is attacked by general spasms.” Is that the
description of either of these paroxysms? Who can say with any degree of
truth that it is? Just observe these last indications of strychnia
tetanus, which are consistent with all the cases stated in their books.
It is only justice to those gentlemen who have taken pains to look to
the authorities to which they refer to say that the statements which
they give of their cases are in the main correct, but not in all their
details. The books would be five times their size if they were; but they
are in the main correct, when we look to the foreign authorities on
which they are founded--“The fit is then succeeded by an interval of
calm, during which the senses are impaired or are unnaturally acute; but
another paroxysm soon sets in, and then another and another, until at
last a fit occurs more violent than any that had preceded it, and the
animal perishes suffocated.” I know exactly what Dr. Christison means by
this, because there is a gentleman here who will state an experiment
which I saw myself; it was an experiment, and for the purpose of this
case, and to assist me; and I disagree with Dr. Taylor that there can be
a moment’s hesitation in sacrificing ten or twenty dogs for the purpose
of ascertaining the truth of this theory when a man’s life is involved.
These experiments were performed by Dr. Letheby while I was there. I
will state them to you, because he will prove it by and by. A dog had
some strychnia put in his mouth, one grain, and then for about--I cannot
be sure as to the time exactly, but about twenty or twenty-five
minutes--I cannot be sure, it might not be so much--the dog was
perfectly well. There were two rabbits on the table which were also
about to be subjected to the operation, and the dog, when the chain was
sufficiently relaxed to enable him to do so, showed all the indications
which a dog naturally does to get at the rabbits; he was pulling at his
chain, and was smelling and pawing and taking an interest in the
rabbits; suddenly it fell down on its side, and its legs were stretched
out in a most violent way. It panted, and then it remained for some
time--two or three minutes--quiet, occasionally a little jerking, but
generally quiet. It recovered again for a time, got up and looked at the
rabbits, but was dizzy, seemed afraid to move; and, if you touched it,
shuddered and twitched, to use Miss Elizabeth Mills’ description; seemed
to be afraid, and after another moment down it went again. It got up
again, and down it went again, and at last it had a tremendous struggle,
and it died. That is what Dr. Christison means by this description; it
would be true if the dose had been a strong one. If the dose had not
been sufficient to kill the dog it would probably be a longer time--at
least, I suppose so--in producing its effect, and the interval between
the paroxysms, as stated by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Christison, would get
longer and longer, until at last the animal would recover. If the dose
is strong enough to kill, the interval between the paroxysms is shorter,
till at last the violent one comes which destroys life; the eyes are
fixed, and there it lies, and just before its death--and I thought it
was dead, but I was told immediately before its death--just before it
dies, the limbs become as supple and as free as it is possible to
conceive the limbs of an animal to be; whichever way you placed them
after the animal is quite dead, if you place them in any form, the
rigor-mortis comes on, and they remain in the position in which you
place them. Dr. Christison says they assume rigidity. I saw this
operation performed, and also on the two rabbits, and their symptoms
were substantially the same, and their limbs in both cases were quite as
flaccid immediately on death. The animals during the time of the
intervals between the paroxysms were exceedingly touchy, and seemed
afraid of being touched at all; if you were to touch them they would
shrink away. It was more so in the dog; it was, in fact, a sort of
shudder--that is what Dr. Christison means.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Now, gentlemen, without going through the whole of these details, I will
state to you my reasons for saying, on the authorities and from my study
of the books of those two gentlemen, that, according to their
principles, this cannot have been strychnia poison. Now, I object to the
theory of its being strychnia poison, first, on this ground, that no
case can be found in the books in which the patient while the paroxysm
lasted has had so much command over the muscles of animal life and
voluntary motion as Mr. Cook had on the Monday and Tuesday nights. You
heard that Mr. Cook was sitting up in his bed, that Mr. Cook was beating
the bed-clothes, that Mr. Cook was talking and crying out for Palmer,
and to have the remedy given to him; that Mr. Cook, so far from being
afraid of people touching him, asked to have his neck rubbed, and it was
rubbed. There is not a single instance in the books of Dr. Taylor, or in
the books of Dr. Christison, or any other books of any medical man
describing the symptoms of the strychnia poison, in which the well-known
symptoms the malasaux took place--not one, and it is inconsistent with
their description, and what I tell you will be the proof Dr. Letheby
will give of the experiment that I saw, and of many others he had
performed.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

I will go to the next point on the ground of which I say this is not
strychnia poison. I say there is no authentic case of tetanus by
strychnia in which the paroxysms were delayed so long after ingestion of
the poison as in this case. I will refer, however, to their own
statements, knowing that they are here. (Extract from Dr. Taylor’s book
read.) There was one case to which his attention was called; it was not
a fatal one, but it got better, and still he says the symptoms were
those which he described, and thought it was too late to get the poison
out of the stomach, as in half an hour it had got into the
circulation--what can be more clear? it is a broad, distinguishing
feature in the strychnia. The interval which took place between the
ingestion of the poison in Mr. Cook’s case and the time when the
paroxysm commenced was much too long, three times too long, to indicate
the effect of poison by strychnia. It cannot be pretended it was a
similar case, if the symptoms are properly described, as I will
presently call your attention to them, by Elizabeth Mills in her
statement in this Court. Now, gentlemen, thirdly, I submit, and I will
prove, that there is no case in which recovery from a paroxysm of
strychnia poison has been so rapid as in Cook’s case on Monday night, or
in which a patient has enjoyed so long an interval of repose or
exemption from its symptoms after they had once set in. It is a very
remarkable feature, if it be true--if I am right in saying that there is
no case in which recovery has been so rapid as in Mr. Cook’s case on
Monday night, followed by so long an interval of relief from the
paroxysm. In fact, in the case of Mr. Cook’s, on the theory of the
Crown, it would not have come on again if a second dose had not been
given. There was an end of it when Elizabeth Mills left Palmer sleeping
by the side of his friend in the arm-chair. How easy it would have been
for him then, if he had been disposed, when Elizabeth Mills had gone to
bed and had retired to her room, to have called out to her that Mr.
Cook was in another fit, and to have killed him, almost without
suspicion on the part of anybody. Dr. Christison tells us in general
terms that these convulsions are succeeded by intervals of calm, during
which the senses are unnaturally and unusually acute; another fit then
begins, it subsides, and is succeeded by another and another, till at
length a fit takes place more violent than any before it, and the animal
dies suffocated. Here, I submit to you, is a distinction between the
case of Mr. Cook and that which these gentlemen state to be the
distinguishing feature, in that there is no recurrence.

Now, I will come to another feature of the disease, the post-mortem
symptoms of the disease. I saw three animals killed, of which I have
spoken to you, and Dr. Letheby was good enough to have dug up from his
garden a rabbit which had been killed by strychnia, and to open it
before me, to examine the heart, and the heart was full; the heart of
the dog was quite full, and the hearts of the two rabbits which I saw
killed were quite full--as full as they could possibly be. I am told
that the result of an enormous proportion of such examinations has been,
and, if properly conducted, of all of them, that the heart is full on
the right side invariably. We will prove to you that the heart of the
animal which was killed by strychnia poison is invariably full, and it
stands to reason it would be so.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Now, I have discussed what may be said for this purpose to be the theory
of the matter, but I have not yet met the strong point which will be
made for the Crown on the evidence of Elizabeth Mills. I am, on all
occasions, most reluctant to attack a witness examined on his or her
oath, and particularly if she be in a humble position. I am very
reluctant to impute perjury to such a person. Let me point out to you
what occurs to me to be the right opinion to be formed of the evidence
of Elizabeth Mills. I submit to you in this case of life and death, or
in any one case involving any question of real importance to liberty or
to property, that that young woman’s evidence cannot and would not be
regarded in the ordinary administration of justice when on material
points she has stated two different stories. A jury can really hardly
believe such a witness, and in criminal cases the learned judges are,
without altogether rejecting the evidence and withholding it from the
jury, in the habit of pointing out to the jury the discrepancies between
the statements given at different times, and saying that under all the
circumstances of the case it would not be safe to rely on the testimony
in the last instance, if it differ from, and probably is more strongly
adverse to, the party accused than the statements made when the
impression was fresh in the witness’s mind. Now, observe that since the
first time that she gave her evidence she has had the means of knowing
what the case of the Crown is. She has had the means of knowing--I do
not mean to say she has been tutored by the Crown--it would be a gross
injustice to say so; and I know if my learned friend thought that had
been done he would not have called her--or by any of the gentlemen who
act for the Crown; but since she was examined at Rugeley she has had the
means of knowing, by interviews she has had with different people, that
the case of the Crown is, that Palmer, having first prepared the body of
Cook for deadly poison by the poison of antimony, afterwards despatched
him with the deadly poison of strychnia. She has learned that their case
is, that there was an administration of something which did not
eventually kill him, that is, antimony, but which had the effect of
producing retching, and nausea, and irritation of the stomach, which is
attributed, according to the hypothesis of the Crown, to the deliberate,
persevering intention of the prisoner at the bar to reduce him bit by
bit--making him reject everything off his stomach, so that when once the
ingestion of the poison occurred he was certainly dead; that is the
case. In her first evidence before the coroner she was asked whether she
had tasted the broth, and she said that she had tasted the broth, and
thought it very good; she did not say a single word about any ill
effects that broth had produced upon her--not a single word. She has
since learned it is part of the case for the Crown, or of those out of
whose hands the Crown has taken this prosecution--in fact, the theory of
Dr. Taylor--that all this retching and vomiting was the result of a
constant dosing with antimonial poison, in order to prepare him for an
utter inability to resist the fatal dose of strychnia which it was
intended to give him. Accordingly, when she is examined here, fitting
her evidence to the case, and probably after having been asked many
times whether she had not been sick on some Sunday or another, she has
persuaded herself, if she has not been persuaded--I do not wish to use
the word suborned--that her sickness on some Sunday afternoon took place
on the Sunday afternoon that broth was sent, and was caused by her
having taken two spoonfuls of it. She did not say so in the first
instance before the coroner, but that “she tasted it, and it was very
good.” I ask you to consider for a moment whether it is not to the last
degree improbable that a man like Palmer--a shrewd, intelligent, clever
man--would expose himself to such a chance of detection as the sending
of poisoned broth made at the Albion to the Talbot Arms, at the imminent
risk of its finding its way to the kitchen, where, sure as fate, the
cook would taste it. Can you conceive a cook not tasting broth made by
another cook, and sent over as particularly good? I submit to you it
was such a risk as no man in his senses could by any possibility run. A
cook is, in the nature of the thing, a taster; she tastes everything;
she does not know, of course, if it be her own making, whether it is
good until she tastes it; she gets the habit of tasting--and as sure as
Palmer sent the broth to the Talbot Arms, and any part of it reached the
kitchen, so sure, if it contained antimony, would the cook be ill. Is it
credible? I submit to you, it is not credible; and when you find she did
not say a word about it in the first instance, and that an ample
opportunity was afforded for her so to do in the way I have described, I
submit you cannot rely upon her evidence here, as it differs with her
evidence before the coroner. Again, she said that on the Saturday Cook
had coffee for breakfast about eight o’clock. “He ate nothing but he
vomited directly he had swallowed it. Up to the time I had given him the
coffee I had not seen Palmer.” When she gave that evidence she was not
aware it was part of the theory of the Crown that the traces of antimony
(which Dr. Taylor says might have killed him) were to be made to fit
into the theory of the strychnia poison--that it was a gradual
preparation, by vomiting, for strychnia. That chart of the country over
which she was to travel had not been laid before her. She did not then
know what at the time she came here she did know--that it was part of
the case for the Crown.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

The Attorney-General opened the case in that way distinctly, that that
was the theory for the Crown; “that Palmer had ordered some coffee for
Cook on the Saturday morning; it was brought up by the chambermaid,
Elizabeth Mills, and given to Cook by Palmer, who had an opportunity of
tampering with it before giving it to Cook.” That was the statement
which the Attorney-General was instructed to make. There is all the
difference between her first statement, that up to the time she had
given the coffee to Palmer for Cook, and that Palmer had an opportunity
of tampering with it. The young woman would not go so far as that, but
she went to this extent--“Palmer came over at eight o’clock--ordered a
cup of coffee for Cook--I gave it to Cook--I believe Palmer was in the
bedroom--I put it into Mr. Cook’s hands, but I did not see him drink
it--I observed afterwards the coffee had been vomited.” The statement
thus made by her before you was not so strong as that of the
Attorney-General, but, on the other hand, it was a great deal stronger
than the statement she made before the coroner, because, according to
her story then, Palmer had not an opportunity of dealing with it--she
“did not see Palmer up to the time she had given him the coffee.” From
the statement which she made here you might suppose that Palmer, if he
had chosen, might have got the coffee from Cook--but that is in the last
degree improbable--and have done what he wanted to do with it; for she
says, “Palmer came over at eight o’clock and ordered a cup of coffee,
and that when it was made she took the coffee up into the bedroom and
gave it into Cook’s hands” (she believed Palmer was there), “but she did
not see him drink it, and afterwards she observed the coffee had been
vomited.” These two statements, the one before the coroner and the other
before you, are essentially different, and the difference between them
consists in this, that the last one supports the theory now set up on
the part of the Crown, while the first one is totally inconsistent with
it. Can you rely on a woman who has altered her testimony to such an
extent? But that is not all; the case for the Crown is that Cook was
reluctant to take the pills which were given to him, and that he
expressed a reluctance which Palmer of his own head overruled, and that
Palmer knew that Cook was angry with him, or, at all events, displeased
with him, for forcing him to take the pills. In the first statement of
Elizabeth Mills before the coroner she said Cook said it was “the pills
that made him ill, and that he had taken the pills about half-past ten.”
When she came here she swore that Cook said “the pills which Palmer gave
him at half-past ten made him ill”; thereby, you see, fixing the fact
that Palmer gave him the pills, and fixing the time at which Palmer gave
them to him, she having had an opportunity of learning that the later
the pills were given the more favourable it would be to the suspicion
that death had been occasioned by this poison. Before the coroner she
did not say that Palmer was in Cook’s bedroom between nine and ten
o’clock on the Monday night, but she did when she was here. You will see
that makes him more about the bedside of Cook, having more opportunity
of dealing with the pills. By these variances from her first statement
she shows the animus which now, for some reason or other, actuates her.
Perhaps it has been the result of the persuasion that Palmer was the
murderer of Mr. Cook, as Dr. Alfred Swayne Taylor swore he is, and of
her horror of so great a crime; that gives it the just, charitable
construction; still, I say, she is not to be relied upon. I have
mentioned the particulars in which her statements vary, but these are
nothing to the important particulars to which I will now call your
attention. I impeach her testimony on the ground that she adopted here a
manner and a gesticulation in describing the symptoms under which Cook
laboured which, if true, would have exhibited itself at the inquest, and
would have at once attracted the attention of Dr. Taylor. The
contortions into which she put her hands, and her neck, and her mouth,
before you, could not by any possibility have escaped the attention of
Dr. Taylor. If anything like it took place there it would have been
observed by him, and questions would have been put to reduce, so to
speak, those gesticulations into verbal expressions, that they might be
recorded in the depositions. But that is not all. I am told, and you
will have an opportunity of hearing it from Mr. Nunneley, Dr. Letheby,
Dr. Robinson, and other eminent medical men, that the description of the
symptoms which she gave to you is inconsistent with any known
disease--that they were grouped by her in a manner so extraordinary as
to be quite inconsistent with strychnia tetanus.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Let me call your attention to this part of the evidence. You are aware
that in the months of February (the last week of February) and March a
very frightful case of strychnia poisoning occurred at Leeds. It was a
case in which a person, having constant access to the bedside of the
patient, was supposed to have administered repeated small doses of
strychnia so as not at once to strike her down, but gradually to destroy
her; and that after having kept her in a state of irritation for a
lengthened period, he at last consummated the work and killed her. That
was the case. It appeared in all the newspapers. The nurse who attended
the patient and the medical gentlemen spoke of symptoms which she
exhibited from the 24th or 25th February to the 1st of March, and they
described it in this way--She had “prickings” and “twitchings” in the
legs, coming on without any violent paroxysms or spasms, and was alarmed
at the thought even of being touched by anybody in the intervals of the
spasms which occurred from time to time. Now, let me call your attention
to the evidence before you of Elizabeth Mills. She says, “He said, ‘I
cannot lie down’; his body and neck were moving and jerking; he would
throw himself up, jumping and jerking all over his body all the time; he
asked me to rub his hands; I noticed him to ‘twitch’ while I was rubbing
his hands.” (The learned serjeant read a portion of the evidence.) Now,
I submit to you that some of these expressions, particularly the
twitching, are very remarkable; and it may well have been that, this
case coming before the public and exciting no little degree of
attention, although not to the same extent as this Rugeley case, persons
who had been in the habit of going to see her and conversing with her
may have been asking her questions about this case, of which she
admitted she had heard, “Did you observe in Cook any such symptoms as
these?” her attention being called to them in such a way as to induce
her to alter the statement made by her at the inquest. You cannot,
indeed, account, as I submit to you, for so remarkable a difference
between the first and second statements, without supposing something of
that kind. Now, is it improbable that that did take place? From the
time she left the Talbot Arms till she came here she seems to have been
a person of very remarkable importance. She went to Dolly’s, and Mr.
Stevens visited her six or seven times. Why did he visit here? What for?
Mr. Stevens is unquestionably--and if under proper self-restraint, no
one can blame him for it--very indignant at what he fears to have been
the foul play of Palmer with Cook. He is not in the same condition of
life as Elizabeth Mills. Why should he have gone to visit her six or
seven times, conversing with her in a private room? She says, “He only
came to see whether I liked the place; he called to inquire after my
health.” Gardner also, his attorney, saw her once, but only asked her
how she was, and they talked about other things. She said she gave the
last authentic account of her evidence to a man she did not know--whom
she had never seen before; and when I found out, after much questioning,
that Mr. Stevens was with him, and asked her why she had not told me so,
her answer was, “Because you never asked me.” That raised a laugh, and
she enjoyed her triumph. All this looks like having been tutored. I put
it to you that you cannot, with any degree of satisfaction, rely on the
evidence of the young woman; and you will learn that the confusion and
the variety of the symptoms she has put together, taking them partly
from her depositions and partly from this new version, have made the
case which she described not only not a case of tetanus, but not of any
known disease.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Now, on this part of the case I have this observation to make; the
illness of the Sunday night appears to have been a very remarkable
occurrence. It came out in the course of the examination, as a fact
spoken to by Cook, and it will be for you to judge, after you have heard
the evidence of the medical gentlemen, whether the periodicity of the
attacks does not militate against the theory of death by strychnia
poison. The illnesses of Cook take place three nights running, exactly
at the same time, or if not exactly at the same time, very nearly. I
find that is a symptom of very frequent occurrence, that about the same
hour of the night, or of the week, or of the month, and very often after
the patient has got to bed, the thing occurs. It is about the same hour
in this case of Mr. Cook’s. On the question whether the symptoms were
such as are consistent with the theory of strychnia poison, and
inconsistent with the theory of death from other and natural causes, I
have only now further to state what I intend to prove. I will not go
through in detail what will be better stated by the gentlemen who will
be called; but I shall call a number of most respectable physicians,
surgeons, and general practitioners, having extensive experience in our
large cities, who all support the view I have to submit to you, and
which they have suggested to me as the probable one--that these fits of
Mr. Cook were not tetanus, but violent convulsions, the result of the
weak habit of his body, which had been increased by his mode of life.

I propose now to discuss the question whether the circumstantial
evidence against Palmer be such as to be inexplicable on the supposition
of his innocence, and if I show you on the broad and salient features of
the evidence that it is not (you will not expect me to go into the more
minute details), and I have succeeded in satisfying you on any
considerable portion of the points to which I have directed your
attention, and if the evidence comes up to what I have been instructed
to say it will, you will be too happy, recollecting that you are the
country in the language of the law--that the country out of doors, in a
case of crime, of life and death, is uninformed, without the opportunity
of hearing the witnesses examined or cross-examined on their oaths to
decide between the Crown and the Queen’s subject on the evidence alone.
Every word of this evidence will be carried to all the ends and corners
of the earth, and it will remain to be seen whether this great country
of England, in a paroxysm or convulsion of prejudice, created by the
rashness of one scientific man who had no knowledge of his own about the
matter, has made up its mind to sacrifice the life of a fellow-creature
under circumstances which would expose any person who has ever been
present at deathbed convulsions liable to the same charge.

I say the circumstantial evidence in this case is not such as to justify
you in coming to a conclusion of the guilt of the prisoner. I will
endeavour in this part of the discussion to address myself to those
portions of the case which seem at the first blush of them, and on
judicial consideration of them, to require notice. I will not avoid
anything that is difficult or that may seem to you difficult, so that
when I sit down you will see that I have discussed this great argument
fully and fairly in every branch of it, and ask yourselves, what ground
is there for any verdict but a verdict of “not guilty”? I will avoid
nothing, and proceed at once to one of the most salient points. I will
pass over, after an intimation that was made from the bench, the point
about pushing the man at the inquest, or the accident of a slit in the
covering of the jar, which, sharp instruments being used by the
operators, may easily have occurred, or the putting it in a further
corner of the room, from which there was no possibility of its being
removed. I do not believe that any such circumstances as these would
induce you to come to a conclusion against the prisoner.

LORD CAMPBELL--No member of the Court, I think, has intimated any
opinion as to the other portions of the case; merely as to the pushing.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I do not wish to suggest anything which is not
strictly correct, and perhaps I ought not to use what was intimated from
the bench in any way, but rather submit that, where everybody perfectly
well knew Palmer, in any little apparent shove, so to speak, during the
course of the post-mortem, is not to be taken as an evidence of his
guilt. It was in leaning over, if at all, to observe an examination of
considerable interest to all persons present, and I cannot conceive that
anything of this kind can be taken into consideration. No serious
complaint was made at the time. Mr. Devonshire said nothing was lost by
it. He said also the jar was removed to a corner of the room. It was not
removed out of sight. It was in the broad daylight. It was impossible it
could be taken away without observation. It would be absurd that Palmer
should be suspected of having done so with an improper object. This we
know, that he was very reluctant to have the jar removed out of the
possession of those on whom he could rely. That is very true; there were
some persons who did not want to pay him £13,000; there were some
persons who had been doing all they could to undermine his character for
a very considerable time, imputing to him the most wicked conduct
respecting a near relation, which none of his own relations ever joined
in, knowing that there were many persons at Rugeley much prejudiced
against him, and it was in his judgment of the last importance that
anything which could be brought against him (and it was clear that this
post-mortem, from the conduct of Stevens, was intended to found a charge
against him), should be kept in unsuspected custody, and that nobody
should have an opportunity of tampering with it and its contents. When
told that Dr. Harland is coming to make the post-mortem, he says, “I am
glad of that, for there is no knowing who might have done it; and it is
a satisfaction that you, whom I do know, are coming to superintend it.”
I say that was the conduct of a respectable man, who knows that his
conduct would bear investigation if it were properly inquired into. But
we know also that in a town like Rugeley there were a great many serious
people, who could not approve of his habits of life, to whom his running
about to races would not much recommend him, and whom he has reason to
know would not very much regret any injury which might happen to him.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Is there any other part of his conduct connected with the post-mortem
which requires explanation? When the jar was going to be sent to town he
objects to its going to Frere’s. He had some reason for that. He had an
assistant in his service who had been in the service of Frere. We know
the jealousies that exist in country towns between professional men. We
will not do Mr. Frere the injustice to suppose he would do so great a
wrong to Palmer as might result from tampering with the contents of the
jar; but still it was right to be cautious, and Palmer told Dr. Harland,
“I want you to take it with you to Stafford, and not let it go to
Frere’s house.” In these minor incidental matters his conduct appears to
me perfectly consistent with innocence. Let me call your attention to
this more important matter, on which my learned friend in his
instructions was told to rely--and accordingly he did, in the discharge
of his duty, rely upon it. I will call your attention to what has been
stated by Myatt, the postboy. His evidence was pressed into the case; it
could not well be excluded from it as an evidence of guilt. Now, what
did it amount to? Before I have done, under the general head of Palmer’s
conduct, I will call your attention to what passed between him and
Stevens. You will find the conduct and deportment of the latter were
such as would make some men almost kick him; it was so very provoking,
supposing Palmer was innocent. He dissembled with him--pretended to take
his advice--cross-questioned him--changed his tone upon him--now
speaking to him mildly, now in a voice of menace--threatened him with a
post-mortem examination--and evidently did the whole thing hostilely to
him, as if he thought something wrong had taken place, and it was his
duty not only to protect the property, but to see any person who had
been guilty of foul play towards Cook brought to condign punishment.
Stevens, after poring over the remains of the dead man at the
post-mortem examination, was ready to leave Rugeley, and a fly was
ordered for him and his companion, Mr. Boycott, in which they were to
proceed with the jar to Stafford, and thence by rail to London. Now, if
there were anybody base enough, either in support of a theory, in
support of a reputation--God forbid that I should suggest that to the
prejudice of Dr. Taylor!--if there were anybody capable of so great a
wickedness as tampering with the jar, it might easily be done; and he
was anxious to have it kept by Dr. Harland and not committed to the
custody of Stevens. His conduct to Palmer had been vexatious and
annoying in the last degree; the fly was being got ready after Palmer,
we may suppose, had dined; and meeting the postboy Myatt, he asked him,
according to Myatt, whether he was going to drive Mr. Stevens to
Stafford. “I told him,” said Myatt, “I was. He asked me if I would upset
them?” Now the word “them” was first used in this Court to designate the
jars. There was only one jar at that time, so it could not be meant to
apply to the jars; if used at all, which I think very doubtful for the
reason I tell you--at least in a bad sense--it must have been applied to
Mr. Stevens and his companion. And now just see if the facts in this
case which are undoubted do not give a reasonable colour to that.
Palmer (though I will show you his conduct to Stevens was exemplary in
every respect, by putting the dialogue between them before you without
making any comment on it) must have felt outraged beyond all expression
if--knowing himself to be innocent, that he had acted as a friend and
brother to Cook, and had called his relations about him when he was
ill--he found himself suspected of stealing a trumpery betting-book,
which he knew was of no use to any one, and charged of playing falsely
and foully with the life of Cook. He had great cause to be vexed and
irritated with Stevens, and that he was so is plain from what he said to
Dr. Harland--“There was a queer old fellow,” he said, “who has been down
making inquiries, who seemed to be suspicious of my having stolen the
betting-book, which everybody knows can be of no earthly use to
anybody.” It shows that his mind was impressed with the idea that he was
wronged. He may be supposed, communing with himself, to say, “He has
ill-treated me; he has encouraged suspicions which have been excited
against me already, and which, if he persists in his course of bringing
another charge against me in this matter, will probably render it
impossible to get the money from the insurance company in time to rescue
me from a position which may involve in ruin myself and some members of
my family.” That was evidently the tendency of what Stevens was about.
He meets this postboy and asks him if he is to be ready to drive the fly
to Stafford; the boy says, “Yes, I am.” He said, “If I would upset them
there was a £10 note for me.” He has been asked, “Had anything been said
about the jars?” I submit to you the true construction of the story, if
it occurred at all, is, that being under a feeling of irritation against
Stevens, and using strong expressions with regard to Stevens, hearing he
was going to Stafford, he said, “I should not mind giving £10 to upset
him.” He had been vexed at his conduct, and irritated by the perpetual
suspicions and inquisitiveness which he had displayed, even when he went
up with him, like a friend, to show him the corpse, uncovering it down
to the thighs. Some previous suspicion must have existed in Stevens’
mind; but Palmer had no suspicion of this thought that he was guilty of
so foul a crime as that which was imputed to him. If that evidence be
throughout true, it is only true in the milder and innocent sense, and I
have this reason for saying so. This man was in the service of the
landlord of the Talbot Arms, and was always about the yard; he was
driving to and from the Talbot Arms every day of his life; he must have
been there on the day of the post-mortem examination; he must have been
a constant companion of the stable boys and labourers about the yard;
and his observation must have been drawn to a thing so striking and
remarkable as a post-mortem examination on account of a suspicion of
murder. He was not called before the coroner; and nobody knew, at the
time the inquest was held, that he had ever said anything which could be
fairly taken in a sense which would make it evidence of a guilty mind in
Palmer. But if he had said that Palmer said, “I should not mind giving a
£10 note to have him upset; it is a humbugging concern,” and in that
manner, and with the feeling I have stated, it would not have excited
any observation or suspicion, and no one would have summoned Myatt to
the inquest. I submit that is the true version of this story. It is not
to be supposed that a medical man, knowing that he had given a large
dose of strychnia, would suppose that, by the accidental spilling of a
jar, the liver and spleen and some of the tissues continuing untouched,
he could have escaped the detection of his guilt.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Next I shall call your attention to the evidence of Charles Newton; he
is a person who has sworn before you that he saw Palmer at Mr. Salt’s
surgery at nine o’clock on the Monday night, and that Palmer asked for
three grains of strychnia; that he weighed it, and gave it to him in a
piece of paper; that is the first part of what he swore before you and
my lords. Now, I should tell you how this case has been conducted. As
soon as my learned friend the Attorney-General, as counsel for the
Crown, was made acquainted with the illness of my learned friend Mr.
Serjeant Wilkins, with his inability to conduct the defence and that I
was to supply his place, he desired that every scrap of evidence against
the prisoner should be forwarded to me, and to my learned friends near
me; and, accordingly, as soon as he received this evidence of Newton he
forwarded it to me, and I received it on the day this Court met. I
believe it was sent to me late on the previous night, but I did not see
it until the morning you were sworn; so that this witness Newton did not
bring this matter that was in his knowledge of the fact of the purchase
by Palmer at Mr. Salt’s surgery at nine o’clock on the Monday night of
three grains of strychnia--he did not bring that to the knowledge of the
Crown until the night before this trial commenced. Now, he had been
examined at the inquest, and he did not tell before the coroner the rest
of the story which he told when he was examined here. (The learned
serjeant read the examination of Charles Newton.) He did not tell that
to the coroner. All he told the coroner was that he was present when
Palmer bought some strychnia off Roberts on the Tuesday night in the
shop of Mr. Hawkins; he did not speak to the purchase of the strychnia
on the Monday night; he knew that he was called to corroborate a
statement which Roberts had made as to the presence of Palmer at the
shop, and the purchasing of the strychnia on the Tuesday, yet he never
said one word at that time either of the fact of Palmer having bought
strychnia off him on the Monday night or of his having asked him what
appearances, if a dog were killed by strychnia, would be exhibited on
its post-mortem examination. A man who so conducts himself is utterly
unworthy of credit. There is one honest, laudable motive in a Court of
justice, and that is to assist in the administration of the criminal law
of the land. If any man had the least hesitation when in Court, or to
come into Court and take the oath to depose to what he knew were the
facts, we should not be safe against crime for a moment. But you cannot
justify the fact of swearing away another man’s life, except under a
sense of duty, and for that object; and if a man, knowing that he is to
be sworn touching so grave a subject as that of murder, the first time
he takes the oath omits a considerable portion of what he knows, and
three weeks afterwards tells another portion, and at a further interval
comes forward and tells more--enough, in his opinion, to drive the guilt
home to the man who is accused--the witness, I say, who conducts himself
in that manner ought not to be believed. The prisoner who is convicted
upon the evidence of such a man as that is sacrificed by a jury. But
there are other circumstances in that statement which render it in the
last degree improbable. That Palmer should, once in a week, purchase
strychnia in the town of Rugeley is not to be wondered at. Strychnia is
sold for many purposes, to kill dogs and vermin, and Palmer, as you may
recollect, had often occasion to complain of the dogs from the slipping
of the foals and the galloping of the mares. In the course of the
evidence in this case it has been mentioned that strychnia was purchased
by Palmer twice within the week, when the first time he had bought quite
enough, and more, for the purpose imputed to him. But that a person
should go and buy strychnia twice in a week in a small country town,
having bought enough for all purposes the first time--that he should go
and buy more the next day at the shop of a rival tradesman, with whom he
was on bad terms--is to the last degree improbable. Common sense revolts
at it; nobody can or ought to be believed who makes any such statements.
Again, observe he had been to London on the Monday. In London there is
no difficulty for a medical man to get anything of the sort which he may
require. He has only to write it down in the technical way, so as to
give evidence of a medical education, and it is given to him at once,
without a word. He had been to London; and, again, if he could not get
it there, he could get it at Stafford. Why should he get it at Rugeley?
that is the last place that he would have gone to for it. It seems to me
that it is equally impossible he ever could have bought it for such a
purpose as the purpose attributed to him, and that he would have been,
if really guilty, so unwary as to allow the paper in which the strychnia
had been not to be found with the full quantity he had purchased in it;
he would not have been such a fool as not to take care that the paper in
which it was wrapped was full of strychnia before his house was
searched, so as to make sure that it should be found that nothing should
appear to have been used out of it, and that the exact quantity was in
the paper. I submit, therefore, it cannot be believed--it is not
credible!

I am now in a condition to satisfy you that Palmer was undoubtedly in
town, and that he could not have been there at nine o’clock; that he was
in London at a quarter-past three o’clock, and that he could not have
been there by nine o’clock--the hours at which the trains start rendered
it impossible. The thing is false--downright false. It is impossible to
have got to Rugeley before a quarter-past ten, and we will account for
what he did in a way that will entirely satisfy you. He attended the
post-mortem examination, and is it credible that a skilful medical man,
who has studied at the London hospitals, would have gone to that dolt
Newton to ask him as to what would be the effects of strychnia on a
dog’s stomach? Is it credible that he should go to that stupid sort of
fellow, who gave his evidence in that dogged, mulish, sullen manner,
which often is indicative of something else besides the want of
understanding, and that he would have gone and asked a chap like that,
“What are the effects of strychnia?” and then, when he had been told, he
would snap his fingers and say, “All right.” It cannot be--it is
impossible. No one would believe it; and I submit to you confidently
that unless there is much stronger evidence than that, it is evidence on
which you cannot rely for a moment. To show the animus of this Newton
against Palmer, I will remind you of what he stated. Palmer said that
“you will find that he has taken a great deal of mercury; you will find
this ‘fellow’ died from a diseased throat.” When he is questioned about
it mildly and quietly by my friend Mr. Grove as to what was the exact
term used, he answers, “I do not know whether he said poor or rich”;
just as if it could be a question of that kind. What we wanted to know
was whether he had spoken of the poor dead man in a pitying way, or
whether he had spoken of him as a disreputable person, unworthy of all
consideration. As to that part of the case I will say no more, and I
will proceed to other matters taking you back again to what occurred at
Shrewsbury.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

The case for the Crown is, that as early as the 14th November, at
Shrewsbury, the scheme--the plot--of poisoning commenced. That is the
supposition of those from whom the case has been taken by the Crown.
Now, it is suggested that on the night of Wednesday, the 14th, Palmer
dosed this man Cook with something that he put into his brandy, and the
witness Fisher told us that Cook told him so. If you remember the early
part of my address to you, I read a few words at the end of a letter
from Cook to Fisher, in which, after telling him it was of vast
importance to him, as well as to Palmer, that £500 should be paid to Mr.
Pratt, he adds in a postscript “I am better.” These words must have
referred to his illness at Shrewsbury. The letter relates to another
matter which is of great importance to him and to Palmer, and he does
not seem to treat it as one having in his own mind a belief that Palmer
had drugged him with poison for the purpose of destroying his health at
Shrewsbury. Then, again, on the evidence, what does Palmer say himself
about what occurred at Shrewsbury? He says, when it is mentioned, “Cook
says I have put something in his glass; I do not play such tricks with
people”--taking it as if it had been never understood otherwise than as
a loose expression of a man, perhaps not actually drunk--the evidence
does not go to that extent--though I think you will be of opinion he was
very nearly approaching to that condition. I could not help being a
little amused by a version which I read some time ago of this portion of
the Shrewsbury plot. I will read it to you--“After indulging freely in
the foreign wines of an English country town, 150 miles from London, the
owner of ‘Polestar’ took to brandy and water to restore his British
solidity. Tossing off his glass, he complained that there was something
in it, for it burned his throat. Perhaps those who have drunk strong
brandy and water with similar haste may have experienced the same
sensation; perhaps also, like Mr. Cook, they may have vomited
afterwards. He bolted his brandy and water down at Palmer’s challenge,
and bolted it up again when it encountered the cold champagne. That
night he was very drunk, and very sick, and very ill. His dinner he cast
up into a basin; his money he deposited with his friend Mr. Ishmael
Fisher, a sporting wine merchant, of Shoe Lane, Holborn. To this Mr.
Ishmael Fisher the owner of ‘Polestar’ gave £700 to keep till next
morning, expressing his belief, at the same time, that Palmer had dosed
him for the sake of the money. If such had been Palmer’s intention,
would he have left Cook at such a moment? He neither followed him from
the room when his stomach rebelled, nor did he go near him all that
night. This neglect showed, indeed, how hollow was his friendship, but
it proves his innocence; guilt would have been much more officious. Next
morning Cook looked very ill, as men are apt to do after excessive
vinous vomiting; but his drunken suspicions of Palmer had evaporated
with the fumes of the brandy, and they were again friends and brother
sportsmen.”

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

I believe that is the true version of the matter, and that Cook
believed it to be so. He breakfasted with Palmer the next morning; he
was good friends with him the whole of the day, and went with him to
Rugeley, and there remained on Palmer’s invitation. In consequence of
the letter which Pratt wrote on the 13th, and which Palmer got on the
14th, in which they both had an interest, Cook wrote to Pratt to say
that somebody would call on him with £200, and he wrote to Fisher to
tell Fisher to do so. Did anybody at that time believe that there was
any intention to drug and poison this man? Does not the explanation that
Mrs. Brookes gave, which I must say was exceedingly creditable to her,
the readiness with which she stated to me that her husband did not
approve of her attending races, that it was disagreeable to him; and the
dignity, if I may say so, with which she answered the question put to
her by my learned friend--“Are you intimate with Palmer?” by this other
question, “What do you mean by intimate with him? I am friendly,” seemed
to me to entitle her to all due respect. And when she, being called for
the Crown, tells you, “That night I heard in several directions of a
great number of people who were purged and vomited; there was a general
affection of the kind amongst strangers visiting Shrewsbury on that
occasion”--I submit to you it was to the last degree improbable that
anything of that kind occurred. About the tumbler which she saw in
Palmer’s hand I cannot suggest any reason, because it is not in my
instructions, but it might probably be accounted for in this way, when
he came back from Rugeley and found all the people indisposed he would
naturally look at the water to see if there was anything to account for
its unwholesomeness. Mrs. Brookes said, and that is the point to which I
wish to call your attention, that he was in a passage under a
chandelier; that the waiter pointed to him when he showed her upstairs;
that he spoke to her while holding up the glass to the light, and said,
“Wait a minute, and I will come to you.” Nothing can be more natural
than that; and I submit to you it is impossible to say that there is
anything to justify a suspicion of poison in it. With regard to the
money he gave to Fisher, I can suggest no other reason than that, just
before being sick, he gave his money to Fisher, feeling that it was
coming upon him, and that his stomach was revolting at the liberties he
had taken with it. He had the good sense to place his money, when he was
still very sick, in the hands of Fisher, and he afterwards went to bed.
It may have been that he had been guilty of excess in eating and
drinking, and it was necessary to send for the doctor, who, when he
came, wished to send him an emetic. The young man knew so well what to
do that he said, “Oh! I can make myself sick without an emetic; I will
put my tooth-brush down my throat; I can be sick without your emetic.”
He took a pill when it was recommended to him and a black draught, and
the moment he laid his head on his pillow he was perfectly free from any
alarm, and he got up the next morning perfectly well. Gentlemen, that is
really too ludicrous to be worthy of a moment’s consideration. Now, let
us go to certain other matters, and more particularly to the conduct of
the prisoner himself. I would just mention that there was a person there
of the name of Myatt in the room at the time they say the brandy and
water was drugged. Why was he not called? The others came in just before
going to bed, but Myatt had been there the whole evening, and was not a
mere accidental visitor in the room. You will hear his version so far as
it is necessary. They have now got back to Rugeley, and then the history
of the slow poisoning continues. Cook and Palmer go back together, and
probably they talk all the way about Pratt and their difficulties, and
the way of getting out of them, and of the small way that the winnings
of Shrewsbury will go to effect the object. They both see ruin staring
them in the face unless the Prince of Wales office can be forced to pay
the money due upon the policy of insurance, and they can remain free
from all suspicion of insolvency or misconduct in the meantime. When
they get to Rugeley, by sending up the £200 to Pratt, they provide for
the temporary difficulty. They are on friendly terms, Palmer making use
of Cook’s things, and probably both attaining their own objects, as it
would appear that Palmer said directly Cook died that he had some
interest in bills which were outstanding; and that might well have been,
considering they were engaged in racing transactions; that they were
joint owners of one horse; that they had the same trainer, betted for
each other at races, and that they were confederates and friends on the
turf, in that sort of relation to each other which gave them a joint
interest in the same ventures. Cook sat at the table of Palmer on the
16th, and wrote up that night to Pratt. Cook goes to bed late on that
evening, well enough, not so drunk as to prevent his asking the
chambermaid to give him a longer candle, in order that he might read in
bed. He seems to have had a little champagne, not so much as to have
made him drunk, yet perhaps too much for a stomach weakened by the
excess, if it was excess, at Shrewsbury, or by the vomiting which was
occasioned by the illness there, and the hot water which he had taken.
He gets up the next morning poorly; he eats nothing that day; ails
enough for Mr. Bamford to be called in by Palmer, and Palmer is
unremitting in his attention to him on that day and the Sunday
following.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Now, it is said that that very attentiveness is evidence of the
prisoner’s guilt. What, as my friend here (Mr. Grove) says, what is a
man to do? Here is a young fellow’s health in very considerable danger.
Cook, having a joint interest in racing transactions with Palmer, thinks
it convenient to stop at Rugeley, where he has no friend but Palmer.
They are not flush of money, and Palmer has a house and an establishment
on a moderate scale immediately opposite the inn in which Cook is
staying. He is enabled to send such things over as can be got in a
private house, not at hotel prices, but at a very trifling expense. He
was on a visit to Palmer, and he knew nobody there but Palmer. He was
ailing; and as it is very dull for a man who has no intellectual
pursuits to be alone all day when out of health, Palmer goes over and
talks to him, and attends to him, and gets him what comforts he can.
That is what a man would do to a friend; it is precisely what a man
would do. If he had not done it, but merely attended to him at night
when he was taken ill on the Monday night, without visiting him during
the day, it might have been said that he was neglecting him, and only
attended to him when he wanted to give him another dose of poison. That
is the way the Crown would have put it then! He is laboriously attentive
to him under circumstances which can well be accounted for by the reason
that he had actually, if not a sincere friendship for him, at least a
friendly kind of liking for him, and an interest with him on betting and
racing transactions, and could supply him with several things from his
house at little or no expense. If Cook had been well he would probably
have had his meals at Palmer’s house. He was ill, and Palmer sends Dr.
Bamford to him. He saw him at eight o’clock on Sunday morning, and again
at six or seven o’clock. Cook told him his bowels had been moved twice
or thrice. That is what he told to Dr. Bamford; it may have been known
to Palmer that it was oftener, and that the truth was he was slightly
suffering under some symptoms of diarrhœa, as he afterwards stated in
the letter to Jones. It was Cook himself who told Dr. Bamford about his
bowels having been moved; and on the same day Palmer wrote a letter to
Jones, intending to bring Jones there, he being about to go to London,
and stated “Cook had been suffering from diarrhœa.” It was at
Shrewsbury, where everybody else had diarrhœa. He took the pill and
black draught, and their effects continued, probably to some extent when
he was at Rugeley. It is absurd to pretend that the suggestion of
diarrhœa could have any sinister object, as Jones must have
ascertained the truth as soon as he arrived at Rugeley.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

I now beg to call your attention to the next important fact in this
case. It seems to me to be, though I touch upon it briefly here, one of
the very last importance, and one which ought to decide it in the
prisoner’s favour. The supposition of the Crown is, that Palmer
intended to dose Cook with antimony, to keep his stomach in a perpetual
state of vomiting, in order the more easily to despatch him by
strychnia; that he began the plot on the Wednesday at Shrewsbury and
continued it at Rugeley, and that during the Sunday Cook was under the
influence of that treatment--Sunday was the day Palmer attempted, as was
said, to force the broth upon him. Now, being bent, as it is supposed,
upon destroying Cook, there is one man in the world who would be the
very last witness he would select as a witness of his proceedings. He
was a medical man, in the prime of life, intimately acquainted with
Cook, living in the same house with him, much attached to him, at all
events sufficiently attached to him to come to him as soon as he had
heard that he had had an attack of diarrhœa--Mr. Jones, of
Lutterworth. Palmer, intending to go to London, and not wishing to leave
Cook alone, wrote on the Sunday to Mr. Jones, telling him that Cook was
then ill with diarrhœa, a statement which is not altogether
inconsistent with the evidence of Dr. Bamford and what Cook stated, and
begs of him to come over. I beg of you to pause here for a moment in
order to appreciate the full importance of this fact; the more you think
of it the more profound will be your conviction that it affords evidence
irrefragable of Palmer’s innocence. The imputation upon Palmer is that
he intended to kill Cook to possess himself of his winnings. Who was
with Cook when the race was won? Who was by his side on Shrewsbury
racecourse for the three minutes that he was speechless? Who saw him
take out his betting-book and count his winnings? Who but Jones--Jones
who was his bosom friend, his companion, his confidant, and who knew to
the last farthing the amount of his gains? Jones was, of all men living,
the most likely to be the recipient of Cook’s confidence, and the man
bound by every consideration of honour, friendship, and affection to
protect him, to vindicate his cause, and to avenge his death. Yet this
was the man for whom Palmer sent, that he might converse with Cook,
receive his confidence, minister to him in his illness, and even sleep
in the same room with him! How, if Palmer is the murderer they represent
him, are you to account for his summoning Jones to the bedside of the
sick man? If Cook really suspected--as we are assured he did--that
Palmer was poisoning him, Jones was the man to whom he would most
willingly have unbosomed himself, and in whose faithful ear he would
have most eagerly disburthened the perilous stuff that weighed upon his
own brain. Jones, as well as Palmer, was a medical man, and it is not
improbable that, in the course of his studies, the former may have noted
in his class-book the very passages respecting the operation of
strychnia which had attracted the attention of the latter. Is it
conceivable that, if Palmer meant to slay Cook with poison in the dead
of the night, he would have previously ensured the presence in his
victim’s chamber of a medical witness, who would know from his frightful
symptoms that the man was not dying a natural death? He brings a medical
man into the room, and makes him lie within a few inches of the sick
man’s bed, that he may be startled by his terrific shrieks, and gaze
upon those agonising convulsions which indicate the fatal potency of
poison! Can you believe it? He might have despatched him by means that
would have defied detection, for Cook was taking morphia medicinally,
and a grain or two more would have silently thrown him into an eternal
sleep; but instead of doing so, he sends to Lutterworth for Jones. You
have been told that this was done to cover appearances. Done to cover
appearances! No, no, no! You cannot believe it--it is not in human
nature--it cannot be true--you cannot find him guilty--you dare not find
him guilty on the supposition of its truth--the country will not stand
by you if you believe it to be true--you will be impeached before the
whole world if you say that it is true--I believe in my conscience that
it is false, because, consistently with the laws that govern human
nature, it cannot possibly be true.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

Gentlemen, there are other facts to be adverted to before I sit down to
which it is necessary your attention should be drawn. There was a great
stir at the hotel at Rugeley after Mr. Jones had returned from London
with Mr. Stevens, the executor. Mr. Stevens arrives at the inn with Mr.
Jones, has been in conversation all the way down with Mr. Jones, and has
heard from Mr. Jones all that Mr. Jones knows, and does not appear to
have had anything communicated to him by Mr. Jones which could justify
any suspicion on his part. Mr. Jones, when they arrive at Rugeley,
introduces him to Palmer, and Palmer at once takes him up to the room of
the dead man, and uncovers the body down to the thighs, and Mr. Stevens
looks at the corpse and sees there are no convulsions about the body
except the clenching of the hands. He sees there is no emaciation, no
signs as he thinks of illness, and, wondering within himself, says, “How
can you have died?” or something to that effect; “How grievous a thing
it is that your young life should have passed away!” I think he said he
did not look as if he were dead. After seeing the corpse they went down
to dinner, and he asked Palmer to dine with him, and Jones, and Mr.
Bradford, the husband of Mr. Cook’s sister. He has not been called; he
could have told us if there was anything suspicious in the conduct of
Palmer, anything that could justify such conduct on the part of Mr.
Stevens. They have their dinner, and when their dinner is over, see what
takes place. It is important you should know it, because I think you
will see from the way it occurred that the conduct of Palmer was the
conduct of a man certainly apprehensive of any sort of vexatious inquiry
which might involve him in pecuniary troubles, and was therefore anxious
to conciliate Mr. Stevens, still comporting himself like one who could
firmly and freely maintain his equality with Mr. Stevens unabashed, with
a clear brow and the appearance of an innocent man. (The learned
serjeant read a portion of the dialogue which took place between Mr.
Stevens and Palmer.) He said, “with a spasmodic convulsion of the
throat,” which was perfectly apparent; he could not see his face, but
there was a spasmodic convulsion of his throat. Who could believe such a
testimony of guilt as that? He expects that Palmer is to be bound to
look after everything of every kind that was in the hotel belonging to
Cook, and because he could not find a trumpery book, which anybody might
have taken away, thinking and probably having heard it was of very
little use, which could not be of the slightest service in any way to
Palmer for any purpose whatever, or to anybody, simply on that account,
he is to indulge in this vexatious proceeding. The last time the book
was seen was on the Monday. The last person who saw it was Elizabeth
Mills, on the Monday, and on that day there were several people there
with Cook--Saunders the trainer, and the jockeys; after his death the
two servant-maids and the housekeeper, the three undertaker’s men, the
two women who laid Cook out, and some other persons; the barber who
shaved him might have taken the book, and having taken it could not
return it; for here again is the effect of dishonesty as well as
falsehood. Once done, you cannot repair it; without admitting it you
cannot set it right again. I throw imputation on nobody; I simply say,
that as many people had access to the room, it is not fair, it is not
right under the circumstances when a man is charged in such a case of
momentous importance without any assignable reason for his purloining
the betting book, to fix it on him without any proof that he ever had it
in his hands, when nothing like a proper search was made for it until
some time after Cook’s death. I asked whether the drawers were not full
of linen and clothes, the answer was that they were. It was not seen
immediately after the death, nor was there any search made for it, nor
was it set aside and taken care of in the room, so that it could not
have been removed by Palmer with a guilty intention of purloining it.
Let us go on for a moment with this dialogue--(the learned serjeant then
read a passage from the dialogue as detailed in the evidence)--and at
last, after goading and irritating the man for all this time, though
Palmer was willing to make explanations and provoke inquiries into
anything or circumstance which if inquired into would at once have led
to a discussion of matters in a fair and gentleman-like manner, Stevens
snubs him by asking him whether he intends to be at the post-mortem; and
at last, when he says, “It is a matter of indifference to me,” goads the
poor man into saying, “So it is to me.” That is the only word of
irritation that Palmer--who kept his ground during the whole time and
stood up to this man--that is the only word of irritation that he used.
Mr. Stevens speaks to him in a very warm manner, yet Palmer manifests
the composure of a gentleman, of a man of feeling and consideration to
the father--as he called himself--but the stepfather of the young man,
and that is to be turned into evidence of guilt.

There is another story made against him, that he was found searching in
the pockets of Mr. Cook shortly after his death--it is the most absurd
suggestion on their own showing. The facts were these. Mr. Jones, I
think, told the servants to tell Palmer to come into the room. I think
that was it--to tell Palmer to go into the room; and then I think Mr.
Jones told another servant to follow him into the room. Elizabeth Mills
is the witness to that. She says, “I went in, and I saw him looking
about seeing if there was anything in one of the coats, and he also
looked under the bolster of the bed, just as a gentleman might be
looking for a watch; and he went on doing so after I got into the room.”
It was quite clear she suspected nothing, and I submit it is not fair
that any suspicion should attach to him on the subject.

[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]

One other circumstance there is on which reliance has been placed; and
although it has been said great reliance is not intended to be placed
upon it, I cannot tell what effect it will produce on your minds. I am
sure that when those who have promoted this prosecution first undertook
it they intended to rely, as proof of damning guilt, on the manuscript
extracts about strychnia in these medical books. I think it will be
within your experience that in youth and early manhood the best
protection that a man can have for his honour and integrity is the
company and society of a wife whom he loves. If you find a man in early
youth attached to a virtuous young woman, whom he loves with a sincere
and heartfelt attachment, depend upon it he is of a gentle nature, and
little prone to deeds of violence. They have put in these books to show
that Palmer had a knowledge of strychnia poison, and they are the books
which he used when a student attending lectures in London, as must have
been known to his deceased wife. I find, in what I am in a condition to
prove to be her own handwriting, proof positive that this was his
student’s book, and that he then and long after loved that young woman
in the way in which it is God’s will, under the sanction of His holy
ordinance, young men should love their wives. His marriage was a
marriage of affection; he loved her for herself and for her person; he
loved her as ardently as he now loves her first-born, his only surviving
child, a boy of seven years old, who waits with trembling anxiety for a
sentence which will restore him to his father’s arms, or drive that
father to an ignominious death upon the scaffold. He loved her with a
pure, generous affection. There is proof positive in this letter, copied
in her handwriting into his notebook, that such a man was William Palmer
when only a few years younger than he is now--

“My dearest Annie,--I snatch a moment to write to your dear, dear little
self. I need scarcely say the principal inducement I have to work is the
desire of getting my studies finished, so as to be able to press your
dear little form in my arms. With best, best love, believe me, dearest
Annie, your own William.”

Now, this is not the sort of letter that is generally read in Courts of
justice. It was no part of my instructions to read it to you, but that
book was put in to prove that this man was a wicked, heartless, savage
desperado, and I show you from it what he was when that letter was
written--what his deceased wife knew him to be when she copied it--a
young man who loved a young woman for her own sake--loved her with a
pure and virtuous affection, such an affection as would in almost all
natures be a sure antidote against guilt.

Such, gentlemen, is the man whom it is my duty to defend. Upon the
evidence which is before you I cannot believe him guilty. Do not suppose
for a moment that he is abandoned in this dreadful strait by his family
and friends. An aged mother, who may have disapproved of some parts of
his conduct, expects in an agony of grief your verdict. A dear sister
can scarcely sustain herself under the suspense which presses upon her.
A gallant and devoted brother stands by him to defend him, sparing
neither time nor labour to save him from an awful doom. I call upon you
to expand your minds to a capacity for estimating the high duty that you
have to perform. You have to stem the torrent of prejudice; you have to
vindicate the honour and character of your country; you have with
firmness and courage to do your duty, and find a verdict for the Crown,
if you believe that guilt is proved; but if you have a doubt upon the
point, depend upon it the time will come when the innocence of this man
will be made apparent, and when you will deeply regret any want of due
and calm consideration of the case which it will be my duty to lay
before you.


The Court then adjourned.

[Illustration: Note written by Palmer to his Counsel while in the dock
at the Old Bailey]




Eighth Day, 22nd May, 1856.

The Court met at ten o’clock.




Evidence for the Defence.


[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Mr. THOMAS NUNNELEY, examined by Mr. GROVE--I am a Fellow of the College
of Surgeons, Professor of Surgery at the Leeds School of Medicine, and a
member of several foreign and English scientific societies. I have been
in practice between twenty and thirty years. I have seen cases of both
traumatic and idiopathic tetanus. One of the four cases of idiopathic
tetanus I have seen did not commence with the symptoms of lockjaw, nor
did lockjaw occur sufficiently to prevent swallowing during the whole
period of illness. I have been present during the evidence given here as
to the symptoms of Mr. Cook. I had previously read the portions of the
depositions as to the scientific and medical part of the case. Judging
from the symptoms as described, and confining myself to the evidence as
to the scientific part of the case, my opinion is that Mr. Cook died
from some convulsive disease. I found that upon the difference of the
symptoms described in the deposition and on the evidence before the
Court.

LORD CAMPBELL--This is not satisfactory; we cannot ask witnesses what
faith they give to the evidence of the witnesses as contrasted with the
depositions. This witness’s opinion ought to be founded on the _viva
voce_ evidence of the witnesses given during the trial.

Examination resumed--The previous state of health of Mr. Cook had some
effect on my judgment.

State your own grounds in your own way for that opinion?--If I take the
evidence which has occurred in Court--

By LORD CAMPBELL--The evidence of the symptoms of John Parsons Cook as
stated by the witnesses?--Not merely the symptoms, but the general state
of health.

But we have nothing to do with that. The witness should give his opinion
on the symptoms described, and then state what influences the other
facts may have had on his mind.

By Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Do you remember the accounts that were given of
what was said or supposed to be syphilitic sores?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--But there was no such thing said.

Mr. BARON ALDERSON--Supposing a person had syphilitic sores, what would
you say then? That is the proper way of putting it.

LORD CAMPBELL--We must take it that medical men are not to be
substituted for the jury.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Mr. JUSTICE CRESWELL--If I were to suggest a mode of meeting the thing
it would be this--let the gentleman describe what he assumes to be the
state of the deceased’s health at the time, then the Attorney-General
may say he is not justified in assuming.

Examination resumed--Will you do that having heard the evidence?--I
assume him to have been a man of very delicate constitution; that for a
long period he felt himself to be ill, for which he had been under
medical treatment; that he had suffered from syphilis; had disease of
the lungs; had an old-standing disease of the throat; led an irregular
life; was subject to mental excitement and depression; that after death
traces were found in his body which show this to have been the case;
there was found an unusual appearance within the stomach; the throat was
in an unnatural condition; the back of the tongue showed similar
indications; the lungs were in an emphysematous condition, that is, the
air cells dilated; in the lining of the aorta or large artery of the
body there was an unnatural deposit; and there was a very unusual
appearance in the membranes of the spinal marrow. These are the
indications which are unnatural in the post-mortem examination. I should
also state it is described by one of the witnesses that there was a loss
of substance of the penis. The symptoms on the root of the tongue and
the throat I ascribe to syphilitic inflammation of the throat. From
these symptoms I have described I should infer that his health had not
been good for long, and that his constitution was delicate. It was also
stated that his father and mother had died young, and that the brother
and sister were both delicate. That being the state of health of Mr.
Cook, he would be liable to nervous irritation. Excitement or depression
might bring it on. Exposure to wet and cold would have a greater effect
than on a healthy person. It is a condition of the constitution when a
convulsive disease is more likely to supervene.

What would you infer from the fact, supposing it to have occurred, that
three days before death he suddenly woke up in the middle of the night
in a state described as madness, for two or three minutes? I understand
that he had three attacks on succeeding nights, each occurring about the
same hour. Would you draw any inference from that circumstance?--Yes,
that they were of a convulsive character, in the absence of other causes
to account for it. Convulsive effects are extremely variable in their
forms and degrees of violence. It is not possible to give a definite
name to every convulsive attack. There are some forms of violent
convulsions, such as hysteria, in which the patient retains his
consciousness. It is stated that there are forms of convulsions,
epileptic in their character, in which the patient retains his
consciousness.

By LORD CAMPBELL--Have you met with any?--No, not during a fit.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

But it is during a state of fit we are inquiring?--I have not.

Examination resumed--I know by my reading as a medical man that that
does occur sometimes. The degree of consciousness in epilepsy varies
very much; in some attacks the consciousness is altogether lost.
Convulsive attacks are sometimes accompanied by violent spasms and with
rigidity of portions of the body. Convulsions arising from a convulsive
disease, either from infancy or from other causes, but not exactly
tetanus, sometimes assume something of the complexion of tetanic
affection. Such convulsions might arise from any cause--worms in
children, affections of the brain in adults, hysteria, administration of
chloroform to some persons. Indigestible food will sometimes produce
convulsions in adults. I agree with Dr. Copland, whose book was referred
to yesterday, that these convulsions sometimes end immediately in death.
Asphyxia is frequently the cause of death when a man dies in one of
these convulsions. I have seen convulsions of the character I have
described recurring at various intervals, sometimes in hours, in other
cases days. The time also varies very much when a patient, suffering
from a violent paroxysm of such convulsions, becomes easier; it may be
hours or minutes. When death takes place in the paroxysm of such
convulsions it sometimes happens in post-mortem examinations that there
is no trace of organic disease in the body.

Have you known at all or frequently in persons, not further advanced in
years than the age of twenty-eight, granules between the dura mater and
the arachnoid?--They are not common to any age that I am aware of.

Do you know whether granules have been part of the symptoms of
tetaniform convulsions?--I have seen three preparations in St. Thomas’s
Hospital museum where granules are found in the membranes of the spinal
cord, in which patients are said to have died of tetanus. In order to
ascertain with satisfaction the nature and probable extent of the injury
of such granules the spinal cord should be examined immediately after
death. Not the most remote medical judgment could be formed if the
examination was made two or three months after death. If an examination
of the spinal cord is made so long after death, if there had been a
large tumour or some similar change, it might have been discovered; but
neither softening nor induration of the minute structure of the cord
could be detected. The minute nervous structures change within two hours
after death.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

I have in the course of my experience had cases of traumatic tetanus. It
generally begins by an attack of the jaw. I have had under my personal
observation four cases of idiopathic tetanus. One of them was my own
child. In three cases the symptoms commenced with lockjaw. In the
fourth case the symptoms commenced in the body; the power of swallowing
easily was retained to the last. Within the last twelve months I have
made a post-mortem examination of two women who have died from the
poison of strychnia. In both cases it was by chemical analysis that I
ascertained the deaths had been caused by strychnia. In one case the
post-mortem took place forty-two hours after death, in the other case
thirty hours.

(The witness produced his report to the coroner on these two cases.)

I have not seen a fatal case, but several of taking too large a dose.
One, a middle-aged man, took one-sixth of a grain of strychnia, given in
solution. In a very few minutes the symptoms manifested themselves by
the want of power of controlling the muscles, by twitching and rigidity,
with some cramp, more violent in the legs than any part of the body. He
was up and walking about. It was not a severe case. In six hours the
spasms entirely disappeared. They were intermittent in character, every
two or three seconds at first. The other case was similar with
one-twelfth of a grain.

I have experimented on upwards of sixty animals--dogs, cats, mice, rats,
guinea pigs, rabbits, frogs, and toads. After the ingestion of the
poison the symptoms appear from two minutes to thirty, more generally
about five or six. The symptoms in their order are--a desire to be quite
still; hurried breathing; slavering at the mouth when given at the
mouth; twitching of the ears; trembling of the muscles; inability to
walk; convulsion of all the muscles of the body; the jaws generally
being firmly closed during convulsions; these convulsions followed by a
total want of power in the muscles, which, in the last attacks, were
thrown into violent spasms with a galvanic-like shock running through
them. Spasms come on if the animal is either touched or attempts to
move. These spasms occur at various periods. The animals die at various
periods up to three and a half hours. In every case before death the
rigidity ceases, and the muscles are quite soft and powerless. The
longest intervals between the violent convulsions in the animals to
which strychnia has been administered has been about half an hour, but
that is not common. After death the hearts of the animals have been
invariably full on the right side, very generally the left ventricle
firmly contracted, and the blood usually dark and often fluid. There is
no particular appearance attached to the spine. I have attended to the
evidence as to the symptoms of Mr. Cook on the Monday and Tuesday
nights.

By LORD CAMPBELL--What do you assume the symptoms to have been on the
Saturday night?--A state of great excitement in a less severe form; that
Mr. Cook described himself to have been very ill.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Examination resumed--What else?--In a condition that he considered
himself mad for two minutes, caused, he stated, through some noise in
the street.

Now, adverting to the symptoms described on these three occasions here
in the Court, is it your opinion that they could have been produced by
the poison of strychnia?--They did not resemble what I have seen to
follow it. He had more power of voluntary motion--sitting up in bed,
moving his hands about, freely swallowing, and asking to be rubbed and
moved, and a greater length of time occurred from the taking of the
pills supposed to contain strychnia and the occurrence of the symptoms,
much greater than any period that has occurred in my experience.

Does any observation occur to you on the screaming?--The screaming
foreran the vomiting. I have never seen an animal vomit after taking
strychnia, nor scream as an expression of voluntary exercise. Where
there is so much spasm there is an inability on the part of the patient
to vomit. I have a case, which is related in the 10th volume of the
_Journal de Pharmacie_, in which attempts were made to give emetics
without success.

With reference to the post-mortem observations of animals poisoned by
strychnia, could you form any opinion on the post-mortem examination of
Mr. Cook whether he had been under the influence of poison?--They differ
materially in the particulars I have mentioned. The heart is stated to
be empty and contracted, the state of the lungs not congested, the state
of the brain not congested.

In the case of the paroxysms of the animals what has been the course of
the subsiding of the paroxysm?--Gradual. I have never known a case of a
severe paroxysm return, and then a long interval of complete repose for
several hours. I have known it for half an hour.

I have experimented on the bodies of animals poisoned by strychnia with
a view of discovering the strychnia poison from a few hours up to the
forty-third day, the body being perfectly putrid in the latter case. In
no one case have I failed to discover the poison.

Suppose a person to have died under the immediate effects of strychnia
poison, in the first paroxysm after its administration, and his stomach
to have been taken out and put into a jar on the sixth day after death,
in your opinion must strychnia have been found in the body on proper
chemical analysis?--If it were there.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Adverting to the statement about the stomach being put in a jar, brought
up to London, and then immediately submitted to examination, in your
judgment was that in an unfavourable or favourable condition for
ascertaining whether the strychnia was there?--It would give a little
more trouble; I do not see anything else. It is not my opinion that the
analysis may be defeated or confused by the existence in the stomach of
any other substance which would produce the same colours.

Supposing death to have been caused by a dose of strychnia poison
sufficient, but not more than sufficient, to destroy the animal, in your
judgment would it be so decomposed by the process of absorption as that
you would not be able to detect it by those tests in any portion of the
system?--No.

By LORD CAMPBELL--It is a question on which toxicologists have
entertained a different opinion?--I believe they have.

Examination resumed--Have you studied the question sufficiently to be
able to state reasons for thinking the minimum dose, after having done
its work, continues in the system?--I believe the illustration given was
that as food undergoes a change on being taken into the body, these
substances also do.

By LORD CAMPBELL--It has been said that the decomposition of food
affords an analogy?--It has. I believe not. The change in food takes
place during digestion, consequently these elements are not found in the
blood, or, if the change does not take place there, they remain
unchanged in the blood. These alkaloids are absorbed without digestion,
and may be obtained unchanged from the blood.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--About half of the experiments on
the sixty animals I spoke of were made in conjunction with Mr. Morley,
the gentleman who was called for the prosecution. A few of these
experiments were made in connection with this case, but the great bulk
certainly not.

You have not told us what may be material, the general dose given?--The
general dose given in the experiments has been from half a grain to two
grains. I have seen a cat and a dog die from half a grain, not always.
There are varying degrees of susceptibility both in animals of different
species and in individuals of the same species.

You say that the symptoms generally appear in from two to thirty
minutes; Mr. Morley states two minutes to an hour; will you undertake to
say there have not been cases in which the first appearances have been
delayed an hour?--I do.

Have you not known instances in which you have had to repeat the doses
of poison?--When the dose has not been sufficient to kill, but to
produce symptoms, there is a wide difference. I have given it three
times. The quantity I gave was half a grain. That in the solid state
would be a small dose to kill an old strong cat; a small dose will
suffice in the fluid form. Where the half-grain dose has been given
three times the reason was that the cat did not swallow the doses.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

With regard to the symptoms you have described to us, can you tell me
whether the result of your observations is that these symptoms occur
uniformly, or at uniform periods of time, or whether they vary
occasionally?--They certainly do not occur at uniform periods of time. I
have not observed considerable variation in the order, but I have in the
time.

When the convulsions have once set in have you found considerable
difference as to the periods at which they take place?--Some difference,
with greater or less intervals.

Have you also found that one animal will have a succession of attacks
before it dies, and another will die after a much less amount of
convulsion?--Yes. An animal seldom dies after one convulsion, generally
four or five, and often a great many more. I have known one or two
instances in which the animals have died after one convulsion.

From a dose which in the same quantity has not produced the same effect
in other instances?--Yes.

Does the order in which the muscles of the body are convulsed vary
also?--To some extent it does. The convulsions are generally
simultaneous in the muscles of the trunk and those of the extremities. I
think the limbs are generally affected first; they may be simultaneous;
but the limbs are more easily observed.

Have you known any instance in which rigidity greater than is due to the
ordinary rigor-mortis has occurred after death?--I do not think there is
any difference. I have known instances in which they were very rigid,
but I have known instances in which the muscles were flaccid. I may
state I do not think there is any peculiar rigidity produced by
strychnia.

With regard to the lady whose case we do not name, was it not the fact
that, although the muscles of the body were flexible, the hands were
curved and the feet arched and muscles contracted?--Not more than is
usual from ordinary causes. I have said the hands were curved and the
feet arched by muscular contraction.

Do you mean to say that when you spoke of the feet being decidedly
arched that you meant no more than is due to the ordinary rigidity of
death?--I do; that is what I mean by muscular contraction.

Do you mean to say that when you signed this, “The hands were incurved
and the feet decidedly arched by muscular contraction,” you meant no
more than is due to the ordinary rigidity of death?--I do, and stated so
at the time, not in the report I have signed, but in conversation with
the parties engaged.

You made a report which did not include the whole?--It is stated in the
former part of the report that the other muscles of the body were so;
that there was a distinction between the two portions of the body--a
statement of fact, but nothing more.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Mr. Morley stated here the other day that in the experiments he made
with you on animals killed with the poison, that after death there was
an interval of flaccidity, after this rigidity commenced, more than if
it had been occasioned by the usual rigor-mortis; you do not agree with
him as to the statement of the fact?--I do not; it is a difference of
opinion entirely.

You say you generally found the heart full?--Yes, the right side. The
fact of the heart having been found empty in this case, amongst other
things, leads me to the conclusion that it was not a death by strychnia
poison.

Did you hear the evidence given here the other day of the
post-mortem?--I did. I also heard this stated, “that the heart was
contracted and empty.” I believe I was in Court when the gentleman who
conducted it gave his evidence of the post-mortem examination of Mrs.
Smyth, who died from the unfortunate administration of strychnia.

In those two cases does the fact of the heart having been found empty
exercise any influence on your judgment?--Not unless I know how the
post-mortem was made. If the post-mortem was commenced in the head, the
explanation is given by Mr. Morley and myself in the case at Leeds. We
had no doubt of the heart being full, the blood being fluid, but the
head being first opened, and the large vessels cut, the consequence was
that the blood by mere natural physical causes drains away.

Are you aware how the post-mortem was made in this particular case of
Mr. Cook?--It is stated that the chest and abdomen were opened before
the head.

What effect would that have?--If there were blood in the heart it ought
to be there.

That would not make the difference. The head was not opened there in the
first instance?--No; that is my explanation of it.

How do you account for the emptiness and contraction of the heart in Mr.
Cook’s case?--The heart, if empty, is usually contracted. I cannot
account, from the appearance of the body after death, for the emptiness
of the heart, any more than it might be the usual effect of death. It
varies very much, but, as a general rule in post-mortem examinations, we
find, if the heart is empty, it is contracted.

If I understand you, the post-mortem appearance of Cook’s body, which
you say differs materially from those you have seen after death from
strychnia, were the emptiness of the heart, the state of the lungs, and
the want of congestion in the brain. What do you say as to the state of
the lungs?--The lungs are described as not being congested.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Do you attach any importance to the emphysema?--It is of two kinds. One
consists in a dilatation of the cells, the other in a rupture by which
the air, not being in the cells, passes amongst them.

I suppose you say it was not from the rupture of the cells here?--That I
inferred from the description given.

Have you not found emphysema in the cases of the animals that have
died?--Yes. It has always been from a rupture of the cells. It could be
in no other way.

What is there in the statement of witnesses which makes you think there
was emphysema of the other sort?--There was during life a diseased
condition of the lungs.

I am speaking of the appearance of the lungs after death?--I must put
the whole together.

Would it not have been desirable to know whether this emphysema was
natural or whether it was from rupture? We heard the witnesses here who
made the post-mortem examination?--If the question had been put to them.

But you were advising my friends throughout, while Dr. Harland was here,
and you heard what he said. Did it occur to you it was proper to ask him
what was the nature of those?--No, because I heard (which was sufficient
to my mind) that disease had existed. The question was put, as to the
disease, to Dr. Savage.

I am speaking of this emphysema?--It did not occur to me.

You have told us the various symptoms about this gentleman, from which
you gather he was of a delicate constitution. To which do you ascribe
these convulsions of which he died?--Not to any.

I understood you to say that the fact of his having syphilis was an
important ingredient in your mind?--Yes, but you ask for convulsions.

You have no doubt he died of convulsions?--No.

You entered into a long detail of the various ailments under which this
unfortunate man suffered, and you say that this would predispose him to
convulsions. I ask you which of them?--The whole; the continuation of
them.

Amongst others you mentioned excitement?--Yes, and depression of
spirits.

What evidence is there, on which you rely, of his being a man subject to
depression of spirits?--It is stated by Mr. Jones that he was subject to
depression of spirits--mental depression. There was a good deal of
mental depression at Rugeley.

Would you expect excitement to produce its effects recently in its
existence, or after it was totally and entirely gone?--It may induce
that state of brain in which convulsions will follow at some distance.

Did you find from the evidence that the brain was perfectly
healthy?--No, not perfectly healthy. Mr. Bamford said it was not.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Do you mean, as against the reputed testimony, and the testimony here of
Dr. Harland and Dr. Moncton, as well as Mr. Devonshire, to set up the
testimony of that old gentleman, Mr. Bamford?--The evidence stated at
the inquest itself is put in the depositions.

Do you mean to say, in your opinion, that excitement, producing disease
of the brain, would bring on these convulsions?--I mean to say this,
that in the condition of the brain, and the statement that has been
made, I believe it to be quite probable that convulsions might come on
and destroy a person, and leave no trace behind.

Do you believe that this man died of apoplexy?--I do not. You must bear
in mind he had taken doses of morphia.

Do you ascribe his death to morphia?--No, except that it would assist in
the convulsive attack, and it would affect the spinal marrow.

Brought about by the morphia?--No.

In your opinion was morphia right treatment or wrong?--I should think
not very good in the state of excitement he was in then.

Do you mean that there has been anything to show any excitement at
Rugeley?--You will not allow me to furnish an answer. There was no
excitement at Rugeley, but morphia, when there is sickness, will
sometimes disagree with a patient when there is an irritable state of
the brain.

The stomach was irritated, I will allow, but where is the evidence that
there was any excitement at Rugeley?--There is none.

Then why was morphia a wrong treatment?--Because it is after sickness,
and there is evidence of there being an irritable state of the brain.
From what he said himself, he must either have been delirious on the
Sunday night, or he must have had some attack similar to what he had on
the Monday night.

Do you mean the attack of the Sunday night was similar to that on the
Monday night?--Less intensity, but I think very probably of the same
character.

You do believe there were convulsions on the Sunday night, then?--No, I
do not.

He died of convulsions?--Yes, but I say of the same character.

Then you do believe he had convulsions?--To a certain extent, but less
in intensity. There was a great deal of mental and bodily excitement.

On the Monday night?--I have stated to you that he was in that condition
which very often precedes convulsions.

Will you admit if a man so under the influence of morphia and he is
suddenly disturbed by a noise, it is likely to have a depressing effect
upon him?--I will; but there is no proof of a noise.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

There is no proof, except his own statement, of any illness?--Precisely;
that is part of my opinion--that he did not state what had occurred
accurately.

Do you mean to say that he did not state that thing?--No; that he was
mistaken. That is one of the symptoms. I believe the man to have been
delirious then.

Now, be so good as to tell me what are the convulsions of which you gave
some statement to my friend which will produce convulsions of a tetanic
form?--Any irritation will produce it.

Ending in death?--It may end in death.

Will you tell me of any convulsions which you have known end in death
accompanied with what my friend calls tetanic symptoms?--I have known
them in children. I have never had such a case in an adult.

Has your reading furnished you with any?--The general statement of all
writers is that such cases do occur.

Have you ever known or read of a case in which the patient was conscious
to the last?--No, I have not. I have seen it stated so, but I have never
met with it.

In epilepsy you have these tetanic symptoms?--Yes, but before death
consciousness is gone.

You have had considerable experience in idiopathic tetanus, and some
five or six, perhaps, of traumatic. (An extract from the evidence of Mr.
Jones was read.) I have read to you the description of Cook’s symptoms
as witnessed by Mr. Jones. I ask you to point out any distinction
between those symptoms and the symptoms of tetanus?--Do you mean the one
paroxysm or the disease which is called tetanus?

I am speaking of the paroxysm of tetanus?--It is very like.

By LORD CAMPBELL--You say this is not tetanus at all?--It is not. I
never saw a case of tetanus in which the rigidity continued at the time
of death and afterwards.

Cross-examination resumed--I am asking you as to symptoms of the
paroxysms. I understand you to say the symptoms of the paroxysms are not
distinguishable from those of tetanus?--Some of them are at the moment
of death.

Give me any of them?

By LORD CAMPBELL--This is not tetanus, but, as far as they go, they
coincide with the symptoms of tetanus at the moment of death?--Yes.

Cross-examination resumed--Observe, you have here consciousness to the
last. That before the man dies he says, “Turn me over,” and as soon as
they turn him over he dies. Tell me of any case you know of in which
death has ensued from convulsions, where the death was not from tetanus,
in which the patient was conscious?--I have already said I do not know
of such a case.

Let me call your attention to strychnia tetanus. Would you call the
symptoms tetanic?--They are called so very properly.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Do you agree with Sir Benjamin Brodie that while the paroxysms of
tetanic convulsions last there is no difference between those which
arise from strychnia and those which arise from tetanus properly so
called, but the difference is in the course of them?--I think there is.
I think that the hands are less violently contracted and affected in
ordinary tetanus, and that the whole effect of the spasms is less in
ordinary tetanus.

You would expect to find the hands more firmly and tightly closed in
tetanus from strychnia than in ordinary tetanus?--I think it is so.
There is another difference, that in tetanus the convulsions never
entirely pass away.

That is one of the reasons Sir Benjamin Brodie gave for distinguishing
the course?--In the case at Leeds it was the same.

I believe you felt perfectly prepared in that case, on the description
of the symptoms, to come to the determination that it was a death from
strychnia?--I thought it possible and probable. I did not come to a
determined opinion. I expressed an opinion. I did not say I had no doubt
as to the cause of death. We had ascertained at that time that there was
strychnia.

After the opinion you expressed in that case, is it possible that you
can represent this case of Mr. Cook as one of idiopathic tetanus?--I
never did, and you have not heard from me that I infer that.

I have heard it said in this case that this may have been something
arising from a syphilitic affection?--Idiopathic or traumatic tetanus
was mentioned. I do not think it was a case of tetanus in any sense of
the word.

Why not?--I have given the description. Because it differed from the
course of tetanus from strychnia in the particulars I have already
described.

Repeat them once more?--The very sudden acquisition of the convulsions
after the first rousing of Mr. Jones; his power of talking.

Did you not know that Mrs. Smyth begged to have water thrown upon her,
and talked throughout?--It did not occur to me.

Are you judging of the one incidental case, and coming here with
conclusions founded on that?--I think it is an element, the time.

Then let me add the element, that the lady continues to the last
conscious, and asks to have her legs stretched just before she died;
does that shake your faith?--Yes.

Do you not know in that case her last words were to turn her over?--Not
at the last moment. I do not dispute it if it is said so.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Were there not here the premonitory symptoms; the animals are affected
about the jaws and the ears, and Mr. Cook has stiffness in his neck, and
asks to have it rubbed?--It is a premonitory symptom.

Was it not a symptom of the convulsions, which are not distinguishable
from tetanus?--I have said so. I have stated here that I believe in
cases of poison from strychnia it is first developed in the legs and
feet.

You have told us the animals began to feel twitching in the ears. This
gentleman had, before the convulsions came on, stiffness in the muscles
of the neck and jaw, and begged to have them rubbed?--That might be if
it were anything else.

I ask you now, is not the difficulty of breathing one of the premonitory
symptoms? He sat up in bed and complained of feeling suffocated?--Yes.

And felt a stiffness about the neck and asked to have it rubbed, and, as
far as we know, this was the case in all the animals, though they could
not ask to be rubbed. I ask you what were these but premonitory
symptoms?--In no one single instance could the animal bear to be
touched, and it evidently was most painful to it to be touched. I know
that Mrs. Smyth asked to have her legs and arms straightened.

Let me ask you this, have you not often found that it was prior to the
occurrence of the paroxysm, and not after the paroxysm?--No, I have seen
a paroxysm brought on by it.

In all cases?--No, not in all cases. But in the other case, for two
hours before she died, when she could speak, she begged them not to
touch her.

Did she not ask to have her legs rubbed?--That was when the attack was
slight, not during the fatal attack.

After the paroxysms had set in, did she not request to be rubbed?--She
did before the convulsions came on; she liked to have her feet and legs
rubbed.

Afterwards she could not bear it, because it caused a recurrence?--Yes.

That was in consequence of the twitchings, was it not?--I think not. It
is stated by all the witnesses she begged she might not be touched.

But for that one thing, that the paroxysms came on so soon after the
first premonitory symptom, is there one single point in which this
differs from strychnia tetanus?--The power of swallowing so lately.

On what does it depend, the inability to swallow?--From the inability to
move the jaw.

I ask you whether it is not a fact that, unlike as in natural tetanus,
in tetanus from strychnia lockjaw is not the last symptom, and very
often never sets in at all?--I have never seen an instance in which it
does not make its appearance.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Is it the last?--I do not deny that it may be.

At what stage did it come on in the Leeds case?--Very early, more than
two hours before death.

How long did the paroxysms continue before death took place?--Two hours
and a half.

That was in a case in which very large doses of strychnia were
administered?--We supposed four or five times repeatedly.

In the case of Leeds there were four animals killed afterwards from the
contents of the stomach?--There were.

You state that you have succeeded in every case where you have tried in
your experiments in finding the strychnia?--Yes.

Did not Mr. Morley differ from you in two cases?--In one he did. We
divided the poison which we found in the stomach into two portions, and
we adopted two different processes for extracting it, and by the one
process we were both rather doubtful, but by the other we produced it.

Now, you thought you found it, and he thought you did not?--Not that I
recollect.

Do not you know that Mr. Morley has been rather doubtful as to the
results of these experiments?--No. Mr. Morley stated differently in his
own examination.

In his examination here?--Yes; if you refer to it, except in one case,
and that is the explanation I give of it.

Re-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--The Attorney-General directed your
attention to your report on one of these cases that the hands were rigid
and the feet incurved. In reports of this kind do you state only
extraordinary appearances, or ordinary appearances as well?--Ordinary
appearances also. It is a statement of a fact without anything more.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: W. Herepath]

Mr. WILLIAM HEREPATH, examined by Mr. GROVE--I am Professor of Chemistry
and Toxicologist at the Bristol Medical School. I have been occupied in
chemistry forty years and in toxicology probably thirty. I have
experimented on the poison of strychnia. I have examined the contents of
the stomach of a patient who died from strychnia. I discovered the
strychnia in the contents of the stomach three days after death. I have
experimented upon eight, nine, or ten animals. In the case of a cat, to
which I gave one grain of strychnia in solid form, I could not get the
animal to take it voluntarily, and I left it in meat at night. I
found the animal dead next morning. The body was dreadfully
contorted--extremely rigid, the fore limbs extended, the head turned
round to the side, the eyes protruding and staring, the iris expanded so
as to be almost invisible. I found in the urine which had been ejected
strychnia, and also in the stomach. I gave the same quantity of
strychnia to another cat. It remained very quiet for fifteen or sixteen
minutes, with but few symptoms until thirty-five minutes. It merely
seemed a little restless with its eyes, the breathing a little
quickened, and at thirty-five minutes it had a terrible spasm, the four
extremities and the head being drawn together. I watched it for three
hours more. After this it had a second spasm. A frothing saliva was
dripping from its mouth, and it forcibly ejected its urine. It had
another spasm a few minutes after, when I thought the animal would die.
It soon recovered itself, and then remained quiet, with the exception of
a trembling all over. The slightest breath of air would affect it. It
continued in this state for some time longer. During this three hours
and a half, or nearly so, the animal was in a peculiar state. Touching
it appeared to electrify it all through, even blowing upon it produced
the same effect. Touching the basket, the slightest thing that could
affect the animal, produced a sort of electric jump. I left it then,
thinking it would recover, but in the morning I found it dead, in the
same indurated and contracted condition in which the former animal was
found. About thirty-six hours afterwards, by chemical examination, I
found strychnia in the urine, the stomach, and upper intestines, in the
liver, and in the blood of the heart. In my search for strychnia I took
extraordinary means to get rid of the organic matter.

In all cases which you have seen where strychnia has been taken has the
examination been successful?--Not only strychnia, but nux vomica, has
been extracted. In one case the animal had been buried two months. I
have detected strychnia in cases where it has been mixed purposely with
putrid remains.

Are you of opinion, as a chemist, that where strychnia has been taken in
a sufficient dose to poison, it can be detected, and ought to be
detected?--Yes, up to the time the body is decomposed completely. Even
where there is putrefaction--where the body has become a dry powder. I
am of opinion that strychnia ought to have been detected if it had
existed in the jar containing the stomach, even in the state it then
was.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--Until lately my experiments for
the purpose of finding strychnia have been principally in the stomach.
In two cases I found it in the tissues of the animals. One was the
second cat, the other a dog to which I gave the large dose of one grain.
Judging from reports in newspapers, I have said in conversation that
strychnia had been given, and that “If it was there, Professor Taylor
ought to have found it.”

[Sidenote: W. Herepath]

Re-examined by Mr. GROVE--What is the smallest quantity you have
detected in the tissues of the stomach?--I am satisfied that you could
discover the fifty-thousandth part of a grain that is unmixed with
organic matter. I dissolved the tenth part of a grain in a gallon of
water, that is 1 in 70,000. I can take the tenth part of a drop of the
water and demonstrate the presence of strychnia.

What is the smallest portion of strychnia when mixed with organic matter
you can detect?--I took about an eighth part of the liver of a dog, and
from that I had enough to make four distinct experiments with the four
tests.

So that you experimented on a thirty-second part of the liver?--Yes.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: J. E. D. Rogers]

Mr. JULIAN EDWARD DISBROWE ROGERS, examined by Mr. GRAY--I have been
sixteen years Professor of Chemistry at St. George’s School of Medicine,
in London. I made an experiment with one dog with a view of extracting
strychnia from the body. I gave it two grains of pure strychnia between
two pieces of meat. Three days after it was dead I removed the stomach
and its contents, and took some of the blood. I analysed the blood ten
days after its removal from the body, when it was putrid, and found
strychnia by the colour tests. About a month or five weeks afterwards I
analysed the stomach and its contents, and strychnia was separated in a
large quantity. Having heard the evidence as to the stomach and its
contents in this case being put in a jar and sent to London, in my
judgment strychnia, if it had been administered, must have been found in
the contents of the stomach.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I have only made one experiment
with strychnia on this dog.

Do you think it would make any difference if the contents were lost?--If
there were no contents spread over the intestines, then that would make
a difference. If they had been spilt and shaken, then it would make no
difference.

But, supposing they were not there?--There would be the washings of the
stomach. If the stomach was sent me with no contents, I would wash the
stomach and proceed with that.

If you had tried on the tissues of the deceased’s body I suppose you
would have been able to ascertain whether there had been any
strychnia?--That is my opinion.

So that the time that has elapsed since Cook died would not matter. If
you had an opportunity to operate on it, you would have found the
strychnia?--If it had been there, I feel satisfied I should find it.

LORD CAMPBELL--Do you mean then or now?--I do not see that the time
would prevent it.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: H. Letheby]

Dr. HENRY LETHEBY, examined by Mr. KENEALY--I am a Bachelor of Chemistry
and Professor of Medicine in the London Hospital; also a medical officer
of health to the city of London. I have for a considerable time studied
poisons. I believe in every case of this kind tried in this Court during
the last fourteen years I have been engaged on behalf of the Crown. I
have been present during the examination of the medical witnesses at
this trial and heard them describe certain symptoms attending the death
of Mr. Cook. I have seen many deaths by strychnia in the lower animals.
I have seen several cases of nux vomica in the human subject, one of
which was fatal. The symptoms in the animals do not accord with the
symptoms in this case. In the first place, I have never known such a
long interval between the administration of the poison and the coming on
of the symptoms. The longest interval has been three-quarters of an
hour, and then the poison was given in a form not easy of solution, and
when the stomach was full. I have seen the symptoms begin in five
minutes after the poison was administered. A quarter of an hour would be
the average. Another reason is that in all the animals I have seen, and
the human subject also, when under strychnia, the system has been so
irritable that the very slightest excitement, as an effort to move, a
slight touch, a noise, or a breath of air, will set them off in
convulsions. I do not think it at all probable that a person to whom a
dose of strychnia had been given could rise out of bed and ring a bell
violently. Any movement at all would excite the nervous system, and
there would be spasms. It is not likely a person in that state of
nervous irritation could bear to have his neck rubbed. Where poisoning
by strychnia does not end fatally, the paroxysm is succeeded by other
paroxysms, which gradually shade themselves off. They generally become
less and less, over a period of some hours. My experience agrees with
Dr. Christison, that it would last over a period of sixteen or eighteen
hours before the man gets better. I do not hesitate to say that
strychnia is of all poisons the most easy of detection. I have detected
it in the stomach, in the blood, and in the tissues of animals in
numerous instances. The longest period after death that I have examined
a body has been one month. The animal was then in a state of
decomposition, and I succeeded in detecting very minute portions of the
strychnia. When the strychnia is pure it can be detected in a very small
portion of a part, at least the twentieth part of a grain. When mixed up
with other matter it is a little more difficult. I can detect the tenth
part of a grain in a pint of any liquid that you put before me, whether
the liquid was pure or putrefied.

You have succeeded in detecting it in animals which have been killed a
month, and were in a state of decomposition. What is the dose you have
given them?--I gave the animal, a rabbit, originally half a grain, which
killed it, and I have the strychnia here within a fraction of what I
gave. I lost about a tenth part of a grain in the course of the
investigation.

[Sidenote: H. Letheby]

Supposing a person had taken strychnia eight or ten days before, and
that he died of strychnia poison, should you be able positively to say
that you could detect it?--I do say so positively. I have never failed.
In the post-mortem examinations I have always found the right side of
the heart full of blood. The reason for that is that the death takes
place by the fixing of the muscles of the chest in spasm. In my opinion
this is invariably so. At that time the blood is unable to pass through
the lungs, and the heart cannot relieve itself of the blood that is
flowing into it. It therefore becomes gorged. I have also observed that
the lungs are congested, filled with blood.

Do you agree in the opinion of Dr. Taylor that where strychnia is
administered as a sort of pill or bolus it kills from about six to
eleven minutes?--It may do so. I do not say it would always. I agree
with him that the jaws are spasmodically closed, and also that the
slightest noise reproduces another convulsive paroxysm. I do not agree
with Dr. Taylor that the colouring tests for the discovery of strychnia
are fallacious. They always succeeded with me.

Dr. Taylor has given as a reason for the non-finding of the strychnia
that it is absorbed into the blood and becomes changed?--I agree with
its absorption, but I do not agree with its being changed.

Have you turned your attention to the theory that strychnia is
decomposed after the poisoning?--I have examined the tissues of the body
and I have found it; and my opinion is that it is not changed so as not
to be discoverable.

Supposing the contents were put into a jar and jumbled up with the
intestines and a portion of the stomach, would that prevent the
discovery of strychnia?--It would not.

Supposing that all the contents of the stomach were lost, ought the
mucous membrane, in the ordinary course of things, to exhibit traces of
strychnia?--I think so.

I have also studied the poison of antimony.

Supposing a quantity of antimony were placed in some brandy and water,
and it was drunk off at a sudden gulp, would the immediate effect of
that be to burn the throat, or anything of that kind?--No. Not in the
form of tartar emetic.

[Sidenote: H. Letheby]

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I am neither a member of the
College of Physicians nor of the College of Surgeons. I do not now carry
on business in the medical line, but have done so in general practice
for not more than two or three years. I have destroyed about fifty
animals by strychnia, some within the last two months. I have never
given more than a grain. In recent cases I have always administered the
poison in a solid form--sometimes made into a pill with bread, and at
other times put on the tongue of the animal. In one case I gave it under
very disadvantageous circumstances; the dog had had a very hearty meal,
and it was kneaded up into a hard mass with some bread, and it took
three-quarters of an hour before the action came on. There was one other
case which took about half an hour, but the poison, half a grain, was
not given in sufficient quantity. We gave it another dose, which acted
in about ten minutes.

Dr. Nunneley describes the symptoms--first, a desire to be still, then a
difficulty in breathing, a slobbering of the mouth, twitching of the
ears, trembling of the muscles, and, after that, convulsions; did you
observe all these?--I cannot say all of them in that order. There is an
excitement manifested in the animal, an indisposition to touch, and
trembling on being touched.

I am speaking of the symptoms before the convulsions. The touching, did
that occasion a tremulous action of the muscles?--Yes, I have noticed
that.

Have they come on in regular order?--No, I think not. There are some
little variations.

After the convulsions have once commenced, is there an interval?--Yes. A
breath, a sound, or a touch will cause a recurrence of the convulsive
symptoms after they have been seized. This does not apply where the
animal dies in the first paroxysm, and I have known many cases where an
animal has so died.

You mentioned a distinctive feature in this case of Cook. You were
surprised at his manifesting so much power as to be able to sit up in
bed and ring the bell. Are you aware that that was at the commencement,
before any of the convulsive symptoms had set in?--Yes, I apprehend that
was at the onset or beginning of the paroxysm.

Do you know that he sat up in bed and rang the bell, and it was not till
Palmer had been and had gone back and brought the pills that the
convulsions came on?--Yes, I do; and I have noticed in animals that the
mere touch sends them into convulsions, and they show an indisposition
to move.

In the case of the lady who died near Romsey, did you hear what the maid
said, that she discovered, when her mistress’ bell rang violently, that
she had got out of bed and was sitting on the floor?--It struck me as
inconsistent with what I have seen. I have no doubt that was a death
from strychnia.

If that evidence be true, and it is a fact that she got up and rang her
bell, does not that shake your faith?--No, it does not. You must compare
it with what I have seen. Both are irreconcilable with what I have seen.

[Sidenote: H. Letheby]

Speaking of the Tuesday night, with the exception of the ringing of the
bell, and that in this case it was an hour or an hour and a half after
the supposed administration of the poison, can you point to anything to
distinguish the symptoms and death of Mr. Cook from death by tetanus of
strychnia?--No, I cannot. It is inconsistent with what I have seen, but
it is not inconsistent with what I have heard in the case of Mrs. Smyth.

Is not one of the symptoms hard breathing?--It is a panting respiration.
It is excitement of the breathing rather than difficulty. It is in the
convulsions that there is a difficulty of breathing. If a man were to
breathe hardly it is a position naturally assumed for him to sit up.
Until the convulsion of the muscles comes on there is nothing to prevent
the patient sitting up.

If I understand you, if I except the delay and the fact of his sitting
up in bed and crying for help on the Tuesday, is there anything to
distinguish the convulsions under which this man suffered and died from
the convulsions of tetanus of strychnia?--It is not perfectly consistent
with strychnia, because I say that the account which is given of Mrs.
Smyth is what I cannot reconcile with what I have before observed.

With regard to the abrupt termination instead of the gradual
subsidence?--I have observed the gradual subsidence in man as well as in
animals.

In the case of the man--what dose had he taken?--Nearly a grain and a
half.

This is a strongish dose?--Yes.

You might expect a recurrence of the paroxysm?--Certainly. The
subsidence will not depend on the strength of the dose; it will depend
on whether the individual is to recover or not. I have seen four or five
instances of recoveries.

Is it not generally known that the effect of strychnia is very varied in
different individuals?--No, I do not think so. There would be a little
variation in time, but in the main features of the case there is no
variation.

Do not you find this difference, that from the same dose in the same
species you get no paroxysm, or you get a series of paroxysms ending in
death?--Yes, that is true; but the attacks are the same for all that.
The symptoms are the same.

What do you say about the Sunday night fit?--I was disposed to think it
was a fit. I cannot tell you what it was; I have formed no opinion.

What do you ascribe Mr. Cook’s death to?--It is irreconcilable with
everything I am acquainted with.

By LORD CAMPBELL--Is it reconcilable with any known disease which you
have ever seen or heard of?--No, my lord.

[Sidenote: H. Letheby]

Re-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Do you mean to say it could not be the
result of any variety of convulsions, however violent, though not
classed under a particular description of convulsion?--We are learning
new facts every day, and I do not conceive it to be impossible that some
peculiarity of the spinal cord, unrecognisable except the examination
be made immediately after death, may produce symptoms like these.

When you say it is irreconcilable with anything you have heard of, do
you include anything you have heard of strychnia poison as well as
anything else?--Certainly I do.

Is the vomiting of the pills just before death inconsistent with what
you have known and observed of strychnia poison?--It is not consistent
with anything I have observed.

Have you ascertained whether, if you touch an animal which is beginning
those minor premonitory symptoms, but which as yet has had no paroxysms,
this brings the paroxysms on?--Yes.

Was not the Romsey case exceptional from the manner in which the
strychnia was administered and the quantity of the dose?--Yes, it was.
It is quite consistent with all I am saying that the ringing of the bell
by the lady the moment she felt anything of uneasiness would produce the
paroxysm which ultimately was observed. In my judgment, it is not safe
to argue from the symptoms of a case in which the paroxysm took place
only a few moments after the ingestion of the poison, and it was in a
fluid state, to what may be the probabilities in another case.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: R. E. Gay]

Mr. ROBERT EDWARD GAY, examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I am a member of
the Royal College of Surgeons. In 1855 I attended a person named Foster
suffering under tetanus. He had an inflammatory sore throat, muscular
pains in the neck and the upper portion of the spinal vertebræ. He was
feverish, and had the usual symptoms attending catarrh. On about the
fourth day the muscular pains extended to the face. A difficulty of
swallowing came on, the pains in the muscles covering the spinal
vertebræ and in those of the lower jaw increased. In the evening of that
day the jaw became completely locked; the pain came on in the muscles of
the bowels, the same in the legs and the arms. He became very much
convulsed throughout the entire muscular system. He had frequent and
violent convulsions of the arms and hands, and afterwards of the legs.
The difficulty of swallowing increased up to the ninth or tenth day. Not
a particle of food, either solid or liquid, could be taken or introduced
to the mouth. An attempt to swallow the smallest portion brought on the
most violent convulsions. The convulsions were so strong throughout the
whole system that I could compare him to nothing more than a piece of
warped board in shape. The head was drawn back, the abdomen was forced
forward, and the legs were frequently drawn upwards and backwards. The
attempt of feeding with the spoon, the opening of the window, or placing
the fingers on the pulse frequently brought on violent convulsions. He
complained of great hunger. He was able to speak. He repeatedly cried
out he was very hungry, what would he do if he could not eat? and he was
kept alive till the fourteenth day by injections of a nutritive
character. He screamed during these convulsions, and the noises he made
were more like those of a dying man. About the twelfth day he became
insensible. The convulsions, although very weak, continued till the
fourteenth day, when he died. He was by business an omnibus conductor.
He had been ill some few days--it might be a week. He had no other hurt
or injury to his person of any kind which would account for these
symptoms. His body was not examined after death.

By LORD CAMPBELL--What do you call the disease?--I call it inflammatory
sore throat from cold and exposure to the weather. The symptoms became
tetanic in consequence of an extremely nervous and anxious disposition.
He had a very large family, and was a very hard-working man. I did not
hear the evidence of the witnesses who described the symptoms of Mr.
Cook.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--That is what you call idiopathic
tetanus?--Yes, decidedly so. I have had a vast number of cases of
inflammatory sore throats and a great many anxious, nervous patients.
That is the only case I have ever seen of idiopathic tetanus.

If I rightly apprehend your history of the symptoms, the disease was
altogether progressive in its character, and, although there was an
occasional cessation of the more painful symptoms, there never was a
full cessation of the symptoms?--He was not suffering from tetanic
affection. There was a twitching of the muscles going on, but there was
not that violent convulsion. The lockjaw was the first of the more
aggravated symptoms that presented itself, the muscular spasms about the
trunk of the body progressing onwards to the extremities. He was
conscious till the tenth day, when insensibility supervened while the
convulsions were upon him. I consider the brain had been affected and
congestion had taken place, and that produced insensibility.

After that was there some diminution in the severity of the
convulsions?--Very great diminution, but they still continued.

Would that be likely to take place from the constant recurrence of the
convulsions?--From the constant recurrence of the convulsions the brain
would be congested.

You would expect to find a difference in that respect in a case where a
man died very early in such a disease, and where it was spread over a
longer period?--That would depend greatly on the violence of the
convulsions.

By LORD CAMPBELL--And the repetition?--And the repetition.


The Court then adjourned.




Ninth Day, Friday, 23rd May, 1856.

The Court met at ten o’clock.


[Sidenote: J. B. Ross]

Mr. JOHN BROWN ROSS, examined by Mr. GROVE--I am house surgeon to the
London Hospital. On 22nd March a labourer, aged thirty-seven, was
brought to the hospital about half-past seven in the evening. He had had
one paroxysm in the receiving room of our hospital before I saw him. He
had a rapid but feeble pulse, breathing quickly though not laboriously.
The jaws were closed and fixed, there was an expression of anxiety about
the countenance, and the features were sunken. He was unable to swallow,
the muscles of the abdomen and back were somewhat tense. After he had
been in the ward about ten minutes he had another paroxysm and
opisthotonos, which lasted about one minute. He was then quiet for a few
minutes; he had then another, and died. He had only been in the hospital
about half an hour. An inquest was held on the body, but no poison was
found. I attribute the cause of death to tetanus. There were three
wounds, two on the back of the right elbow, about the size of a shilling
each, and one on the left elbow, about the size of a sixpence. The man
told me he had had them about twelve or sixteen years. They were old,
chronic, indurated ulcers, circular in outline, the edges thickened
round, undermined, and covered with a dirty white coating without any
granulations. I am unable to say what produced those ulcers. I have seen
old, chronic syphilitic wounds in the legs similar to those in the
elbow, but I cannot say that these were so. These wounds were the only
things to account for tetanus. There was no other cause found.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I learned from the man’s wife
that a linseed meal poultice had been applied to this ulcer a day or two
before. The jaws were completely fixed when he came, so as to render him
incapable of swallowing anything. He said he had just been taken with
strange symptoms about the jaws at dinner that morning about eleven
o’clock. He was able to speak, though he could not open his jaw. That is
the case in tetanus.

Were there also symptoms of rigidity when he was brought in about the
abdominal and lumbar muscles; did you learn from him how long this
rigidity had been coming on?--Not further than that the first symptoms
of the illness he had felt were that morning. He did not say how long he
had felt this rigidity about the neck. He was seen by the parish surgeon
in the afternoon before coming to the hospital. I have no doubt that the
disease had been coming on from the morning.

[Sidenote: J. B. Ross]

Though you cannot speak as to the precise character of these sores, were
they ugly sores?--Yes; sores of a chronic character--ulcers. The two on
the right elbow were perfectly running into one another. A piece of
integument connected the two, so that they would be likely to run into
one another eventually. By saying that those sores were undermined I
mean that the wounds continued under the skin. There were no signs of
healing, and they had the appearance of old, neglected sores.

Were they near the site of any particular nerve?--They were near the
ulnar nerve, a very sensitive nerve connected with what we call the
“funny bone.”

How soon was he seized with the first paroxysm after he came in?--He had
one directly he came into the hospital, but I did not see it. Half an
hour from that time he died.

Had he had any paroxysms before he came to the hospital?--I believe he
had, all the afternoon.

That was not one continuous paroxysm?--No; there was a twitching of the
muscles of the legs and arms.

What are the particular symptoms of the case to which you refer as
indicative of death from tetanus?--From the tetanic symptoms and from
having wounds.

Put aside for the moment the fact of his having the wounds that would
lead to that inference; what were the symptoms that manifested
themselves previous to, or concomitantly with, death which you would
call tetanic?--The tetanic symptoms there are the lockjaw and the
muscles of the abdomen and the back also being rigid; and he complained
of pain in his stomach, just over the stomach. I did not hear the
account given of the symptoms of Mr. Cook’s death.

Re-examined by Mr. GROVE--Strychnia was suspected in this case before
the body was examined. The nerves of the tongue are very delicate ones.
There are very delicate nerves at the throat and fauces.

Were you here yesterday when a case was described of an injury in the
throat--a sore throat that caused tetanus?--I was.

Are you of opinion that an irritation of the nerves of the throat would
cause tetanus as well as the other nerves?--That was produced by
exposure to cold; it was therefore idiopathic.

Would any injury to any delicate nerves be a cause of
tetanus?--Decidedly.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: F. Wrightson]

Dr. FRANCIS WRIGHTSON, examined by Mr. KENEALY--I was a pupil of Liebig.
I am an analytical chemist and teacher of chemistry at the School of
Chemistry at Birmingham. I have studied and made experiments in various
poisons, including strychnia. I have not found any extraordinary
difficulties in the detection of strychnia. It is detected by the usual
tests. I have detected strychnia pure, and I have also discovered it
when mixed with impurity, such as bile, bilious matter from putrefying
blood, after having separated it from the impurities. Strychnia can be
discovered in the tissues. I have discovered it in the viscera of a cat
poisoned by strychnia, also in the blood of a dog poisoned by strychnia,
also in the urine of another dog poisoned by strychnia. I have heard the
theory propounded by Dr. Taylor as to the decomposition of strychnia by
the act of poisoning.

Are you of opinion strychnia undergoes decomposition in the act of
poisoning?--I am of opinion that it does not. If it were decomposed in
the act of poisoning I should say it would not be possible to discover
it in the tissues. Portions of strychnia can be discovered in extremely
minute quantities indeed. In the first case I mentioned of the detection
of strychnia in the blood, 2 grains were given to the dog. One grain was
given to the second dog, in which we detected it in the urine. Half a
grain was attempted to be administered to the cat, but a considerable
portion of it was spilt.

Assuming that a man was poisoned by strychnia, and that his stomach and
a portion of his tissues were sent within eight, or nine, or ten days
after death for analytical examination, do you say you could discover
the poison of strychnia in his remains?--I should have no doubt whatever
in saying so.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--Suppose the whole of this poison
to be absorbed, where would you expect to find it?--In the blood.

In its progress to its final destination, the destruction of life, does
it pass from the blood, or is it left by the blood in the solid tissues
of the body before it produces that effect?--I cannot tell.

If it has passed from the stomach by absorption in the blood, the whole
dose, into the circulation, do you say you would still expect to find
any of it?--Decidedly so, because I believe it exists as strychnia in
the blood.

Do you say you would still expect to find any of it in the stomach?--In
order to be absorbed it must be dissolved, and in that portion of the
fluid which surrounds the coats of the stomach I should expect to find
it.

Suppose the whole to be absorbed?--Then I should not detect it.

Suppose the whole of it has been eliminated from the blood and passed
from the system?--Certainly not.

LORD CAMPBELL--You would expect to find it elsewhere, not in the
stomach?--Yes. I would expect to find it in the blood and in the
tissues.

[Sidenote: F. Wrightson]

Cross-examination resumed--My question only supposes the minimum of the
dose that will destroy life to have been given; and, supposing that to
have been absorbed into the circulation, and there deposited in the
tissues, or part of it eliminated by the action of the kidneys, would
you know where to search for it?--I should search for it both in the
blood and in the tissues, and in the ejecta of the kidneys; and from my
experiments I should expect to find it in each of them, in case the
urine was not ejected during the time of poisoning.

Re-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--If a man had been killed by strychnia,
administered an hour and a half before he died, the poison would
certainly be detected in the stomach in the first instance.

Supposing it to have been administered in the shape of pills, would it
by that time have been all absorbed and circulated in the system so as
to get out of the stomach?--I cannot tell. If it were so I would find it
in the blood, the liver, and the spleen.

Could you form an opinion whether it could be detected under these
circumstances on the coats of the stomach?--Not knowing the dose
administered and the powers of absorption, I cannot say with absolute
certainty it would be detected, but I should think it in the highest
degree probable if a moderate dose had been administered.

Could you form any opinion from the fact that death had taken place
after one paroxysm, and in an hour and a half after the ingestion of the
poison, whether it was a considerable or an inconsiderable dose?--I
cannot give a decided opinion.

LORD CAMPBELL--I cannot allow this gentleman to leave the box without
expressing my high approbation of the manner in which he has given his
evidence.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: R. Partridge]

Mr. RICHARD PARTRIDGE, examined by Mr. GROVE--I have been for many years
in practice as a surgeon, and am Professor of Anatomy at King’s College.
I have heard the evidence as to the symptoms of Mr. Cook and as to the
post-mortem examination. In my opinion it is most important in a case of
convulsion that the spinal cord should be examined after death. The
gritty granules that were found would be likely to cause inflammation of
the arachnoid membrane, which would be discoverable if the spinal cord
had been examined shortly after death. If examined nine weeks after it
is not likely it would be discovered. Although I have not seen such a
case, there are cases on record that such inflammation, if it existed,
would be capable of producing tetaniform convulsions. The medical term
for such inflammation of the arachnoid is arachnitis, or inflammation of
the membrane. That disorder produces convulsions and death. I should not
say universally; sometimes it does not result in death. I could not form
any positive judgment as to the cause of death in Mr. Cook’s case. I
have heard the evidence as to the state of contraction after death. No
inference at all can be formed of the degree of contraction, or the
kind of contraction, that I heard described. If I find the back curved
and the body resting on its back and feet after death, I should infer
that he died of that form of tetanus which convulses the muscles of the
back. Various degrees and varieties of rigidity occur after a natural
death. The clenching of the hands or the semi-bending of the feet are
not uncommon in cases of ordinary death.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--The granules from which
arachnitis might have proceeded were, I understand, situated in the
inner surface of the fibrous investment of the cord. They are
occasionally found in these parts; not commonly. They are signs.
Arachnitis, producing convulsions, has never come under my personal
observation, nor has it satisfactorily come under my observation without
producing convulsions. It is a very rare disease.

Are you enabled to state from the recorded cases the course of the
symptoms of the disease?--No.

Do not you know it to be a disease of considerable duration?--The cases
have varied in duration; commonly days at the shortest. Arachnitis is
accompanied with paralysis if they live.

Would it, considering the connection that there is between the spinal
cord and the brain, affect the brain by sympathy, or otherwise, prior to
death?--No.

In these cases, where granules have produced arachnitis, do you happen
to know whether the granules have been considerable in point of
size?--It has varied in different cases.

Suppose them to be very small and minute?--I should think there would be
less likelihood of their producing inflammation.

Suppose an examination at a longer interval than nine days after death
failed to detect the inflammation of the arachnoid, that the spinal cord
and its integuments had not undergone any decomposition, and that the
appearance was perfectly healthy, should you be warranted in inferring
there was inflammation?--I should not conclude there was inflammation.
Prior to decomposition I should not.

The examination was made by four medical men; are you of opinion that
they would be competent judges as to decomposition?--[The question was
objected to.]

Does arachnitis not sometimes extend to a matter of months, even where
it extends to death?--It might go on for months.

Does it not affect the patient by a series of convulsions at recurring
intervals?--That varies.

Did you ever know, or hear of, or read of a case in which the patient
died after a single convulsion of arachnitis?--Not a single one.

What would be the concomitant symptoms; would it affect the rest of the
patient or affect the general health?--I cannot say.

[Sidenote: R. Partridge]

Do you believe that a man could have twenty-four hours of complete
repose?--No.

In the interval between the convulsions could he be quite well?--No; he
would have pain and uneasiness according to the situation of the muscles
convulsed, the back usually.

You have heard the symptoms, and I presume you have heard from the
midnight of Monday till Tuesday Mr. Cook had complete repose. I now ask
you if, in the face of the Court and of the profession, you will
undertake to say that Mr. Cook’s death proceeded from arachnitis?--I
should think not. The majority of the symptoms do not show arachnitis.

You have mentioned that there were one or two of the appearances after
death in Cook’s case which would be common to other cases, the
semi-closing of the hand. Did you ever know, except in a case of
tetanus, the hand so completely clenched as to require force to take the
fingers away from the hand?--No, I do not.

Have you ever known the feet to be so distorted as to be described by a
medical man as assuming the form of a club foot?--Never.

Did you hear the description given by Mr. Jones that when this man died
the body was bowed so that, if he had turned it from its side upon its
back, it would have rested on its head and on its heels?--I did.

Have you any doubt that that indicates death from tetanus?--Not from
some form of tetanic symptoms. I am only acquainted by reading and
hearsay with the symptoms that accompany death from tetanus resulting
from the administration of strychnia.

From your knowledge of the subject, having attended to the symptoms
described by Mr. Jones from the moment the paroxysm set in of which Mr.
Cook died, and the symptoms and appearances attending his death, does it
appear that these symptoms are consistent with death by strychnia?--Some
are consistent and some are inconsistent. The long interval which
occurred after the taking of the poison is inconsistent.

What I am asking you is, whether these symptoms on the Tuesday night,
from the time the man was taken with the paroxysms of convulsions of the
muscles of the trunk, of the legs, of the arms--the bending of the body
into a bow--the difficulty of respiration--are consistent with what you
know of death by strychnia?--Quite.

Do you agree that the symptoms in tetanus come on gradually and
progressive; that, although they are intermitted, the disease is never
wholly remitted?--I do.

What is the shortest period in which you have ever known the disease of
traumatic tetanus run its course to death?--Never under three or four
days.

[Sidenote: R. Partridge]

Suppose a case could be described as of shorter duration, such as a day
or a few hours, would your medical experience lead you to infer that the
premonitory symptoms had very likely been neglected?--I should consider
that probable.

Bearing in mind the distinction between traumatic and idiopathic tetanus
and a case such as has been here described, have you ever seen such a
death as this was with the symptoms mentioned proceed from natural
causes?--No.

Re-examined by Mr. GROVE--What are the other symptoms which you consider
inconsistent with strychnia?--The sickness manifested before the attack
came on; the beating of the bed clothes with the arms, want of
sensitiveness to external impression, and the sudden cessation of the
convulsions, and apparent complete recovery.

You mentioned previously the time that occurred between the ingestion of
the poison and the paroxysm coming on. What inference do you deduce from
that?--That it is inconsistent with strychnia.

As to the mode in which it came on without premonitory symptoms, do you
consider that is inconsistent with strychnia?--There was apparently an
absence of the usual condition that is described.

You stated that the bent form indicated some tetaniform symptom. Did
that answer apply to natural tetaniform as well as to tetaniform
convulsions caused by strychnia?--Yes. The bent form of the feet
indicated tetanic spasm. That would be the case whether it was a
tetaniform spasm with poison or without poison.

By LORD CAMPBELL--And the other symptoms of rigidity?--It is rather a
question of degree.

They would be more violent if from poison?--No doubt.

You have stated in the cases of tetanus you have seen there was no
intermission. Do you know, from your reading, that the intermission of
the disease is a frequent thing?--I know it occurs, but it is not
frequent.

As to decomposition of the spine. Do you think it could remain for nine
weeks undecomposed?--I do not.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I have one question which I would put (this
gentleman spoke as to vomiting), whether, if the stomach had been
brought by any other cause into a state of irritation, would he think
those causes inconsistent?

LORD CAMPBELL--I intended to put the question myself.

WITNESS--I should think it not inconsistent.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: John Gay]

Mr. JOHN GAY, examined by Mr. GRAY--I am a Fellow of the Royal College
of Surgeons, and have been for eighteen years a surgeon of the Royal
Free Hospital. In the year 1843 I had under my care in the hospital a
case of tetanus in a boy eight years old. He was brought in on the 28th
of July. The accident occurred a week before. I saw him on the 28th of
July. He could not open his mouth at that time. He complained of great
pain and stiffness about the neck. During the first three days I saw him
he had unusually severe paroxysms.

By LORD CAMPBELL--During the first night of his admission he started up
convulsed, and spasmodically closed his jaw. During the following night
he was a good deal convulsed at times. The abdominal muscles, as well as
the muscles of the neck and back, had become rigid during the night. The
muscles of the face were also in a state of great contraction. On the
following day I found the muscles remained in the same state. In the
morning of that day, at two o’clock, on visiting him I found there was
much rigidity of the muscles, especially those of the abdomen and back.
The following morning the muscular rigidity had gone. He opened his
mouth as usual, and was able to talk. The lad appeared to be thoroughly
relieved. He had no return of the spasms till the following day. At that
time he asked the nurse to change his linen, and she was lifting him up
in bed to do so when violent convulsions of the arms and face came on,
and he died in a few minutes.

Examination resumed--About thirty hours elapsed from the time the
convulsions of which he died came on and the last preceding convulsions.
The last paroxysm before he died lasted a few minutes. Before it came on
the rigidity which I have described had been completely relieved. At the
time he was convulsed the nurse was lifting him up to put on his linen.

By LORD CAMPBELL--The second day I gave him small doses of tartar emetic
to produce vomiting, but without effect. I repeated them in larger doses
of 2 grains, but without effect. I did not repeat the dose after the
third day.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--What was the accident?--A large
stone had fallen on the middle of the left foot and had completely
smashed it. The wound had become very unhealthy. When I first saw it it
had portions of bone and cartilage adhering to the surface. I amputated
the toe. When the boy was brought in his mother said he could not open
his mouth so wide as usual. When I saw him his mouth was almost closed
up.

On 29th July he slept but little during the night, and during sleep
started up convulsed and spasmodically closed the jaw. The jaw remained
closed until the 1st of August. It was closed when I administered tartar
emetic to him. In all these cases so trifling a remedy as the tarter
emetic is easily given.

[Sidenote: John Gay]

By LORD CAMPBELL--The tongue seems to retain its powers?--Yes. The case
is recorded in the _Lancet_.

Cross-examination resumed--After the 29th of July did the convulsions
continue throughout the 30th and part of the 31st?--The convulsions came
on during the night, and they appear to have remitted during the day,
except a muscular rigidity. The tetanus did remain.

But were there no spasms during the daytime?--I believe not.

In the daytime, although there were no convulsions, were the muscles of
the body, of the chest, and of the abdominal back and neck all
rigid?--Yes. That continued throughout the two days I administered
tartar emetic. The rigidity of the muscles and of the stomach would go
far to prevent sickness.

You have no doubt that your tartar emetic would have produced its effect
but for the rigidity of the muscles?--I suppose it would have done so.

When did the symptoms begin to abate?--On the 1st of August, on the
fourth day, and they gradually subsided. They appeared to have subsided
during the night. I saw the child during the middle of the day, and I
found that they had subsided, and in fact had entirely gone off. I
thought he was going to get well.

You told us the woman set him up in bed for the purpose of changing his
linen. Would that in any way have brought the toe, that part that had
been attacked, into any friction with some parts of the bed?--It must
have done so. But I do not think the simple irritation of the toe at
that part would have any effect.

But there not having been, in your judgment, nervous irritation set up
from the original seat of the disease, can you account in any way for
the nervous or muscular disease of tetanus?--If the cause had not
entirely gone the symptoms were brought back by the act of sitting up in
bed. My impression is there must be some action about the spinal cord as
the immediate cause of the symptoms.

Action set up in the spinal cord by irritation of the nerves in the
immediate site of the laceration or wound?--Quite so.

May it not be reasonable to infer that any irritation of the part
originally injured, exciting or irritating the nerve or the nerves
connected with the part, may support its action over the whole system,
and so produce convulsion?--I had removed the end of the diseased part,
so I cannot conceive that the same cause could exist.

[Sidenote: John Gay]

If you imagine you feel yourself justified in saying that the irritation
of the spinal cord once set up continues, why should you infer that the
irritation of the nerve may not also continue?--There must be some
peculiar irritation of the nerve to give rise to the affection of the
spinal cord from which tetanus arises. There appear to be some
particular circumstances which produce it.

You have no doubt the state of the toe was the original cause of the
convulsions?--I have not.

And that death took place by something or other distinct from the first
cause?--Yes.

Re-examined by Mr. GRAY--I think you told my friend that, with regard to
the convulsions which end in death, you thought they arose from some
irritation set up in the spinal cord?--I did, from that and other
causes.

May the causes of such irritation be very various in different cases?
May the cause of the irritation in the spinal cord which would end in
tetaniform be very various?--I think so.

Suppose in one you have a death accompanied with tetaniform symptoms and
opisthotonos, and the various symptoms of a tetanic character; in the
absence of any knowledge of the case--of the cause you state, probably
the irritation of the spinal cord--do you think it is possible to
ascribe them to any particular cause?--I think it would be extremely
difficult to do so.

Will you give me the proposition you lay down?--In the event of a given
set of symptoms, tetanic symptoms I should say, being proposed, it would
be extremely difficult, if not impossible, without some other evidence,
or collateral evidence, to assign it to any given disease.

LORD CAMPBELL--Or cause?--Or cause.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: W. M‘Donnell]

Dr. WILLIAM M‘DONNELL, examined by Mr. KENEALY--I am a licentiate of the
College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, and have been in practice for about
eight years. I have had practical as well as theoretical knowledge of
idiopathic and traumatic tetanus. Tetanus will proceed from very slight
causes. Almost any internal disorder or alteration of the internal
secretions will produce idiopathic tetanus. Exposure to cold or damp
would produce it. Mental excitement would be a probable cause.

By LORD CAMPBELL--Mental excitement would be the proximate cause of
tetanus. The presence of gritty particles or granules in any part
connected with the nervous structure, in either the spine or the brain,
might produce tetanic convulsions. I have seen small deposits or
tubercles in the brain, the only assignable cause for death terminating
in convulsions.

[Sidenote: W. M‘Donnell]

Examination resumed--In addition to those slight causes, I believe that
tetanic convulsions arise from causes as yet quite undiscoverable by
science. I have had many post-mortem examinations of patients who have
died of tetanus, and no trace of any disease whatever could be
discovered beyond the congestion or vascularity of some of the vessels
surrounding the nerves. Though tetanus is not easily discoverable,
strychnia is easily discoverable by scientific men. I had a case of
idiopathic tetanus--a female, Catherine Watson. I was fortunate enough
to restore her, and she is here. (Dr. M‘Donnell read his notes of the
case of Catherine Watson.) In her case lockjaw set in about the middle
of the attack. She was able to speak. In acute idiopathic tetanus,
ending fatally, trismus is generally a later symptom. I had a case of
tetanus which ended fatally, a man named Copeland. It must have been
idiopathic, as there was no external cause. Death took place in somewhat
less than half an hour. I cannot say precisely. He was dead before I
could reach the house.

By LORD CAMPBELL--Do you know what the cause of the disease was?--Yes. I
examined the patient carefully, and made inquiry as to the symptoms.

Examination resumed--I have made a number of experiments on animals with
reference to strychnia poison. I have found the muscles of the brain
highly congested, the sinuses gorged with blood, and in one case
hæmorrhage from the nostrils. That would indicate a very high state of
congestion. I have found extravasation of the blood in some cases,
likewise in the brain. I have cut through the substance of the brain and
found numerous red points. I have found the lungs of these animals
either collapsed or congested. The heart has been invariably filled in
the right side with blood, and very often on the left. The liver has
been congested, the kidneys normal generally, the spleen in its ordinary
condition. I have found the vessels of the stomach on the outer surface
congested, and on the mucous or inner surface highly vascular. In the
spinal cord I have found the vessels of the membranes congested, and
also red points seen on cutting it through, not invariably, but
sometimes. I have experimented in many cases for the discovery of
strychnia. You may discover the smallest dose that will kill the animal.
If you kill an animal with a grain of strychnia you may discover traces
of it.

What do you mean by a trace of it?--Evidence of its appearance.

Does that mean an imponderable quantity?--It may.

Do you mean by traces to convey the idea that you can discover the
smallest quantity?--That will kill.

What is the smallest quantity you can discover?--The fifty-thousandth
part of a grain.

Have you actually experimented so as to discover that quantity?--Yes.

[Sidenote: W. M‘Donnell]

You have heard a theory propounded in the course of this inquiry by Dr.
Taylor--I mean the destruction by the supposed decomposition of
strychnia--to your knowledge has any scientific man of eminence ever
propounded that theory at all?--I never heard of it until mentioned in
this Court. In my opinion there are no well-grounded reasons for that
theory. I have proved that that theory is false by numerous experiments.
I have taken the blood of an animal poisoned with 2 grains of strychnia,
about the least quantity which would kill an animal, and have injected
it into the abdominal cavities of some animals, and have destroyed them,
with the symptoms and post-mortem appearances of strychnia. It should
not make it any more difficult to detect if the strychnia is
administered in the form of pills. If the pills were hard, and not
readily solved, you would find it much easier, because you might find
some remains of the pill. I do not agree with Dr. Taylor’s opinion about
the fallacy of colour tests. I believe a colour test is a reliable mode
of ascertaining strychnia. I agree with Mr. Herepath that it is found in
urine that has been ejected. I have found it invariably.

Does it first pass into the blood and then into that watery
excretion?--Part of it may be drawn off by that means. It is not true
that strychnia can be confounded with pyroxanthine. In these animals
which I have killed with strychnia I have generally observed an
increased flow of saliva; that was a very marked symptom. The animals
were very susceptible to touch. A stamp of the foot, a slight touch, or
a breath, or a sharp word, would drive them into tetanic convulsions. We
recognised them by the straightened condition of the muscles.

Supposing that a dose of strychnia sufficient to kill a man were
administered to him, do you think he could bear to have his neck
rubbed?--I think it would be very likely to throw him into convulsions
before the paroxysm came on.

By LORD CAMPBELL--As soon as the poison is taken into his system?--No.
It requires a certain time. You must have the first symptoms of poison
developed. It would be after the first symptoms.

[Sidenote: W. M‘Donnell]

Examination resumed--What would be the effect of a man pulling a bell
violently if he was poisoned by strychnia?--I think it would be
extremely probable, if the dose had been sufficient, to destroy life,
provided the symptoms had made their appearance. I quite agree with Mr.
Herepath that, if a sufficient dose to poison has been administered, it
can and ought to be discovered. I have heard the medical evidence that
was given in this case and the evidence as to the symptoms. The symptoms
I attach very little importance to as the means of diagnosis, as you may
have the same symptoms developed from many different causes. There is
one principal reason I have, which is this--a dose of strychnia
sufficient to destroy life in one paroxysm would hardly require an hour
and a half or two hours. The cause of death was from convulsions,
epileptic convulsions with tetanic symptoms.

Does the interval of repose from the Monday night to the Tuesday at all
operate on your judgment in coming to that conclusion?--If my opinion
that it was of an epileptic character were correct, it would.

It is your opinion that if that were of an epileptic character--then
what follows?--The intermission from the Monday night would be
considered important, as epilepsy seizures very often recur about the
same hours, as I have seen them.

Assuming that a man was in such an excitable state of mind that he was
silent for two or three minutes after his horse winning a race, that he
exposed himself to cold and damp, that he excited his brain by drinking,
and he was attacked by violent vomiting, and after his death gritty
granules were found in the neighbourhood of his spine, could not, in the
present instance, such a death as it was arise from these causes?--Any
of these causes might aggravate or hurry it.

You say any one of those causes?--Might cause it.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I am a general practitioner at
Garnkirk, near Glasgow, general surgeon to the ironworks, and parochial
medical officer. I have had personal experience of two cases of
idiopathic tetanus--this one I have recorded and another.

What you have been telling us about mental excitement, sensual
excitement, is not within your own observation?--This case might have
arisen from those causes.

Have you any reason to think it did?--I have no reason to do so.

Then do not tell us what it might have done. Now, in the case of
Catherine Wilson?--I saw her about half-past ten at night. She had been
ill very nearly an hour before I saw her. She had convulsions. She had
gone about her usual duties up to the evening. She felt a slight
lassitude previous to that time. It was only by close pressing that she
could call it to mind. The lockjaw, I think, came on in an hour or two;
I could not be positive.

In the other case, of Mr. Copeland?--It was a young child between three
and four months old.

Was that the person of the name of Copeland?--Yes.

What was the matter with the child?--I saw it in good health half an
hour before the attack came on. It had an attack of convulsions and
opisthotonos. I rode away from the house, and they supposed I had not
gone a couple of miles when it died.

[Sidenote: W. M‘Donnell]

It was seized with a fit?--Apparently a spasm, which I consider to be of
the tetaniform character. I had seen the child half an hour before.
There was nothing the matter with it then. It was in bed, I believe,
with the mother, who was laid up. I did not see its face. I saw it lying
in bed, but did not examine it. I judged it to be asleep.

With regard to the animals that you experimented on with strychnia, when
did you begin with them?--I began this series of experiments for this
case in January.

Had you ever made any before?--Yes; I think eight or ten years ago. The
dose by which I killed the animals was from 1¾ to 2 grains. The animals
experimented upon were dogs, cats, rabbits, and fowls. These experiments
will relate to dogs. A grain is the smallest dose I administered. In
four cases I used a grain, in five 1½ grains, in one, I think, 1¼
grains, and in two 2 grains.

You never tried them with half a grain?--Yes, I did; I did not mention
it before. I gave half a grain for the purpose of ascertaining the least
dose that would kill.

Did you try if you could detect it afterwards?--How could I try before I
killed the dog?

Do you mean on your oath you do not understand my question? Show me one
instance where you have given half a grain?--I did not make a note,
because it did not kill. I have never destroyed a dog with half a grain;
I tried it, and it did not answer.

Now let us come to your symptoms. You say you have always found the
brain highly congested?--By the stoppage of the circulation in the
system.

Have you not found in some cases that the brain was not congested?--No;
I think in every case there were more or less congestion.

Is that greater in proportion to the length of the paroxysm?--No; it is
greatest where the animal was young and in a full state of health.

Have you ever seen any case of traumatic tetanus?--I think two in my own
practice, but I have seen a few others in hospital.

Have you ever seen a case of strychnia in the human subject?--No, I have
not.

I understand you to say that, in your opinion, this was a case of
epilepsy with tetanic complications?--As far as I can judge from hearing
the evidence in Court.

What does epilepsy proceed from?--Nobody can answer that question.

You have no theory upon the subject?--I have not exactly arrived at any
distinct theory, not quite as distinct as strychnia or tetanus. I have
seen one case of death from epilepsy. The patient was not conscious when
he died.

Can you find me any case in which consciousness has preceded death?--I
cannot recollect.

[Sidenote: W. M‘Donnell]

You have studied on purpose for these cases?--No; I am pretty well up in
most branches.

Being so universally proficient in the science of your profession, do
you know of any single recorded case of consciousness at the time of
death?--I do not from my own knowledge. I have heard what Sir Benjamin
Brodie said on this subject.

You mean deliberately to state that you believe this to have been from
epilepsy?--I do state so.

Without being able to refer to any cause whatever as producing the
disease?--When I have told you before that deaths often take place in
idiopathic tetanus without leaving any trace behind, I think I may
say----

That is idiopathic tetanus?--They are all of the same class. I think all
forms of convulsions arise from a decomposition of the blood, and, if a
person has probably an incipient tendency to disease of the brain, that
it always may be affected, and that the decomposition of the blood might
set up the diseased action.

Do I understand you that mental excitement had anything to do with
this?--I do not say it had. I said it might have caused it.

Do you find any excitement in this case?--I find at Shrewsbury he was
excited, and wherever you have excitement you have a consequent
depression.

Do you find he was depressed?--When you find a man in bed sick, he must
be depressed.

I was speaking of the depression consequent on these symptoms. Where do
you find any symptom of illness until he begins to vomit?--If I have
much excitement, if I am up all night, it upsets me the next day, and I
generally vomit the food I take. Cook was overjoyed at winning his race.

And you think he vomited in consequence?--He might.

Do you mean to swear that you think the excitement of the three minutes
on the course on the Tuesday accounts for the vomiting?--I do not mean
to say anything of the kind.

Do you find any excitement or depression from that time till the time he
died?--There is nothing reported that I can recollect just now.

On the contrary, do you not recollect that the man, when he was not
vomiting, on that very night, was joking and laughing; was that
sufficient to make him vomit?--That may well be where a man is subject
to bilious fits.

We are talking of excitement--of epilepsy with tetanic complications; I
want to know on what you can put your hand in the way of excitement or
depression which will account for the remarkable symptoms?--I have told
you that almost any one of them is sufficient.

[Sidenote: W. M‘Donnell]

Where is there one which you say might have occasioned death?--These
white spots in the stomach might have caused death by an inflammatory
condition of the stomach.

But there was no inflammation of the stomach, was there?--I have given
you my opinion.

If there had been any, would not the gentlemen who examined it have seen
it?--If those white spots were present you would have had inflammation.

They say there was none?--I do not believe them.

Sensual excitement is a cause of epilepsy with tetanic complications; is
that what you say?--Yes, it might be.

Do you find a tittle of evidence of any such excitement?--I think
so--the syphilitic spots. There was no doubt about it.

Do you mean to say that you attribute this to some excitement at some
anterior period long before?--I am not called upon to say that. I take
my opinion from what was seen.

Supposing the man had any such excitement a week before, do you mean
that is sufficient?--Yes; we have instances on record of convulsions in
the very act you allude to.

Have you any instance a fortnight afterwards?--It is quite within the
range of possibility.

Would epilepsy, with tetanic complications, set in from that cause? Do
you mean to stand there, as a serious man of science, and tell me
that?--Yes, the results of sensual excitement--chancre in one of them,
and syphilitic sore throat.

Did you ever hear or know of such a thing as chancre or any other form
of syphilis producing epilepsy?--Not epilepsy, but tetanus. You are
forgetting the tetanic complications.

If I understand it rightly, it stands thus: the sensual excitement
produces the epilepsy, and the chancre produces tetanic
complications?--You are quite mistaken. I say the results of a sensual
excitement.

You have just now said that your reason for thinking and referring it to
epilepsy was that, amongst other things, an hour or an hour and a half
intervened between the taking of the poison and the appearance of the
first symptoms. Do you mean that in your reading you have not met with
cases quite as long as that when the death has arisen from strychnia?--I
cannot recollect where death has followed.

Would the fact of morphia having been given for an hour or two
previously in any way touch your opinion with regard to poison?--No; I
have seen opium bring on convulsions very nearly the same.

Will opium bring on convulsions?--Yes, but a different form of
convulsions from epilepsy.

Because opium brings on convulsions, you assume in this case that
morphia accelerated the disease?--Drawing the inference, I should say it
might.

[Sidenote: W. M‘Donnell]

Suppose not a case of epilepsy, but of strychnia; what would be the
action of morphia? How would it attack the disease?--In some cases it
stimulates. It is exceedingly apt to cause congestion of the brain.

In which disease does it cause excitement?--It depends on the
idiosyncrasy, on the habit of body, if I might use a common term.

Having taken it on the Saturday and Sunday night, and having been free
from nervous excitement on the Sunday and Monday, what would you assume
judging from the result?--If it were opium, yet it is only presumed to
be opium, it appears to have soothed him.

And why, when the man was tranquil on the Sunday and Monday, did you,
after that, venture to say that these pills irritated him?--I do not
mean to say they did.

Re-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--You stated that, though you had seen
no case of epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications, your
reading informed you that there had been, and you mentioned Dr. Mason
Goode?--Yes. He is a well-known author on the subject of convulsions.
There is a class of convulsions called epileptic--not, strictly
speaking, epilepsy--though they resemble it in some of its features.
Epilepsy, properly so called, is sudden in its attacks. The patient
falls down at once with a shriek. Within my knowledge, the disease
constantly occurs at night and in bed.

Are the convulsions which the authors do not class as properly epilepsy,
but as convulsions of an epileptic character, sometimes attended with
premonitory symptoms?--Sometimes the patient is thrown into tetanic and
tetaniform convulsions. Pending the struggle or the convulsions, actual
epilepsy may come on in this way, and the patient die. In epilepsy and
in convulsions of an epileptic character, a patient may have suffered in
the night and be well the next morning, and as well the next day as if
he had had no fit at all, more especially where adults are seized for
the first time. When an adult is seized for the first time it is in my
experience that several fits follow each other during a short period.

If it were true that Cook’s mind appeared distressed and irritable the
afternoon before he died, would you infer from that, considering the
former excitement and elation, he was in a state of depression or
not?--Yes.

What would you infer from what happened in the middle of the Sunday
night, supposing it were true that he represented himself to be mad for
ten minutes, and it was occasioned by a quarrel in the streets?--That he
had been seized with some sudden cramp or spasm.

[Sidenote: W. M‘Donnell]

Supposing there was no such cramp, and that he meant to tell the truth,
would you refer what he said to any nervous and mental excitement?--Yes,
decidedly.

With regard to the spots on the stomach, which you mentioned when my
friend was examining you, you stated you differed from some gentlemen of
your profession?--Yes.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--He said he did not believe them?--I did not. I did
not believe that inflammation could be absent and these spots present.

Re-examination resumed--Have you known any serious consequence of a
convulsive character reasonably imputed to spots of that description?--I
have. There was a case about twenty years ago. It was published. I saw a
case myself, about eighteen months ago. I examined the body after death.
It was a case of fever, I thought. I did not know what the spots were,
and consulted all the authors who had treated on the mucous structure of
the stomach, and could find no account of it but in one which I have
here, an essay by Dr. Sproshoid, a medical man practising in Edinburgh,
but now deceased.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: J. N. Bainbridge]

Dr. JOHN NATHAN BAINBRIDGE, examined by Mr. GROVE--I am a doctor of
medicine and medical officer to the St. Martin’s Workhouse. I have had
considerable experience of convulsive disorders. They admit of a very
great variety of symptoms. There are causes of them varying from what
are called chronic diseases to rigid opisthotonos. Hysterical
convulsions are very frequently accompanied with opisthotonos;
convulsions of the muscles of the back and of the limbs. The different
cases vary very much as to the frequency of the recurrences, and as to
the muscles attacked. Periodicity is very common, that is, occurring at
the same hour, the same day, and at an interval of a year. I have known
this very common at shorter periods, such as twelve or twenty-four
hours. These disorders run so imperceptibly one into the other that it
is almost impossible for the most experienced medical man to decide
where one kind of convulsion terminates and the other begins. Epileptic
attacks are frequently accompanied with tetanic complications, or
tetanic spasms.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--Do hysterical convulsions ever
end in death without being attended by these tetanic symptoms?--Very
rarely indeed. I have known one case within the last three months.

Can you undertake to say that that was not a death by apoplexy?--No. The
symptoms were somewhat of the same character, but more of the character
of epilepsy. It would be very difficult for any man to define the
difference in some instances between hysteria and epilepsy.

[Sidenote: J. N. Bainbridge]

In fact, had not the man been subject to these fits for a long series
of years, and at last he died in one of them?--Yes, he had.

In attacks of this nature is there in the fits a loss of
consciousness?--Sometimes. I have seen several cases in which there has
been, and in others they can almost understand anything you say to them,
not perfectly perhaps, but you may rouse them.

Have you ever known an instance in which a man was able to speak when
the paroxysm has set in?--They will scream, and recollect what we have
said to them. I never knew any of them, in the actual violence of the
paroxysm, ask to have their position changed. Epilepsy, when it is very
bad, is sometimes attended with opisthotonos.

When the convulsions are so violent that opisthotonos is produced, have
you ever known patients conscious?--Partly conscious. If they were asked
subsequently they would recollect what had occurred. I have seen cases
of traumatic tetanus. As far as I have observed the patient always
retains his consciousness. I have frequently known epilepsy end in
death, and also hysteria with tetanic complications end in death.

Because you tell me you have known of hysteria ending in death, I wish
you to inform me what in your opinion is the distinction between
them?--The less consciousness more especially found in epilepsy, and the
sudden falling down.

Did you ever know a case of death in epilepsy where consciousness was
not destroyed before death?--No, I do not know one.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I think it is an assumption that Mr. Cook was
conscious between the last shriek and his death.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: E. A. Steady]

Mr. EDWARD AUSTIN STEADY, examined by Mr. GRAY--I am a member of the
Royal College of Surgeons, and am in practice as a surgeon at Chatham.
In June, 1854, I attended a person for trismus and pleurosthotonos, the
head depending on one side, and not backwards as is the case in
opisthotonos. Convulsions came on in paroxysms. The first attack
continued for a fortnight. She had trismus all the time. For twelve
months there were remissions of the pleurosthotonos. She appeared to get
better to a certain extent, and walked about, but the tendons of one
knee were contracted. About twelve months after she was again seized.
The seizure continued about a week.

Did you ascertain the cause which had brought about this disease?--It
was detailed to me as excitement. A passion, I believe, brought it on. I
believe she had had some quarrel with her husband. I discovered no other
cause.

[Sidenote: E. A. Steady]

Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES--I do not know how long before I was called
in she had this quarrel. I learned that during the quarrel she had had
a blow given her on her side by her husband. I observed the setting in
of the lockjaw at that time. I saw her in March, 1855, when she was
under my care for about a week. The locking of the jaw continued the
whole week. She has never got thoroughly well. She has tetanic
extensions of the limbs in any case of excitement. In my opinion the
disease is in action in her system at the present time.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: G. Robinson]

Dr. GEORGE ROBINSON, examined by Mr. KENEALY--I am a Licentiate of the
Royal College of Physicians and Fellow of the Royal Medical Chirurgical
Society of London, and physician to the Newcastle-on-Tyne Dispensary and
Fever Hospital. I have devoted considerable attention to pathology, and
have published essays on it. I have practised as a physician for ten
years. From the symptoms I have heard described my opinion is that Mr.
Cook died from tetanic convulsions, by which I mean, not the disease of
tetanus, but convulsions similar to those witnessed in tetanus.
Convulsions of that kind occasionally assume the nature of epilepsy. I
know of no department of pathology which is more obscure than that of
convulsive diseases. I have been present at post-mortem examinations of
persons who died from convulsive diseases. I have sometimes seen no
morbid appearance whatever, and in other cases the morbid appearances
which were visible were common to a variety of diseases. Convulsive
diseases undoubtedly depend very much on the state of the nerves. They
are all connected with disorders of the nervous action. The brain has
great influence in producing convulsive diseases, but the spinal cord
has a greater influence. The presence of gritty granules in the
neighbourhood of the spinal cord would be likely to produce convulsive
diseases. There is such a disease as spinal epilepsy, which is
accompanied by strong convulsions, which might resemble in a great
degree those described in the present case. Periodicity would belong to
convulsions arising from spinal epilepsy. I should think from the
evidence I have heard that Mr. Cook’s mode of life would predispose him
to epilepsy.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--In all cases of epilepsy there
are violent convulsions. I cannot tell you how many I have seen assume a
tetanic character; perhaps twenty.

Has it gone as far as opisthotonos?--Not the extreme opisthotonos of
tetanus. The whole body has been straightened out and the head thrown
back. I heard Mr. Jones describe Mr. Cook’s symptoms, that the body was
so bowed that he could not raise it, so bowed that it would lean upon
its heels and the back of its head if it had been turned over.

[Sidenote: G. Robinson]

Have you ever seen anything in epilepsy approaching to these
symptoms?--I have never seen anything approaching to it. I have never
seen a body so stiffened that it would rest on the head and heels.

Is that symptom peculiar to tetanus?--You may have convulsions of the
same character occurring from other causes--tetanic convulsions from the
operation of various poisons.

Keep to natural diseases. Did you ever know these symptoms of
opisthotonos, in that shape or to that extent, arise from anything but
tetanus?--Not within my own experience. I have read of epilepsy being
accompanied with tetanic convulsions. Epilepsy, when it assumes that
marked character, is accompanied with unconsciousness. I have read in a
case of Dr. Marshall Hall’s that sometimes unconsciousness is not
present. He does not mention whether death took place in this case or
not. That would make all the difference.

You said that gritty granules would be likely to produce convulsive
diseases. What extent of development, in your judgment, must such
granules reach to produce an action in the spinal marrow?--I should say
there is no relation between the size of the granules and the extent of
the effect produced.

Would you expect when they began to get to the size that they would have
any effect on the nervous system--that they would begin to show their
effect more or less gradually?--No, in epilepsy I have myself observed
several granules in the membrane of the brain; and any disturbing cause
in the system, I think, would be likely to produce convulsions. I
believe that the granules in this case were very likely to irritate the
spinal cord, and an attack might very likely come on at once in a fit of
epilepsy. There would be pain during the continuance of the violent
spasms of the patient, not necessarily pain merely from the spasms.
These granules might or might not produce arachnitis.

You would expect to find inflammation in that case?--Not necessarily.
Irritation, not inflammation. Granules of that description do not often
exist in healthy spines. In the dissections of epilepsy in the large
hospitals, these small granules have been found very frequently. The
granules, in my opinion, would be likely to produce epilepsy. In my
experience I have never known epilepsy unaccompanied by unconsciousness,
nor have I known epilepsy producing the marked symptoms of tetanic
character which occur in Mr. Cook’s case.

[Sidenote: G. Robinson]

Do you feel yourself warranted in giving an opinion that these granules
caused epilepsy in this case?--I think I might have done so. If I put
aside the hypothesis of poisoning by strychnia I would. Several of the
symptoms described by Mr. Jones, the severe paroxysm, the stiffening of
the body, the convulsions of all the muscles of the trunk and limbs, and
the complete opisthotonos, are also common to other convulsions. The
symptoms are certainly consistent with death by strychnia.

They are the symptoms that you would expect after strychnia?--I think
there would have been some slight premonitory symptoms. If I had no
other cause to which I could ascribe the death I would ascribe it to
epilepsy.

But in this case you admit some of the symptoms are inconsistent with
your experience of epilepsy?--Yes.

Re-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--They are consistent with the
possibility of epilepsy. They are consistent with convulsions of an
epileptic form ending in death, though perhaps not actually amounting to
epilepsy.

Supposing it to have been actual epilepsy, at what period of the last
attack should you say the epilepsy commenced?--When Mr. Cook sat up in
bed and cried out. I should imagine that would be the sense of
suffocation which would be the premonitory symptoms.

After the final shriek, and throwing himself back in his bed, is there
any symptom from which you would infer consciousness after that
moment?--Except that he swallowed some pills.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--Allow me to remind you he asked them to turn him
over.

By Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Would you consider that a body which immediately,
or within ten minutes after death, when it is quite warm, lay perfectly
straight, the hands extended, resting on its heels and its back and its
head, was in a state of opisthotonos?--Not if it rested on its back. In
my judgment it might be that the body might assume, without actual
rigidity, the bow-like shape and appearance which has been spoken of,
and yet, when turned over, lie flat in the bed, resting on the head,
back, and heels.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: B. W. Richardson]

Dr. BENJAMIN WARD RICHARDSON, examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I practise
in London, and I am a licentiate of the Faculty of Physicians and
Surgeons in Glasgow and a member of the College of Physicians in London.
I have never seen a case of idiopathic or traumatic tetanus, but I have
seen a considerable number of deaths by convulsions, and I have known
these cases, when they have ended in death, sometimes assume tetaniform
appearances without being, strictly speaking, tetanus. The patient, if
conscious, generally desires to sit up. I have known persons to die from
a disease called angina pectoris. The symptoms of the disease, when it
is fatal, resemble closely the symptoms of the paroxysms in which Mr.
Cook died. It is classed amongst the convulsive or spasmodic diseases,
and has no distinctive feature in post-mortem examination.

[Sidenote: B. W. Richardson]

Will you state what symptoms you particularly refer to?--I could not do
better than describe a case which I myself saw. A child, ten years of
age, was under my care in November, 1850. I supposed she had suffered
from scarlet fever. She had a slight feverish attack. She recovered so
far that my visits ceased on 20th November. I left her merry in the
morning, and at half-past ten I was called to see her dying. She was
supported upright at her own request. The face was pale; the whole of
the face and arms rigid, the fingers clenched, the respiratory muscles
completely fixed and rigid, and, with all, complained of an intense
agony and restlessness such as I had never witnessed. There was perfect
consciousness. The child knew me, and explained her intense agony;
eagerly took from my hands some brandy and water from a spoon. I then
left to get some chloroform for the purpose of producing relaxation by
chloroform vapour. On returning, I found the head was thrown back. I
could detect no respiration. The eyes remained fixed open, and the body
just resembling a fit. She was dead. I did not observe whether the
rigor-mortis came on at its usual time or later. I made a post-mortem
examination the following day. Unfortunately I left the body in the arms
of the sister, and, of course, it was laid out afterwards. At the
post-mortem examination I observed that the brain was slightly
congested; a portion of the upper part of the spinal cord seemed normal
and healthy, the lungs were collapsed, the heart was in such a state of
firm spasms and so empty that I remarked it might have been rinsed out,
it was so perfectly clean and free from blood. There were no appearances
of functional disturbances except a slight effusion of serum in one
pleural cavity, I believe the right side. The other part of the spinal
cord was in a normal state. They told me the child was unusually well
and merry at supper; that she then went to bed with her sister, and in
lying down suddenly jumped up and said, “I am going to die,” and begged
her sister to rub her.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--This case accords with all the
descriptions of angina pectoris by the best authors--Latham, Watson,
Boyeau, Pratt, and Sir Everett Holme.

What is the true nature and cause of angina pectoris?--It has been laid
down as disease of the valves of the heart. There have been many cases
in which there has been no discovered cause.

Are the symptoms of angina pectoris not those that would be produced by
taking strychnia?--Not exactly. In angina pectoris the patient requests
to be rubbed to give relief.

Did you hear the Leeds case?--Assuming that that was a case of
strychnia, I must say that the two forms are so strictly analogous that
there would be great difficulty in detecting angina from strychnia, with
this difference, that angina is paroxysmal, it comes and goes, and
strychnia would not be so likely to do that. You would not expect it for
many months.

[Sidenote: B. W. Richardson]

But in this case you are speaking as if it ended in the first
paroxysm?--Yes.

How then can you be justified, in cases where you discover no abnormal
conditions of the heart or its arteries, in setting down the death to
angina?--Precisely as if I saw the symptoms of epilepsy I should accept
them as such.

Supposing the disease was referable to two causes, in the absence of all
evidence, what is your reason for setting it down to one in preference
to the other?--I quite admit that if I had known as much of the nature
of strychnia as I do now I should have gone on to make analysis.

Is the disease of angina pectoris attended with painful symptoms before
it terminates in death?--Most painful. The paroxysms terminating in
death may run on for more than eight minutes. It comes on suddenly. It
does not always kill at the first attack. It generally spreads itself
over a certain period of time.

You said that the head was somewhat bent back. Was that
opisthotonos?--There was rigidity, not amounting to opisthotonos, but
still very marked. The neck was so stiffly bent back that if the body
had been laid down, and the lower limbs, which I did not see, had been
the same, I have no doubt the body would be resting on its head and
heels.

You say in epileptic convulsions you have seen the hands clenched firmly
till death. Did you ever see them so long after death?--I have seen them
firmly clenched, not in epilepsy only.

In what cases have you seen them firmly clenched after death?--In cases
where there has been violent convulsion. I saw them once from
hæmorrhage.

In other cases have you?--I can only say, in a general sense, I have
seen the hands clenched over and over again, and have paid no attention
to it. My belief, from seeing people die, is that the clenching of the
hands is, in many cases, mere matter of accident.

Re-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Have you known cases personally or
from your reading where patients recover from angina pectoris, and
whether within a short time afterwards they sometimes have another
attack?--They do, sometimes in so short an interval as twenty-four
hours.

During the interval between the two attacks what is the condition of the
patient?--Perfectly healthy, to all appearance.

Are the symptoms described in the evidence more like the symptoms of
angina pectoris or strychnia poison?--I should certainly say angina
pectoris.

You had no reason to suspect poison of any kind in that case, either
before or now?--Not the slightest.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: Dr. Wrightson]

Dr. WRIGHTSON, recalled, examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--In your opinion,
when the strychnia poison is absorbed into the system, does it become
diffused by the circulation of the blood through the system, or does it
collect in the tissues?--I should think it is diffused throughout the
entire system by circulation if it be wholly absorbed, and it would
depend on the rapidity with which death takes place after complete
absorption, and on the quickness of circulation.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--Would the absorption be more
complete if a longer time were given for the process between the
administration and the death?--Certainly, it would be.

Is that supposing a minimum dose given sufficient to destroy life; if a
long interval elapses between the taking of the poison and the death,
the more complete the absorption the less the chance of finding it in
the stomach?--_Cæteris paribus_ that would be so.

By Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Would you have a very good chance of finding it in
the kidneys and spleen and in the blood?--Yes.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: C. Watson]

CATHERINE WATSON, examined by Mr. GROVE--I live at Garnkirk, in
Scotland. Last October I was affected with a fit. I had no wound nor
injury on my body before. I had taken no poison.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I was not ill during the day. I
was in low spirits, but not in pain. A few minutes before eleven at
night I took a pain in the stomach, then two cramps in my arms, then I
was very ill. I have never had cramps like this before nor since.


The Court then adjourned.




Tenth Day, Saturday, 24th May, 1856.

The Court met at ten o’clock.


[Sidenote: O. Pemberton]

Mr. OLIVER PEMBERTON, examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I am Lecturer in
Anatomy at Queen’s College, Birmingham, and surgeon to the General
Hospital at Birmingham. I was present at the examination of the body of
the late Mr. Cook after it had been exhumed in January or February. I
observed the condition of the spinal cord. In my judgment it was not in
a condition to enable one to state with confidence in what state it had
been immediately after death. The upper part, where the brain had been
separated, was green in colour from the effects of decomposition. The
remaining portion, though fairly preserved for a body buried two months,
was so soft as not to enable me to form any opinion as to its state
immediately after death.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I did not see the body till the
day after the bony canal had been opened, which, to a certain extent,
would expose the interior substance of the cord to the atmosphere. So
far as I recollect, it was still covered with a very hard, dense
membrane. Mr. Bolton, the professor at Queen’s College, was also present
on Palmer’s behalf.

       *       *       *       *       *

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--My lord, this closes the medical testimony.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: H. Matthews]

HENRY MATTHEWS, examined by Mr. GROVE--I am an inspector of police at
Euston Station. I was there on 19th November last. The two o’clock
afternoon train is the last that stops at Rugeley. The express for
Stafford leaves at five, and is due at Stafford at 8.42. On 19th
November it arrived at 8.45. From Stafford to Rugeley it is nineteen
miles by railway. I do not know how far by road. After the two o’clock
train to Rugeley, the quickest way to get there is by the five o’clock
to Stafford, and then by road.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: Joseph Foster]

JOSEPH FOSTER, examined by Mr. GRAY--I have known the late John Parsons
Cook for many years, and, from what I saw of him, he was of weak health
and constitution. I have been with him when he has had a bilious attack
and sick headache.

Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES--He hunted regularly about three days a
week. He was a member of the Welford Cricket Club, but I have not seen
him playing for three or four years.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: George Myatt]

GEORGE MYATT, examined by Mr. GROVE--I am a saddler at Rugeley. I was at
Shrewsbury races, and saw Palmer and Cook at the Raven Hotel there on
the Wednesday evening of the race week. It was about twelve at night,
and Cook seemed the worse of liquor. We had some brandy and water
together. Cook drank most of his, and remarked that it was not good, and
thought there was something in it. Cook proposed having some more, but
Palmer told him to finish what he had first. Cook then drank his up. We
all then went to bed. I slept in the same room as Palmer. The brandy we
had was brought in a decanter and poured out. I did not leave the room
from the time Palmer and Cook came in till we went to bed. Had anything
been put in the brandy and water I should have seen it. As far as I can
remember, when Palmer and I went to our bedroom we left Cook in the
sitting room. I locked our door, and Palmer never left the bedroom
during the night. In the morning Palmer asked me to call Mr. Cook, which
I did. Cook then told me how ill he had been during the night. He said
he had been obliged to send for a doctor, and asked me what was put in
the brandy and water. I told him I did not know that anything was put
in. He then asked me to send Palmer to him, which I did. After Palmer
and I had finished our breakfast, I next saw Cook, who came into the
sitting room and had his breakfast. That night the three of us had
dinner at the Raven, and left for Rugeley about six o’clock. We went by
express from Shrewsbury to Stafford. Palmer took the three tickets and
paid. We took a fly from Stafford, there being no train. In the fly from
Stafford to Rugeley Palmer was sick, and vomited through the window.
They could not account for it, unless it was cooking in some brass
utensil, or the water. I heard other people speak about being ill at
Rugeley, and they could not account for it. It is 9 miles by the road
from Stafford to Rugeley.

[Sidenote: George Myatt]

Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES--I have known the prisoner all my life, and
he deals with me for his saddlery at his racing stables. I am not in the
habit of going to racing meetings with him, although I attend them
myself. He paid my expenses at Shrewsbury races, but never at any other
race meeting. About four or five weeks ago I went with Mr. Smith to
Stafford gaol, and was with Palmer for about two hours. I have now and
then stood in half a sovereign or a sovereign with Palmer when betting
on his horses. On the Wednesday night in which I saw Palmer and Cook I
dined at home at Rugeley, and reached Shrewsbury between eight and nine.
I went straight from the station to the Raven Hotel, and up to Palmer’s
room, where I saw Cook. Palmer was out, and I went to the town for about
an hour, and returned to Palmer’s room. He was not in; I waited about
two hours, when he came in with Cook, about twelve o’clock. Cook was
drunk, but not very drunk. The decanter of brandy and the tumblers were
brought in directly. The water, I think, was on the table. I do not
remember Mrs. Brooks calling, or Palmer being called out of the room to
speak to her. I remember Mr. Fisher coming in. I will swear that Palmer
did not at any time that evening take out a glass of brandy and water
and leave the room. He never left the room from the time I joined him
till we went to bed. When Cook drank his brandy and water he made a
remark to the effect that it was not good, and that there was something
in it. I will swear that he did not say, “It burns my throat
dreadfully,” or anything to that effect. The brandy and water was then
given to some one to taste. I think there were but four people in the
room when Cook drank the brandy and water. Palmer sipped from the glass
Cook had drank from, and said he could not taste anything the matter. He
held the glass to Mr. Fisher. I do not remember whether Fisher said, “It
is no good giving me the glass, it is empty.” I will not swear he did
not. Palmer and I went to bed about half an hour after, and left Cook in
the room. That I will swear. The first I heard of Cook being ill during
the night was when he told me of it next morning.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: John Sargent]

JOHN SARGENT, examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I frequently attend race
meetings, and knew Mr. Cook intimately. I was with him at Liverpool on
the week previous to the Shrewsbury meeting. We slept in adjoining
rooms, and in the morning he called my attention to the state of his
throat and mouth. The back part of his tongue was in a complete state of
ulcer. I said I was surprised that he could eat and drink in the state
his mouth was in. He said he had been in that state for weeks and
months, and took no notice of it now. He had frequently before then
shown me his throat when it was in that state. On one occasion, when he
took a ginger nut with cayenne by mistake, he told me that it nearly
killed him. Before Shrewsbury races Cook was very poor. He owed me £25,
and paid £10 on account, saying he had not sufficient to pay his
expenses at Liverpool. Cook and Palmer were in the habit of betting for
each other on particular horses. I have heard Cook apply to Palmer to
supply him with a lotion called blackwash. This is a mercurial lotion of
calomel and lime water.

Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES--He applied for it at the latter end of last
year. Having seen the state of his throat, I was surprised at his eating
and drinking so well.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: J. Smith]

JEREMIAH SMITH, examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I am an attorney at
Rugeley, and knew the late Mr. Cook. I saw him at ten o’clock on Friday
morning, 16th November, 1855. He was having breakfast in bed--a cup of
tea with a wineglassful of brandy in it. I dined with him and Mr. Palmer
about two o’clock. We had a beefsteak and some champagne. After dinner
we had three bottles of port wine, of which Cook drank his share. We
rose from the table between five and six, and Cook and I went to my
house, and then to the Albion Hotel, which is next door, and had a
brandy and water each. Cook left me there between seven and eight. He
said he felt cold. During that day I asked Cook for £50 he was due me.
He gave me £5, and when he took the note out of his case I said, “You
can pay me the whole £50.” He said, “No; there is only £41 10s. due to
you.” Then he said he had given Mr. Palmer money, and he would pay me
the remainder when he returned from Tattersall’s on Monday after the
settling. On the Saturday night following I slept in the same room with
him, as he was not well. We went to bed about twelve o’clock. In the
early part of the night he got some toast and water, and he was sick. I
saw him using a night-chair in the room. He tried to vomit, but I do not
know whether he did so or not. After that I slept until Mr. Palmer and
Mr. Bamford came in the morning to see him. He said, “I am rather better
this morning. I slept from about two or three o’clock, after the
confounded concert was gone.” Mr. Bamford said, “I will send you some
more medicine.” I then got up and left the house. I know Mrs. Palmer,
the mother of the prisoner. She asked me to see her on Monday evening,
and, in consequence of that, I went about two o’clock to see if I could
find Palmer, but could not. About ten minutes past ten I saw him in a
car coming from the direction of Stafford. I asked him, “Have you seen
Mr. Cook to-day?” He said, “No; we had better just run up and see.” We
went up, and Cook told Palmer he was late, and that he had taken the
medicine. We only stayed two or three minutes. Cook said he had taken
some pills Mr. Bamford had sent him. He also said he had been up that
day, and Palmer said he ought not to have been up. Palmer and I then
went to his mother’s house, about 400 or 500 yards. We stayed about half
an hour, and then left for Palmer’s house. I left him at his house and
went home. On the Saturday I asked Cook to dine with me, but he did not.
He said he was not well. I got for him a boiled leg of mutton and some
broth from the Albion, which was taken to him by Ann Rowley, a
charwoman. In the May before his death I borrowed £100 from Mrs. Palmer
and £100 from William Palmer for Cook. I also negotiated a £500 loan
through Mr. Pratt. I know that Palmer and Cook were jointly interested
in one horse, “Pyrrhine,” and that they were in the habit of betting
very frequently for each other. Shortly before Mr. Cook’s death I had
seen Mr. Thirlby, Palmer’s assistant, dress Cook’s throat with caustic.
I have seen this four or five times, chiefly before Shrewsbury races. I
know Mr. Cook’s signature. [Some papers were handed to witness.] Here
are two notes, instructions for the £500. One is signed “J. P. Cook” and
the other “J. Parsons Cook.” I saw that signed. Some weeks before Mr.
Cook’s death he was served with a writ. [The following letter was
read:--]

     My dear Sir,--I have been in a devil of a fix about the bill, but
     have at last settled it at the cost of three guineas, for the
     damned discounter had issued a writ against me, and I am very much
     disgusted at it.

JOHN PARSONS.

I destroyed the envelope in which that was contained. [Another letter
was read, dated 25th June, 1855--]

     Dear Jimmy,--I should like to have the bill renewed for two months
     more. Can it be done? Let me know by return; 4 Victoria Street,
     Holborn Bridge. I have scratched “Polestar” for the
     Northamptonshire and Wolverhampton Stakes. I shall be down on
     Friday and Saturday. In haste.--J. Parsons Cook. Fred tells me
     “Bolton” or “Arabus” will win the Northumberland Plate.

J. P. COOK.

I saw that “J. P. Cook” written. [The following paper was read:--]

     “Polestar,” three years; “Sirius,” two years, by way of mortgage,
     to secure £500, advanced on a bill of exchange, dated 29th August,
     1855, payable three months after date.

These were the instructions to prepare the mortgage.

[Sidenote: J. Smith]

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I am the Mr. Smith that took Mr.
Myatt to Stafford gaol. I have been employed a good deal by Mr. Palmer
as his attorney. I do not recollect that he applied to me in December,
1854, to attest a proposal on the life of his brother Walter for £13,000
at the Solicitors and General office. Nor do I recollect that I was
applied to by Palmer to attest a proposal for £13,000 to the Prince of
Wales office on his brother Walter’s life. I knew that Walter Palmer had
been a bankrupt six years before, but not that he was in great distress
for money. I believe he had an allowance from his mother. I do not
recollect that I was called upon to attest another proposal in the
Universal office for £13,000 upon the life of Walter Palmer. If I could
see any document or any letter to remind me of the circumstance I would
not deny it. [An assignment of this policy by Walter Palmer to William
Palmer was handed to witness. He was asked if he received £5 for
attesting the assignment, and answered he might have, he did not
recollect.] This is very like my signature. It is a good imitation. I
have some doubt that it is not my handwriting. That is Walter Palmer’s
signature, and the attestation, “signed, sealed, and delivered,” is in
Mr. Pratt’s handwriting. I got the document from Mr. Palmer. I still do
not think that what bears to be my signature is in my handwriting. In
October, 1855, I applied to the Midland Counties office to be appointed
their agent. Bates and Palmer came together to my office with a
prospectus, and asked me if there was any agent in Rugeley. I said I
never heard of one. They asked me to write and get an appointment, as
they wanted to raise money. I did so. The reason I became an agent was
to get an insurance effected upon Bates’ life for £10,000. Bates at that
time was the superintendent of William Palmer’s stud and stables. After
this I went to the widow of Walter Palmer to get her to give up her
claim upon the policy of her husband. She refused. This document, the
signature to which I doubt whether it is my handwriting or not, is
signed by Walter Palmer. I do not know that he got nothing for the
assignment. I understood he got a house furnished for him. I do not
recollect being applied to by William Palmer in December, 1854, to
attest a proposal on his brother’s life for £13,000 in the Solicitors
and General office. I have no doubt I might. The body of the document
[handed to witness] is in the handwriting of William Palmer. The
signature is mine. I may have signed it blank. I do not remember getting
£5 for attesting the execution of that deed of assignment by Walter
Palmer to his brother. [The witness gave similar answers to questions
put as to his attestation of proposals for policies of £13,000 on Walter
Palmer’s life in two other offices.] With reference to that £200 which I
got for Mr. Cook, £100 from Mrs. Palmer and the other £100 from William
Palmer, Cook gave £10 for the accommodation to William Palmer. William
Palmer was the drawer of the bill and Cook the acceptor. He received
£100 less £10 in cash. When the bill was given I handed it over to Mr.
Palmer. What he did with it I do not know. I do not know if he
discounted with Mr. Pratt. I have never seen the bill since. Palmer was
not short of money at this time, as he lent £100 to Cook. I do not know
that he wanted some money to make up the sum of £500 payable to Mr.
Sargent.


_Proof closed._




Attorney-General’s Address to Jury.


[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL--May it please your lordships--Gentlemen of the
jury, the case for the prosecution and the case for the defence are now
before you; and it becomes my duty to address to you such observations
upon the whole of the materials, upon which your judgment is to be
founded, as suggest themselves to my mind. I have a solemn and an
important duty to perform. I wish that I could have answered the appeal
made to me the other day by my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Shee, and
have felt that I was satisfied with the case that he submitted to you on
the part of the defence. But, standing here as the instrument of public
justice, I feel that I should be wanting in the duty that I have to
perform if I did not ask at your hands for a verdict of guilty against
the accused. I approach the consideration of the case in what, I hope, I
may term a spirit of fairness, of moderation, and of truth. My business
is to convince you, if I can, by facts and legitimate argument, of the
prisoner’s guilt. If I cannot establish it to your satisfaction, no man
will rejoice more than I shall in the verdict that you will pronounce of
not guilty.

Gentlemen, in the vast mass of materials which the evidence in this case
has brought before you, two main questions present themselves
prominently for your consideration--- did the deceased man, into whose
death we are now inquiring, die a natural death, or was he taken off by
the foul means of poison? And if the latter proposition be sanctioned by
your approbation, then comes the important--if possible the still more
important--question of whether the prisoner at the bar was the author of
his death? I will proceed at once without further observation to the
discussion of those questions, taking them in the order in which I have
proposed them. Did John Parsons Cook die by poison? I assert and
maintain the affirmative of that proposition. The case which is
submitted to you on behalf of the Crown is this, that having been first
practised upon by antimony, he was at last killed by strychnia; and the
proposition which I have to establish is that the death of the deceased
was occasioned by that poison. The first question, with a view of seeing
what is the conclusion at which we shall arrive upon that point, is,
what was the immediate and proximate cause of his death? The witnesses
for the prosecution have told you one and all that he died, in their
judgment, of tetanus, which signifies a spasmodic convulsive action of
the muscles of the body. Can there be any doubt that that opinion is
correct? Of course, it does not follow that because he died from tetanus
it must be tetanus from strychnia; that is a matter for after
consideration; but inasmuch as strychnia produces death by

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

[Illustration: Sir Alexander Cockburn.]

tetanus, we must see, in the first place, whether it admits of any doubt
that he did die of tetanus. I have listened with attention to every form
in which that disease has been brought under your consideration, whether
by the positive evidence of witnesses, or by reference to the works of
scientific authors; and I assert deliberately that no case either of a
human subject, or of any animal, has been brought under your notice in
which the symptoms of tetanus have been so marked as they are in this
case; from the moment the paroxysm came on, of which this unhappy man
died, the symptoms were of the most marked and of the most striking
character. Every muscle, says the medical man who was present at the
time, of his body was convulsed; he expressed the most intense dread of
suffocation; he entreated them to lift him up lest he should be
suffocated, and when they stooped to raise him every muscle of his body,
from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot, was so stiffened
that the flexibility of the trunk and limbs was gone, so that they could
have raised him as you would raise a dead corpse or a lifeless log. It
was found to be impossible, and the man prayed to be turned over in
order to escape from the sense of the imminent risk of suffocation; they
turned him over, and in the midst of doing so a fearful paroxysm, one
mighty spasm, seems to have seized upon his heart, to have pressed from
it the life blood, so that in a moment vitality ebbed, and the man was
dead before them; when dead, the body exhibited the most marked symptoms
of this most fearful disease; it was bowed from head to foot, and it
would have rested, if it had been so placed, says the witness, upon the
back of the head and the heels; the hands were clenched with a grasp
which it required power to overcome, and the feet were curved till they
assumed the appearance of a natural malformation. It is impossible to
conceive symptoms more striking of tetanus; nor is it possible to
conceive evidence more dishonest than that which has attempted to
represent it as any other than as a case of tetanus.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Well, then, if it was a case of tetanus, as to which I will not waste
your time with any further observations, was it a case of tetanus from
strychnia? I will confine myself for the moment to the exhibition of the
symptoms as they have been described by the witnesses. Tetanus may
proceed from natural causes as well as from the administration of
poison. While the symptoms last they are the same, but in the course of
the symptoms before the disease reaches its consummation in the death of
the patient the distinction between the two is marked by characteristics
which will enable any one conversant with the subject to distinguish
between the two. We have been told upon the highest authority that the
distinctions are these--Natural tetanus is a disease not of minutes, not
even of hours, but of days. It takes, say several of the witnesses,
from three to four days, and will extend to a period of even three
weeks, before the patient is destroyed. Upon that point we have the most
abundant and conclusive evidence. We have the evidence of gentlemen who
have made it their especial study, like Mr. Curling and Dr. Todd. We
have the evidence of one of the most eminent practitioners who ever
adorned that profession or any other, I mean Sir Benjamin Brodie. We
have the evidence of Mr. Gordon, who for twenty-eight years was surgeon
to the Bristol Hospital; we have the evidence of Mr. Daniel, who saw
twenty-five or thirty of these cases of natural tetanus; we have the
evidence of a gentleman who practised for twenty-five years in India,
where, owing to the particular character of the climate, those cases are
infinitely more frequent than they present themselves here, and he gives
exactly the same description of the course of symptoms through which
this disease runs. Idiopathic or traumatic tetanus are therefore, upon
the evidence, out of the question; but traumatic tetanus is out of the
question for a very different reason. Traumatic tetanus is tetanus
brought on by lesion of some part of the body. What is there in this
particular case to show that there was lesion in any part of the body at
all? We have had the most singular representations upon the subject of
Mr. Cook’s health made by the witnesses who have come here on behalf of
the defence, and who appear to have come into that box with the
determination as far as possible to misconceive every fact which they
could pervert to their purpose. We call before you for the purpose of
showing what Cook’s health was an eminent physician who had had him
under his care. It seems that in the spring of 1855 Cook, having found
certain small spots manifest themselves in one or two parts of his body,
and having something of ulcers under his tongue, or in his throat,
conceived that he was labouring under symptoms of a particular
character, and he addressed himself to Dr. Savage, who found the course
of medicine he had been pursuing, founded upon this belief, was, in his
judgment, an erroneous one; he altered it altogether; he enjoined the
discontinuance of mercury, and was obeyed in his injunction; and the
result was that the deceased, who was suffering, not from disease, but
from the treatment, rapidly grew well. Nevertheless, lest there should
be the possibility of mistake, Dr. Savage made him come to him from time
to time that he might see that things were going on right, and he sees,
long before the summer had advanced, the very unsatisfactory symptoms
had entirely gone, and that there was nothing about him except that
affection of the throat to which sometimes people are subject, some
abnormal condition of one of the tonsils, but in other respects the man
was better than he had been, and might be said to be perfectly
convalescent. On the very day he left London to go into the country
about a fortnight before the races, his stepfather accompanied him to
the station, and congratulated him upon his healthy and vigorous
appearance, and the young man, in the consciousness of the possession of
health, struck his breast, and said he was well, and he felt so.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Well, he goes to Shrewsbury, and shortly afterwards came those matters
to which I shall have to call your attention presently, more
particularly that ended in his death. I want to know upon what part of
this evidence there is the slightest pretence for saying that this man
had any affection about him from which traumatic tetanus could ensue. It
is said at some former time he had exhibited his throat to some of the
witnesses who were called, and that he had applied to Palmer for some
mercurial wash to apply to his throat, or some of those ulcers. The
precise period of it is not fixed, but it is perfectly clear that though
he had at one time adopted that course, under the recommendation of Dr.
Savage, he had got rid of it; and there is not the slightest pretence
for saying that this man was suffering under a syphilitic affection of
any kind; nevertheless that fact was distinctly and unequivocally
negatived by a man of the highest authority--a medical gentleman of
eminence--under whose treatment the man got so rapidly well. That fact
is assumed by the witnesses for the defence as the ground upon which to
suggest that there was traumatic tetanus in this case. It is a pretence,
gentlemen, which has not the shadow of a foundation, and which I should
be shrinking from my duty if I did not denounce as altogether unworthy
of your attention. There was nothing about the man, according to the
statement of all those who were competent to give you an opinion, which
would warrant for a single moment the supposition that there was
anything in any part of the man’s body which could justify the notion of
traumatic tetanus; even if there were, the character which his symptoms
assumed when the tetanus set in is utterly incompatible, according to
the evidence of all the witnesses, with a case of traumatic tetanus. One
or two cases of traumatic tetanus have been adduced in evidence on the
part of the defence. We had the case of a man who was brought to the
London Hospital in the evening, and who died the same night. Yes, but
what were the facts of that case? The facts are that he had had before
he was brought in repeated paroxysms; that he felt premonitory symptoms
early in the morning; he was suffering from ulcers of a most aggravated
description; and that the symptoms had run their course, rapidly it is
true, but still the disease was not a matter of minutes, but a matter of
hours. There is no other case that I am aware of. There is the case of
the boy who was brought in, if it be necessary to allude to it. But
there again we have the disease existing for some time before it ends
in death. It is a matter there again of hours, and not of minutes, and
not a single paroxysm like this was observed. But it is then suggested
that this may have been a case of idiopathic tetanus. Idiopathic tetanus
proceeding from what? They say that Mr. Cook was a man of delicate
constitution--subject to excitement--that he had something the matter
with his chest--that in addition to having something the matter with his
chest, he had this diseased condition of the throat--and, putting all
these things together, they say that the man, if he took cold, might get
idiopathic tetanus. We are launched into a sea of speculation and of
possibilities. Mr. Nunneley, who comes forward here for the purpose of
inducing you to believe that there was anything like idiopathic tetanus,
goes through a bead-roll of the supposed infirmities of Mr. Cook and
talks about his excitability--talks about his delicacy of chest--talks
about the affection of his throat--goes through those various heads, and
says that those things may have predisposed him to idiopathic tetanus if
he took cold. What evidence is there that he ever did take cold? Not the
slightest in the world. The man, from the beginning to the end of the
symptoms, was never treated for cold by anybody, or ever complained that
he had taken cold. I cannot help saying, to me it seems that it is a
scandal upon a learned, a distinguished, and a liberal profession, that
men should come forward and put forward such speculations as these,
perverting the facts, and drawing from them sophistical and unwarranted
conclusions with the view of deceiving a jury. I have the greatest
respect for science--no man can have more; but I cannot repress my
indignation and abhorrence when I see it thus perverted and prostituted
to the purposes of a particular cause in a Court of justice. Do not talk
to me about excitement, as Mr. Nunneley did the other day, being the
occasion of idiopathic tetanus. You remember the sorts of excitement he
spoke of. They are unworthy of your notice, and they were topics
discreditable to be put forward by a witness as worthy of the attention
of sensible men constituting such a tribunal as you are.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

But suppose for a single moment that excitement of this kind could
produce any such effect or influence, where is the excitement manifested
by Cook as leading to this supposed disease? They say that the man, when
his mare won at Shrewsbury, was full of excitement; and well he might
be--his fortunes depended upon the result of that race; and I do not
deny for a few minutes he was overpowered by the emotions that the joy
of the moment excited in his breast. But that subsided, and we have no
further trace of it from that time to the moment of his death. The man
passed the rest of the day with his friends in ordinary conversation and
in ordinary enjoyment. No trace of emotion was left about him. He is
taken ill; he goes to Rugeley; he is taken ill there again; is there the
slightest symptom of excitement about the man, or, on the other hand, of
depression? Not the slightest in the world. When he is ill, like most
other people, he is low; but as soon as he gets a little better he is
cheerful and happy; he admits his friends, and he converses with them;
the very night of his death, so far from any excitement, his
conversation is full of cheerfulness and mirth--he is laughing and
happy, little thinking, poor wretch, of the fate that was impending over
him. He is cheerful and happy, talking of the future, not in the
language of excitement on the one hand, or of depression on the other.
What pretence is there for this idle story of excitement and depression?
Not the slightest shadow of foundation in the world. But if there
were--if those things were capable of producing that form of tetanus
which goes by the term “idiopathic,” the character of the disease is so
essentially different that it is impossible to mistake the two. What are
the cases which they attempt to set up against it? They have brought you
the case of Mary Watson, which a gentleman came all the way from
Scotland to tell us about. The girl had been ill all day. She was taken
with cramps in the night, probably originating in the stomach, extending
to all other parts of her body. She gets well in a very short time, and
goes about her business. Is that case to be compared for a single
instant to the death agony of that wretched man, and the paroxysm that
destroyed him? Those are the sort of cases with which they attempt to
meet such symptoms as those which are spoken to by the witnesses as
accompanying the decease of Mr. Cook.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Gentlemen, I venture, upon the evidence, to assert boldly that the cases
of idiopathic tetanus and traumatic, or what I may call natural tetanus,
are marked by clear and distinct characteristics, distinguishing them
from the tetanus produced by strychnia; and I say that the tetanus which
accompanied Mr. Cook’s death is not referable to either of those forms
of tetanus. You have upon that point the evidence of witnesses of the
highest competency and of the most unquestionable integrity; and upon
their evidence I am quite satisfied you can come to no other conclusion
but that this was not a case either of idiopathic or of traumatic
tetanus. But, then, they say it may have been something else; and
various attempts have been made to set up different causes as capable of
producing this tetanic disease. And, first, we have the theory of
general convulsions; and Mr. Nunneley, having gone through the bead-roll
of the supposed infirmities of Mr. Cook, says, “Oh, this may have been a
case of general convulsions. I have known general convulsions to assume
a tetanic character.” “Well, but pause a moment, Mr. Nunneley, have you
ever seen one single case in which death arising from general
convulsions, accompanied with tetanic symptoms, has not ended in the
unconsciousness of the patient before death!--No, I never knew such a
case--not one. But in some book or other, I am told that there is some
such case reported”; and he cites, not for that purpose, I think, but he
cites, with reference to general convulsions being sometimes accompanied
with tetanic symptoms, and ending in death, a very eminent author of the
present day. I mean Dr. Copland. Dr. Copland is living, and Dr. Copland
might have been called. The author of the book, I apprehend, would stand
before you as a higher authority than a man who merely quotes the book
as the foundation of his knowledge. Dr. Copland might have been called.
Dr. Copland was not called, notwithstanding the challenge which I threw
out. Why? Because it is infinitely better in such a case to call
together from the east and from the west practitioners of more or less
obscurity, instead of bringing to bear upon the subject the light of
science which is treasured up in the breasts of the eminent
practitioners with whom this great city abounds. Dr. Copland is not
called; but I say, as regards general convulsions, the distinction is
plain, that where they destroy the patient they destroy consciousness;
and here it is unquestionably the fact, that to the last moment of Mr.
Cook’s existence, until his burst heart ceased to beat, his
consciousness remained.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

But then comes another supposed condition from which death in this form
may be said to have resulted, and that is the case which was intended to
be set up by a very eminent practitioner, I mean Mr. Partridge. It seems
that in the post-mortem examination of Mr. Cook, when the spinal marrow
was investigated, certain granules were found, and this is seized upon.
It is said, “Oh, those granules may have occasioned tetanic convulsions
similar to those which were found in Mr. Cook’s case,” and a very
eminent gentleman is called to give his opinion upon that subject. I
admit him to be not only a man of great eminence, but a man of the
highest honour and the most perfect veracity. I allude to Mr. Partridge.
I must distinguish between him and other of my learned friend’s
witnesses. Some there were who would not be induced, for any
consideration in the world, to swerve from what they believed to be the
truth. Mr. Partridge is called here to prove that this was a case of
what he called arachnitis--inflammation of the arachnoid in consequence
of the granules, or some other abnormal condition. I asked him the
symptoms which he would find in such a case. I called his attention to
what evidently had not been done before, namely, the symptoms of Mr.
Cook’s case; and I asked him, in simple, straightforward terms,
whether, looking at those symptoms, he would pledge his opinion, in the
face of the medical world and the Court, that this was a case of
arachnitis, and he candidly admitted that he would not assert that this
was in his opinion a case of arachnitis.

Then we have the gentleman who comes all the way from Scotland to inform
us, as the next proposition, that Mr. Cook’s was a case of epileptic
convulsions with tetanic complications. Now, I asked him this question,
“Did you ever know a case of epilepsy, with or without tetanic
convulsions, in which consciousness was not destroyed before the patient
died?” He said, “No; I cannot say that I ever did, but I have read in
some book that such a case has occurred.” “Is there anything to make you
think that this was epilepsy?--Well, it may have been epilepsy, because
I do not know what else to ascribe it to; but I must admit that epilepsy
is characterised generally by a loss of consciousness.” “Well, then,
what difference would tetanic complications make?” That he is unable to
explain. I remind you of that species of evidence in which the witnesses
resorted to the most speculative reasoning, and put forward the barest
possibilities without the shadow of a foundation. But this I undertake
to assert, and I refer to the evidence to prove it, that there is not a
single case either to which they have spoken as coming within their own
experience, or of which they have spoken as the result of reading, in
which there were the formidable and decisive symptoms of marked tetanus
which existed in this case of Mr. Cook.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Having gone through this evidence, I think we have four sets of
diseases--general convulsions, arachnitis, epilepsy proper, and epilepsy
with tetanic complications. I expected that we had pretty well exhausted
the whole of those scientific theories, but we were destined to have
another that assumed the formidable name of angina pectoris. I do not
know whether it struck you as remarkable that when my learned friend
opened this case for the defence he never ventured to assert what would
be the nature of the disease to which he would endeavour to refer the
symptoms of Mr. Cook; and it must, I think, have struck you as a very
remarkable thing that no less than four or five distinct and separate
theories are set up by the witnesses who appear on the part of the
defence--general convulsions, arachnitis, epilepsy with tetanic
complications, and, lastly, angina pectoris. My learned friend had,
however, this advantage in not stating to you what was the theory that
his medical witnesses would endeavour to set up, because, one after
another, I must admit they took me entirely by surprise. The gentleman
who was called yesterday at the last moment, and who talked of angina
pectoris, would not have escaped quite so easily if I had had the books
to which he referred under my hand, and had been able to expose, as I
would have done, the ignorance or the presumption of the assertion which
he dared to make. I say ignorance or presumption, or, what is worse, an
intention to deceive. I assert it in the face of the whole medical
profession, and I am satisfied I shall have their verdict in my favour.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

But it is a fact which I am entitled to dwell upon, that all those
medical witnesses, one and all, differed in the views which they take in
this case. There is this remarkable coincidence between the views of
some of them and the views of the witnesses whom I called--Mr. Partridge
and Dr. Robinson, two of the most respectable witnesses they called, ay,
and Dr. Letheby himself, strongly as he was biassed in favour of the
defence, being three of the most eminent of the witnesses whom my
learned friend brought forward, agreed with the statement made by Sir
Benjamin Brodie, and supported by other witnesses whom I brought before
you, that in the whole of their experience, in the whole range of their
learning and information, they knew of no known disease to which the
symptoms of Mr. Cook could possibly be referred. When such men as those
tell us such a fact, I cannot but submit to you that it is impossible to
exaggerate its importance. But, then, if it be the fact that no known
disease can account for such symptoms as those of Mr. Cook, and that
they are referable to poison alone, can any one entertain a doubt that
that poison was the poison of strychnia? The symptoms, at all events
from the time the paroxysm set in, are precisely the same. Distinctions
are sought to be made by the subtlety of the witnesses for the defence
between some of the antecedent symptoms and some of the appearances
after death; but I think I shall show you beyond all possibility of
contradiction, that those distinctions are imaginary, and have no
foundation in fact. I think I may take this, however, along with me as I
go on, that the witnesses called for the defence admit this fact, that
from the time the paroxysm set in, of which Mr. Cook died, until the
time of the death, the symptoms are precisely similar to the symptoms of
tetanus from strychnia. But, then, they say, and this is worthy of your
most attentive consideration, that there are points of difference which
have led them to the conclusion, or some of them at all events, that
those symptoms could not have resulted from strychnia. Let us see what
they are. In the first place, they showed that the period which elapsed
between the supposed administration of the poison and the first
appearance of the symptoms was longer than they have ever observed in
animals upon which they have experimented. Now, the first observation
which arises there is this, that there is a known difference between
animal and human life, in the power with which specific things act upon
its organisation, and it may well be that the poison administered to a
rabbit will produce its effect in a given time; it by no means follows
that it will produce effect in the same time upon an animal of a
different description, and still less does it follow that it will
exercise its baneful influence in the same time upon a human subject.
The whole of the evidence on both sides tends to establish this fact,
that not only in individuals of different species, but between
individuals of the same species, the same poison and the same dose will
produce effects different in degree, different in duration, and
different in power. But, again, it is perfectly notorious that the
rapidity with which the poison begins to work depends materially upon
the mode of its administration. If it is administered as a fluid, it
acts with great rapidity; if it is administered in a solid state, its
effects come on more slowly; and if it is administered in some indurated
substance, it will act with still greater tardiness; and if that
substance is difficult of solution, then the period will be still longer
before the substance, having become dissolved, is acted upon by the
absorbents and taken up into the system.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Now, what was the period at which this poison began to act after its
administration, assuming it to have been poison for the purpose of
argument? It seems, from Mr. Jones’ statement, that the prisoner came
and administered these pills; he saw him administer the pills somewhere
about eleven o’clock, so that they were not administered upon his first
arrival. The patient, as though with an instinctive sense of the peril
which impended, strenuously resisted the attempt to make him take them,
and no doubt those remonstrances and the endeavour to overcome them
occupied some period of time. The pills at last were taken, and,
assuming them to have contained strychnia (which I only do now for the
purpose of argument), how soon did they begin to operate? Mr. Jones says
he went down after this and had his supper, and came back about twelve
o’clock. Upon his return to the room, after a word or two of
conversation with Cook, he proceeded to undress and go to bed; and he
had not been in bed ten minutes before the warning came that another of
these paroxysms was about to take place. The maid-servants put it still
earlier; they say that about ten minutes before twelve the first alarm
was given, which would make the interval little more than three-quarters
of an hour from the taking of the pills and the first manifestation of
the symptoms. When, therefore, my learned friend’s witnesses tell us
that it took an hour and a half or two hours, we have here another of
those exaggerated determinations to see the facts only in the way that
will make most for the view which they think proper to put forward. I
say it certainly was not more than an hour, and I find in some of the
experiments that have been made that the duration of time before which
the poison began to work has been little less, if any less, than an
hour. Mr. Morley, who is as much entitled to your attention as Mr.
Nunneley--indeed, when I contrast the way in which the two men gave
their evidence, I am paying him but a poor compliment when I say that he
is as worthy of attention as Mr. Nunneley--Mr. Morley says in his
evidence that five or six minutes, or something less than an hour, is
the period which he observed the poison required to produce its effects
upon animals, and in every one of the cases which we have got it will be
seen that more than an hour was necessary. In the case of the girl at
Glasgow, though I see the medical gentleman speaks of twenty minutes
when he was called in, he could have only had that information from the
statement of some of the people about. I see the nurse says it was
three-quarters of an hour before the pills began to work upon the girl.
There may have been some cause for the pills not beginning to take
effect within a certain time after their administration; it would be
very easy to mix them with some substance that should render them
difficult of solution; nay, which might retard their action. I cannot
for a single moment bring myself to believe, if in all other respects
you are perfectly satisfied that the symptoms, the consequences, and
effects were analogous and similar to those produced by strychnia, it is
not because those pills may have taken a quarter of an hour or a longer
time to manifest their working, it is not on that account you will
hesitate to come to the conclusion that strychnia was administered in
this case. But then they say, yes, but the premonitory symptoms were
wanting here. They tell us in animals they observed that the animal
manifests first some uneasiness, shrinks, and gathers itself into
itself, as it were, avoids movement, and then certain involuntary
twitchings about the head come, those being the premonitory symptoms
before the paroxysms set in. They say there were no premonitory symptoms
in Cook’s case; I utterly deny that proposition--I say there were
premonitory symptoms of the most marked character, though he did not
describe them in language. He is lying in bed--he suddenly starts up in
an agony of alarm. What made him do that? Was there nothing premonitory,
nothing that warned him that the paroxysm was coming? It is clear there
must have been. He jumps up in his bed, and says, “Fetch me Palmer, I am
going to be ill, as I was last night.” What was it but that he knew the
symptoms that attended him on the previous evening were now warning him
of what he might expect in a short period, unless succour could be
obtained? He sits up, and he prays to have his neck rubbed. What was the
feeling about the neck but a premonitory symptom which was to precede
the paroxysm which presently supervened? He says, “Rub my neck, it gives
me comfort to have it done.”

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

But here again they take exception, and they say this could not have
been tetanus from strychnia, because animals cannot bear to be touched;
a touch brings on the paroxysm; not only a touch but a breath of air, a
sound, a word, a movement of any one near, will bring on a recurrence of
the paroxysm. True; but that is after the paroxysm has once been set up,
or when it is just about to begin. It is quite clear that those
witnesses who come and say that the fact of Mr. Cook having desired to
have his neck rubbed is a fact to prove that this could not be a death
from tetanus, have either wilfully suppressed the knowledge in their own
minds of the evidence they had heard, or they had paid no attention to
it; because in two cases of death from strychnia we have shown the
patient endured the touching of the limbs, and found satisfaction from
it. In Mrs. Smyth’s case, when her legs were distorted, in the agony of
the convulsion she prayed and entreated to have them straightened; she
found no additional pain from that operation. The lady at Leeds, in the
case which Mr. Nunneley himself attended, implored her husband, between
the spasms, to rub her legs and her arms, in order to overcome and
subdue their rigidity. That case was under his own knowledge, and, in
spite of it, although he detected afterwards strychnia in the body of
that unhappy woman, he dares to come forward here and say that the fact
of Mr. Cook having before the paroxysm tolerated rubbing, and found
comfort in it, proves that this could not have been a death from
strychnia. What think you of the honesty of such a witness? But there is
a third case, which is the case of Mr. Clutterbuck, spoken to by Mr.
Moore. That gentleman had taken an overdose of strychnia, and he
suffered from all the pains of tetanus; his only comfort was having his
limbs rubbed; and therefore, I say, to contend and to endeavour to
persuade a jury that the fact of Cook’s having had his neck rubbed
proved that this was not tetanus from strychnia, proves, I say, nothing
but the dishonesty and insincerity of the witnesses who can dare to put
forward such a pretence.

But, then, they go further, and they say that Mr. Cook was able to
swallow. So he was, before the paroxysm came on. Nobody ever pretended
that he could swallow after the paroxysm came on. He swallowed the
pills, and, what is very curious, and, as they think, bears out and
illustrates a part of their theory, is this. It was the act of
attempting to swallow the pills--the sort of movement that must have
taken place in raising his head and neck for the purpose--that
immediately brings on the violent paroxysm of which he died. So far from
that in the slightest degree militating against the supposition that
this was a case of poisoning by strychnia, it is strongly and decisively
conclusive in its favour.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

But then they take us to the appearances after death, and they say that
there are circumstances to be found which militate against this being a
case of strychnia poisoning. Let us see what they are. In the first
place, they say the limbs became rigid either at the time of death or
immediately after, and that ought not to be found in a case of tetanus
from strychnia. Mr. Nunneley says, “In all cases upon which I have
experimented I have found the animals become flaccid before death, and
they do not become again rigid after it.” I can hardly believe that
statement, and I certainly was not a little surprised when the very next
witness who got into the box (Mr. Herapath, of Bristol) told us he had
made two experiments upon cats, and killed them both. He described them
as “indurated and contorted.” Those were his expressions when he found
them some hours after death. The presence of rigidity in the body at or
immediately after death here is put forward on the part of Mr. Nunneley
as one of the grounds upon which he says this was not a death by
strychnia, although Dr. Taylor had told us that in the case of one of
the cats he killed the rigidity after death was such that upon taking
the animal by the hind legs and holding it up in the air, the body
maintained its horizontal natural position, as though the animal had
been upon its four legs upon a plain surface. Notwithstanding that
evidence, Mr. Nunneley had the audacity to say that he did not believe
this was a case of poisoning by strychnia, because there had been
rigidity of the limbs--because the feet were distorted, the hands
clenched, and the muscles rigid as the unhappy man exhibited prior to
his death. The very next witness called upon the other side produced two
instances in which the animals were indurated from one end of their
bodies to the other. As he says they were contorted in all their limbs,
and so they remained, it shows what you are to think of the honesty of
this sort of evidence, in which facts are selected because they make in
favour of the particular hypothesis of the party who brings them
forward.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Then the next thing that is said is that the heart in this case was
empty. In the animals Mr. Nunneley and Dr. Letheby have operated upon I
think the heart has been found full. I do not think that applies to all
the cases; I think they make some exceptions; and, as I said at the
outset, it is a remarkable fact connected with the history of this
particular poison, that you never can rely upon the precise form or
order which the symptoms before death and the appearances after it will
assume. There are only certain great, leading, marked characteristic
features--the collateral incidents are capable of infinite variety. We
have here the main marked characteristic features, and we have, what is
more, collateral incidents similar to the cases in which the
administration of strychnia and the fact that death was caused by it
are beyond the possibility of dispute. In the very evidence which has
been adduced of two cases of poisoning, Mrs. Smyth’s and the Glasgow
girl, in both the heart had been found contracted and emptied; and it is
obvious to any one who reflects for a single moment that the question
whether the heart shall be found congested or the lungs congested must
depend upon the immediate cause of death, and we know that in cases of
tetanus death may result from more than one cause. All the muscles of
the body are subject to the exciting action of this powerful poison, but
no one can tell in what order those muscles will be affected, or where
the poisonous influence will put forth the fulness of its power. If it
act upon the respiratory muscles, and arrest the play of the lungs, and
with it the breathing of atmospheric air, the result will be that the
heart will be left full; but if some spasm seizes on the heart,
contracting it and expelling from it the blood that it contains, and so
produces death, why the result will be that the heart will be found
empty, and the other vessels gorged with blood. So that you have never
perfect certainty as to how those symptoms will manifest themselves
after death; but that is again put forward as if the fact of the heart
having been found empty is a conclusive fact against death having in
this case taken place from strychnia. Yet those men who came here to
make those statements as witnesses under the sanction of scientific
authority must have heard both those cases spoken to by the medical
gentlemen who examined those two unfortunate patients after death, and
who told us that in both cases the heart was found empty. That gets rid
of that matter. And so again with regard to the congestion of the brain
and other vessels the same observation applies. If instead of being
killed by the action of the poison upon the respiratory muscles or by
its action upon the heart, death is the result of a long series of
paroxysms exhausting the vital power of the victim, then you expect to
find the brain and other vessels congested by those series of
convulsions and spasms. As death takes place from one or other of those
causes, so will be the appearance of the heart, the brain, and the body
after death. There is nothing, I say, in this for a single moment to
negative the conclusion which you would otherwise arrive at from the
symptoms which appeared in this man’s body at the time of his death and
immediately afterwards--that those are the symptoms of tetanus of the
strongest and most aggravated kind; that is a proposition about which, I
think, you can entertain no doubt. If so, are they referable to tetanus
of any other description? Certainly not; because, as Sir Benjamin Brodie
told you, the course of the symptoms is marked by characteristics of
unquestionable difference.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Is it not then preposterous to contend that this was not a case of
tetanus? And if every one of the distinctions they have attempted to set
up I show you to have really nothing to do with the case (because I
produce you at once an undoubted case in which the administration of
strychnia is beyond the reach of question, in which those particular
symptoms and appearances were manifested and observed) I get rid at once
of all those vain, futile attempts to distinguish this case, either in
its premonitory symptoms or in the appearances either before or upon
post-mortem examination. I get rid of all those difficulties, and I come
back to the symptoms which attended this unhappy man’s demise. I ask
whether you can doubt that, when I have excluded all those cases of
tetanic convulsions, epilepsy, and arachnitis, or angina pectoris, which
occurred, you recollect, in a young girl after an attack of scarlet
fever--in all human probability the scarlet fever had been thrown back
upon the system, and had produced all those consequences--when I exclude
all those cases, and then, lastly, exclude traumatic or idiopathic
tetanus, what remains? The tetanus of strychnia, and the tetanus of
strychnia only. I pray your attention to the cases of which evidence has
been given, in which there was no question as to strychnia having been
administered, there not being the shadow of a doubt about it, and in
which the circumstances were so similar, and the symptoms so analogous,
that I think you cannot hesitate to come to the conclusion that this was
death by strychnia. Medical witnesses of the highest authority, both on
the part of the Crown and on the part of the defence, agree that in the
whole range of their experience and knowledge they know of no natural
disease to which these remarkable symptoms can be referred. If that be
so, and there is a known poison that will produce them, how strong, how
cogent, how irresistible becomes the inference that to that poison, and
to that poison alone, are those symptoms and this death to be ascribed!

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Nevertheless, gentlemen, on the other hand, the case is not without its
difficulties; and I will not shrink from the discussion of them, nor
from the candid recognition of these difficulties, so far as they in
reality exist. Strychnia was not found in this body; and we have it, no
doubt upon strong evidence, that in a variety of experiments which have
been tried upon the bodies of animals killed by strychnia, strychnia has
been detected by the tests which science places at the disposition of
scientific men. If strychnia had been found, of course there would have
been no difficulty, and we should have had none of the ingenious
theories which gentlemen from a variety of parts have been brought
forward to propound in this Court. The question for your consideration
is, whether the absence of its detection leads conclusively to the view
that this death could not have been caused by the administration of that
poison. Now, in the first place, under what circumstances was the
examination made of which Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees have spoken? They tell
you that when the stomach of this man was brought to them for the
purpose of analysis, it was presented to them under the most
unfavourable circumstances. They say that its contents had been lost,
and that they had no opportunity of experimenting upon them. It is very
true that those who put up the jar make a statement somewhat different.
They say that the contents of the stomach were emptied into the jar, but
there appears (at all events I will not put it higher than accident), by
accident, to have been some spilling of the contents; and there is, I
think, the clearest and most undeniable evidence of very considerable
bungling in the way in which the stomach was cut, and the way in which
it was emptied into the jar. It was cut from end to end, says Dr.
Taylor. It was tied up at both ends; it had been turned inside out into
the contents of the intestines, and lay there in a mass of fœculent
matter, and was therefore in a condition the most unsatisfactory for
analysis and experiment. It is very true that the witnesses upon the
other side--Mr. Nunneley, Mr. Herapath, and Dr. Letheby--say that, no
matter how contaminated or how mixed with impurities, they would have
been able to ascertain the presence of strychnia in the stomach, if
strychnia ever had been there. I own I should have more confidence in
the testimony of those witnesses if their partiality and partisanship
had not been so much marked as they are. I should have more confidence
in the testimony of Mr. Herapath if he had not been constrained to admit
to me a fact which had come to my knowledge, that he has again and again
asserted that this case was a case of poisoning by strychnia, but that
Dr. Taylor had not known how to find it out--he admits that that is a
statement he has again and again made.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--It was in the newspapers, he said.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL--He did not venture to say that the newspaper
statement in any way differed from the fact which he admitted in this
Court. I have seen that gentleman not merely contenting himself with
coming forward, when called upon for the purposes of justice, to state
that which he knew as a matter of science or of experiment, but I have
seen him mixing himself up as a thoroughgoing partisan in this case,
advising my learned friend, suggesting question upon question, and that
in behalf of a man whom he has again and again asserted he believed to
be a poisoner by strychnia. I do not say that alters the fact; but I do
say that it induces one to look at the credit of those witnesses with a
very great amount of suspicion. I reverence a man who, from a sense of
justice and a love of truth--from those high considerations which form
the noblest elements in the character of man--comes forward in favour of
a man against whom the world may run in a torrent of prejudice and
aversion, and who stands and states what he believes to be the truth;
but I abhor the traffic in testimony to which I regret to say men of
science sometimes permit themselves to condescend. I ask you therefore
to look at the statements of those witnesses with dispassionate
consideration before you attach implicit credit to them. But let me
assume that all they say is true, that it is the fact that they in their
experiments have succeeded in discovering strychnia when mixed with
other impurities, and contaminated, no matter by what cause--they say
that no extent of putrefaction, no amount of decomposition, will alter
the character of that vegetable matter, so that it may not be detected
if it is in the human stomach. Be it so. But then must it always be
found in every case where death has ensued? Professor Taylor says no;
and he says it would be a most dangerous and mischievous proposition to
assert that that must necessarily be so--that it would enable many a
guilty man to escape who, by administering the smallest quantity whereby
life can be affected and destroyed, might by that means prevent the
possibility of the detection of the poison in the stomach of the
individual. All the witnesses seem to agree in this, or, at all events,
the great bulk of them agree in this, that the poison acts after it has
been absorbed into the system; taken up by the absorbents of the
stomach, it is carried into the blood; passing by means of the
circulation through the tissues, it is deposited there; at some stage or
other of its progress it affects the nervous system; and as soon as the
nerves affecting the muscles of motion become influenced by its baneful
power, then come on those muscular spasms and convulsions of which we
have heard so much. If the minimum dose be given, and that operates by
absorption, it is perfectly clear--and must be clear--that the whole
must be taken up by absorbents and pass into the blood, and that none
therefore will be found in the stomach. Nay, a further proposition is
also clear. If it is necessary that it should be first passed by means
of the circulation into the solid tissues of the body, before it acts
upon the nervous system, it will cease to be found in the blood. Again,
a portion of it, if in excess, will be eliminated in the kidneys, and
pass off in watery excretion. You do not know, therefore, in what part
of the human body to put your hand upon it. But this is undoubtedly the
fact, if there has been an excess over the quantity necessary to destroy
the life of a particular individual, then, as soon as the absorbents
have taken up the necessary quantity, the nervous system will at once be
affected and life destroyed; you will find the excess in the stomach, if
you adopt the proper means of seeking for it. Now, what did these
gentlemen do? They gave never less than a grain--often as much as two
grains; and yet we now know that a quarter of a grain is enough to
destroy a small animal like a rabbit, and that no man could venture to
hope for life who took half a grain or three-quarters of a grain of it.
Therefore in the cases of their experiments, and experiments made, allow
me to say, for the purpose of this case, after those parties had been
retained--I use the word “retained,” for it is the appropriate word; no
parties can be more thoroughgoing partisans than scientific men who have
once taken up a case--after they have been retained for this case, and
desire that their experiments should have a certain result, they take
good care to have doses large enough to leave a small portion in the
stomach. But be this as it may, I have only now to deal with the
experiments of Professor Taylor and Dr. Rees; they may, for aught I
know, be a pair of bunglers; it is no part of my business to uphold them
if their professional reputation will not do it; but they tell us that
they tried its effects upon four animals of the same species with fully
adequate doses. Where they administered two grains they reproduced the
poison in abundance; where they administered one grain they found a
small indication of it; and when they administered half a grain to two
rabbits they found no traces of the poison at all. It may well be that
that may result, as Mr. Herapath says, from Professor Taylor not knowing
the right way of going about it. It may be, if Mr. Herapath had had the
stomach under his more scientific manipulation, he would have produced
the strychnia. It is enough for my purpose when, as I show, the man who
did in this case experiment upon the stomach of Mr. Cook, in two cases
out of four when he had given a smaller dose to rabbits failed to
reproduce the poison. What is the conclusion I draw from it? Why, that
although I cannot have the advantage here which the positive detection
of the strychnia would have afforded if it had been found, there is no
room for the opposite conclusion--the converse of the proposition for
which my learned friend and his witnesses contend--that the fact of the
strychnia not having been reproduced or discovered affords negative
conclusive proof that the death was not produced by strychnia. I have no
positive proof on the one hand, but on the other hand my learned friend
is in the same predicament--he cannot say that he has negative proof
conclusive of the fact of this death not having taken place by
strychnia.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

But now is there no other evidence in the case? Do I ask you to come to
the conclusion that he administered strychnia to his friend, simply
because the symptoms of that friend’s death are reconcilable with no
known form of disease which the most enlarged experience or knowledge
can supply? No, gentlemen, it does not rest there. Not because those
symptoms are precisely those which show themselves in cases of poisoning
by strychnia. No, the case does not rest there; I wish it did. But,
alas! it does not. I must now draw your serious attention to a part of
the case which has not been met, and has not been grappled with. My
learned friend said that he would contest the ground with the
prosecution foot by foot. Alas! we are upon that ground upon which, as
it were, is centred the crisis of this momentous question; and, alas! my
learned friend has not grappled with it for an instant. We have here a
death of which the dread manifestations bore upon their face the
character of strychnia poisoning. Was the prisoner at the bar possessed
of that poison? Did he obtain it upon the eve of the death into which we
are inquiring? These are matters of fearful moment. They are matters
with which it behoved my learned friend, indeed, to have grappled with
all the vigour of which he was capable and with all the means that his
case afforded. But I grieve to say that this part of the case is left
untouched as regards the defence. Did the prisoner at the bar obtain
possession of strychnia on the Monday late? Did he get it again upon the
Tuesday morning? The fact of his having got it on the Monday night
rests, it is true, upon the evidence of an individual whose statement,
as I said to you at the outset, and as I repeat now, requires at your
hands the most careful and anxious attention before you adopt it easily.
Newton tells us that on that night when Mr. Palmer came back from
London, he came to him and obtained from him three grains of the poison
of which, supposing it had been administered, the symptoms and effect
both in life and death would have been precisely the same as those which
have been described in Cook’s case. Is Newton speaking the truth, or is
he not? It is open to observation--I said so from the beginning, and my
learned friend has done no more than reiterate the warning I gave
you--it is, I say, open to serious observation, that Newton never made
that statement until the day previous to the commencement of the trial.
He has explained to you the reasons which induced his silence. His
employer had been for a long time upon unpleasant terms with Palmer. The
young man, who knew him, however, and who appears to have been more or
less upon familiar terms with him, did not hesitate to give him the
three grains of strychnia. Palmer was a medical man, and strychnia is
often used by medical men. There was nothing extraordinary therefore at
that time of night, when chemists’ shops might be expected to be shut
up, that, upon Mr. Palmer’s coming to him for three grains of strychnia,
he gave them to him, and probably thought little more about it. But when
afterwards the question of the mode by which this man’s life had been
taken away became rife in Rugeley, and suspicions arose of strychnia,
and Roberts came forward and said that upon the Tuesday morning Mr.
Palmer had bought strychnia off him, and this young man was called to
confirm the circumstance of Mr. Palmer having been at the shop, he heard
that this question of strychnia was involved, and it began to occur to
him that it might seriously implicate him with his employer, might cast
even the shadow of doubt and suspicion upon himself, if he came forward
and voluntarily stated that he had supplied Palmer with the poison the
night before. Then he locked this secret in his breast. But when the eve
of the trial came, and he knew that he was to be subjected to
examination here, he felt a sort of oppression at having this secret
locked up in his breast, and he voluntarily came forward and made the
statement which he has repeated here. It is for you to say whether you
are satisfied with that explanation. It is unquestionably true that it
detracts from the otherwise perfect credibility which would attach to
his statement. But then, gentlemen, on the other hand, there is a
consideration which I cannot fail to press upon you. What possible
conceivable motive can this young man have, except a sense of truth, for
coming forward to make this statement? My learned friend, with justice
and with propriety, has asked for your most attentive consideration to
the question of motives involved in this case. Before you can charge a
man with having taken away the life of another by aforethought and
deliberate malice, it does become important to see whether there were
motives that could operate upon him to do so foul a deed. That does not
apply to this witness, for, even though the hideous crime of taking life
by poison is not perhaps so horrible to contemplate as the notion of
judicial murder effected by false witness against a man’s neighbour, can
you suppose that this young man can have the remotest shadow of a motive
for coming forward upon this occasion, under the solemn sanction of an
oath, in a Court of justice like this, to take away the life--for, alas!
if you believe his evidence, it must take away the life--of the prisoner
at the bar? If you believe that on the night of Monday, for no other
conceivable or assignable purpose except the deed of darkness which was
to be done that night upon the person of Mr. Cook, the prisoner at the
bar went to Newton and obtained from him the fatal and deadly instrument
whereby life was to be destroyed, it is impossible that you can come to
any other conclusion than that the prisoner is guilty, and that your
verdict must pronounce him so.

What says my learned friend? He says that Newton does not speak the
truth--first, because he did not come forward till the last minute; and,
secondly, because he lays the time of his communication with the
prisoner, and affording him the strychnia, at nine o’clock, and the
prisoner was not in Rugeley until ten.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Now, in the first place, I must remark upon this that the young man does
not say nine o’clock. He says, “about nine,” and every one knows how
easy it is to make a mistake as to time with reference to half an hour
or three-quarters of an hour, or even an hour, when your attention is
not till perhaps a week or a fortnight or three weeks afterwards called
to a particular circumstance. A man may be sitting working in his study
or his surgery, and have no clock before him, and have nothing
particular to impress upon his mind the precise hour of time at which a
certain transaction took place; and to say afterwards, when he comes to
speak to it under the sanction of an oath, that because he makes some
slight difference as to the time therefore he must be taken to be
speaking untruly, appears to my mind a most untenable and unsatisfactory
argument. It is due to my learned friend to say that he has sought to
meet this part of the case. He has produced to-day a witness of whom all
I can say is this, that I implore you, for the sake of justice, not to
allow the man who stands at the bar to be prejudiced by the evidence of
that most discreditable and unworthy witness who has been called to-day
on his behalf. I say that not to one word which that man has uttered
will you attach the slightest value. Before I come to him, however, I
must make this remark--that, if Newton could not be mistaken as to the
time, how is it possible that the prisoner could be mistaken as to the
time? Yet he clearly was. He told Dr. Bamford (and we have it from Dr.
Bamford himself) the next morning that he visited Cook between nine and
ten o’clock the night before. And now there comes a witness who tells us
that it was a quarter past ten that he had with him alighted from the
car that brought them from Stafford, and he could not till after that
have gone to visit Cook. My learned friend reminds me that it was ten
minutes past ten. Then he had to go to Cook. One of the maid-servants,
Lavinia Barnes, like every other witness, may be mistaken; but she
asserts that on that night, the Monday evening, Mr. Palmer came to the
hotel, and went to see Mr. Cook before nine o’clock. It is clear that
she must have been mistaken. It is clear that he could not have been
there much before ten. I am told that they get over in about an hour.
There was a carriage waiting for him, and he would come over to Rugeley
with as much rapidity as he could, which would not be before ten
o’clock. As to the fact of the witness pretending that he saw him alight
from the car, and that he went to Cook and stayed a certain time so as
to cover the whole evening, I ask you not to believe a single word, and
I do so because in my heart I do not believe a single word of it.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

It is a remarkable fact, which has not escaped your attention, I dare
say, that my learned friend did not open a single word of the testimony
that he was going to call. He said he hoped and thought he should be
able to cover that whole period at Rugeley. Did he tell us what the
witness was going to prove, that Jeremiah Smith had been upstairs in the
inn, and seen by some of the people at the inn going upstairs to Cook’s
room? No, he did not. If he had we should have had plenty of time
between that and this to ascertain how the fact stood, and I believe
have been ready to meet Mr. Jeremiah Smith with contradictory evidence.
It was well to follow that course when you were uncertain what your
witness would say, or what your case might be, because you might be met
and confronted by contradictory evidence. I need not say that any
evidence would have been better than the evidence of that miserable man
whom we saw exhibited to-day. Such a spectacle I never saw in my
recollection in a Court of justice. He calls himself a member of the
legal profession. I blush for it to number such a man upon its roll.
There was not one that heard him to-day that was not satisfied that that
man came here to tell a false tale. There cannot be a man who is not
convinced that he has been mixed up in many a villainy which, if not
perpetrated, had been attempted to be perpetrated in that quarter, and
he comes now to save, if he can, the life of his companion and his
friend--the son of the woman with whom he has had that intimacy which he
sought to-day in vain to disguise. I say, when you look at the whole of
those circumstances, balance the evidence on both sides, and look at the
question of whether Newton can by any possibility have any motive for
coming here to give evidence which must be fatal to a man who, if that
evidence be not true, he must believe to be an innocent man--when you
see that he can have no motive for such a purpose--to suppose that he
would do so without a motive is to suppose human nature in its worst and
most repulsive form to be one hundred times more wicked and perverse
than experience ever yet has found it--I cannot but submit to you that
you ought to believe that evidence, and I cannot but submit to you
deferentially, but at the same time firmly and emphatically, that if you
do believe that evidence it is conclusive of the case.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

But it does not stop there. On the morrow of that day we have the
clearest and most unquestioned evidence that Mr. Palmer bought more
strychnia. He went to Mr. Hawkins’ shop, and there purchased six grains
more, and the circumstances attending that purchase are peculiar in the
extreme. He comes to the shop, and he gives an order for prussic acid,
and, having got his prussic acid, he gives an order for strychnia.
Before the strychnia is put up, Newton, the same man, comes into the
shop. What does the prisoner do? He immediately takes Newton by the arm,
and says he has something particular to say to him, and takes him to the
door. What was it he had to say to him? Was it anything particular? Was
it anything of the slightest importance? Was it anything that might not
have been said in the presence of Roberts, who was putting up the
strychnia? Certainly not. It was to ask a most unimportant question,
namely, when young Mr. Salt was going to the farm which he had taken at
Sudbury. In that question there could be nothing which might not be put
in the presence of anybody, no matter who. He takes him to the door, and
then puts this question. At the same time a man of the name of
Brassington, a cooper, comes up, and Brassington had something to say to
Newton upon business, having some bills against Newton’s employer, Mr.
Salt. Upon that Brassington and Newton get into conversation at some
little distance from the door. The prisoner immediately takes advantage
of those two being in conversation, and he goes back and completes the
purchase of the strychnia. But while the strychnia was being made up he
stands in the doorway with his back to the shop, and his face to the
street, where he would have a perfect command of the persons of Newton
and Brassington, and where, if Newton had quitted Brassington to return
into the shop, the prisoner would at once have been in a position to
take every possible step for not letting Newton go in, by renewing the
conversation with him until the strychnia had been taken away. I ask
you, having this description of the transaction given to you by Roberts,
in the first place, confirmed by Newton afterwards, can you entertain
any reasonable doubt that the prisoner was desirous of not letting
Newton know that he was purchasing strychnia there? You can very well
understand that he would be desirous of keeping that fact from Newton,
because, if it be true that Newton had let him have three grains the
night before, Newton’s attention would be naturally immediately aroused
by so strange a circumstance, because nine grains of strychnia were
enough--three grains were enough--to kill three, perhaps six people.
What could a man want with nine grains of strychnia in so short a space
of time? It would attract Newton’s attention, and it did; for Newton
immediately went and asked what he wanted there, his attention being, in
the first place, directed, not so much to what he had come to purchase
as to the singularity of his coming there at all, because for two years
past the prisoner never bought an article of any sort or kind at the
shop of Mr. Hawkins. His former assistant, Mr. Thirlby, had two years
before set up in business as a chemist, and from that time, naturally
enough, Mr. Palmer had withdrawn his custom from Mr. Hawkins, and had
given it to his former assistant, Mr. Thirlby. It was a remarkable thing
that he should go to Mr. Hawkins’ shop upon this occasion to get
strychnia. Why did he not go to Mr. Thirlby? I will tell you. Mr.
Thirlby would have known perfectly well that he could have no legitimate
use for such an article. Mr. Thirlby had taken his practice. Mr. Palmer
was no longer in practice, except in the circle of his relatives and his
own immediate friends; and if he had gone to Mr. Thirlby for strychnia,
Mr. Thirlby would have said, naturally enough, “What are you going to do
with it?” and therefore he did not go to Mr. Thirlby. Why he should have
gone to purchase strychnia (I agree with my learned friend it is one of
the mysteries of this case) on two successive days I cannot tell; but
that he did is undeniably true; and if on the one hand some little
difficulty arises, on the other hand is not the difficulty infinitely
greater in accounting for the motive that induced him to go and get this
strychnia either on the Monday night or upon the Tuesday? If it was for
the purpose of professional use for the benefit of some patient for whom
small doses of strychnia might have been advantageous, where is the
patient, and why is he not produced? My learned friend did not even
advert to the question of the second purchase of strychnia in the whole
of his powerful observations. He passes it over in mysterious but
significant silence. Account for that six grains of strychnia, the
purchase of which is an undoubted and indisputable fact. Throw doubt if
you please--I blame you not for it--upon the story of the purchase on
the previous night; but on the Tuesday it is unquestionably true that
six grains of strychnia were purchased. Purchased for whom? purchased
for what? If for any patient, who is that patient? Produce him. If for
any other purpose, at least let us have it explained. Has there been the
slightest shadow of an attempt at explanation? Alas! I grieve to say,
none at all. Something was said, in the outset of this case, about some
dogs that had been troublesome in the paddocks where the mares and foals
were, but that proved to have been in September. If there had been any
recurrence of such a thing, where are the grooms who had the care and
charge of those mares and foals, and why are they not here to state the
fact? If this poison was used for the purpose of destroying dogs, some
one must have assisted Mr. Palmer in the attempts which he resorted to
for that purpose. Where are those persons? Why are they not called? But,
not only are they not called, they are not even named. My learned friend
does not venture to breathe even a suggestion of anything of the kind. I
ask, gentlemen, what conclusion can we draw from these things, except
one, and one alone? Death, with all the symptoms of strychnia--death in
all the convulsive agonies and throes which that fatal poison produces
in the frame of man--death with all the appearances which follow upon
death, and mark how that death has come to pass--all these things, in
the minds of those who can discuss and consider them with calm,
dispassionate attention, who do not mix themselves up as advocates,
partisans, or witnesses, leading to but one conclusion; and then the
fact of the strychnia being purchased by the prisoner on the morning of
the fatal day, if not obtained by him, as was sworn to, on the night
before, is left wholly uncovered and wholly unmet, without the shadow of
a defence. Alas! gentlemen, is it possible that we can come to any other
than one painful and dread conclusion? I protest I can suggest to you
none.

It is said by my learned friend, “Is it likely that Mr. Palmer should
have purchased strychnia at Rugeley when he might have got it in
London?” I admit the fact. I feel the force of the observation. If he
could have shown that he had done anything with this strychnia--if he
could have shown any legitimate purpose to which it was intended to be
applied, and to which it was afterwards applied--then I should say that
it would be an argument worthy of your gravest and most attentive
consideration. But just see on the one hand how the fact may stand. He
was in town on the Monday, and he had the opportunity, as my learned
friend suggests, of purchasing strychnia there. But on the other hand he
had much to do; he had his train to catch by a certain time; he had in
the meanwhile his pecuniary embarrassments to solve if he could. Time
may have flown too fast for him to be able to go and obtain this
strychnia; and even if he had had time, I do not believe it is sold in
chemists’ shops in London without the name of the party purchasing it as
a voucher. If he had given his name, of course, it would have been still
worse if he had bought strychnia in London than if he had bought it in
Rugeley. I do not say that it is not worthy of your consideration, that
it is not a difficulty in the case; but I say there is plain, distinct,
positive proof of the purchase of strychnia, and under circumstances
which cannot fail to lead to the conclusion that he shrank from the
observation of Newton at the time he was buying it; and there is a total
absence of all proof, nay, of all suggestion, of any legitimate purpose
to which that fatal poison was to be, or was in point of fact,
afterwards actually applied.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Then, gentlemen, it is said that there are two other circumstances in
the case which make strongly in favour of the prisoner, and negative the
presumption of a guilty intention, and those are, the fact that he
called in two medical men. Here, again, I admit that this is a matter to
which all due consideration ought to be given. He called in Dr. Bamford
on the Saturday, and he wrote to Mr. Jones on the Sunday, and desired
his presence to attend his sick friend. It is perfectly true that he
did. It is perfectly true, as medical men, they would be likely to know
the symptoms of poisoning by strychnia, and they would be likely to
suspect that death had ensued from it; and yet even here it strikes me
that there is a singular inconsistency in the defence. See the strange
contradiction in which the witnesses called for the defence involve my
learned friend who puts them forward, if all those symptoms were not the
symptoms of strychnia. If they are referable to all the multiform
variety of disease to which those witnesses have spoken, why, then,
should Mr. Palmer have the credit of having selected medical men who
would be likely to know from those symptoms that they were symptoms of
strychnia? I pass that by; it is not a matter of very much importance.
It is true that he did have those two medical men. He called in old Dr.
Bamford. I speak of that gentleman in terms of perfect respect; but I
think I do him no injustice if I say that the vigour of his intellect
and his power of observation have been impaired, as all human powers are
liable to be impaired, by the advancing hand of time. I do not think he
was a person likely to make very shrewd observations upon any symptoms
exhibited to him, either immediately after death or upon the subsequent
examination of the body; and the best proof of that is to be found in
that which he has actually done and written with reference to this case.
As regards Mr. Jones the same observation does not apply. He was a young
man in the full possession of his intellect and the professional
knowledge which he had acquired. Nevertheless, about him the
observations I am about to address to you I think are not unworthy of
notice. The prisoner at the bar selected his men well, for what has come
to pass shows how wisely he judged of what was likely to take place.
This death occurred in the presence of Mr. Jones, with all those fearful
symptoms which you have heard described; yet Mr. Jones suspected
nothing; and if Mr. Stevens had not exhibited that sagacity and firmness
which he did manifest in the after parts of this transaction, and if Mr.
Palmer had succeeded in getting that body hastily introduced into the
strong oak coffin that he had had made for it, the body would have been
consigned to the grave, and nobody would have been aught the wiser. The
presence of Mr. Jones, and the presence of Dr. Bamford, would not have
led to detection, would not have frustrated the designs with which I
shall presently contend before you this death was brought about.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

On the other hand, gentlemen, the matter is perhaps capable of this
aspect, it may have been that a man whose cunning was equal to his
boldness may have thought it the best course to adopt to avoid
suspicion--to prevent its possibility--was to take care that medical men
should be called in and should be present at the time of death; nor is
there anything to show that the prisoner had the most distant notion
that Mr. Jones intended to sleep in this room that night; and if he had
not the man would have been found dead in the morning; he would have
gone through his mortal struggle and intense and fearful agony; he would
have died there alone and unbefriended; he would have been found dead
the next morning; the old man would have said it was apoplexy, and the
young man would have put it down to epilepsy. If any one had whispered a
suspicion, the same argument would have been used which has been used
now with so much power and force by my learned friend. Can you imagine
that the man would have called in medical men to be the witnesses of a
death which he himself was bringing about? But, gentlemen, as I have
already said, if you believe the evidence of Newton, and if you believe
that that same night pills were administered to Cook by Palmer--and
that, I believe, will be your opinion and conclusion, notwithstanding
that wretched witness to-day said he heard Cook say to Palmer that he
had taken the pills already, because he, Palmer, was late, whereas the
woman witness, Mills, told you that the next morning Cook reminded her
that his agony was such as she never could have witnessed in any human
being, and he told her he ascribed it to the pills which Palmer had
given him at half-past ten--if you believe that statement, and that the
pills were given him by Palmer at half-past ten, and you find that
Palmer a few short minutes, perhaps, before went to Newton, and got the
poison from Newton, and you find upon that night the first paroxysms,
though not so violent and not fatal, yet similar and analogous in
character to those which preceded the death, can you doubt on the first
night the poison was administered to him? though with what purpose I
know not; I can only speculate--whether it was to bring about by some
minute dose convulsions which should not have the complete character of
tetanus, but would bear a resemblance to natural convulsions which
should justify his saying afterwards that the man had had a fit, and so
prepare those who should hear of it on the next night, when the death
was to ensue, for the belief that it was merely a succession of the same
description of fit that he had had before. That is one solution. The
other may be that he attempted on that Monday night to carry out his
fell purpose to its full extent, but that the poison proved
inefficacious. We hear that an adulterated form, or, at all events, an
inferior form, called bruchsia, is occasionally sold, and it may have
been that it failed in its effect. It is only one-tenth of the strength.
We know that he purchased poison on Tuesday, and that on that night Cook
died with all the symptoms of poison; and why he purchased that poison
is not in any way accounted for. The symptoms were the same on the
Tuesday night in character, though greater in degree, than they were on
the Monday; and there is found a witness who comes forward and says,
with no earthly motive to tell so foul a falsehood, “I found the
character of the convulsions the two succeeding nights the same.” I
cannot resist the conclusion to which my reasoning impels me that poison
was administered upon both nights, though it failed upon the first. I
can only speculate as to what was the cause of failure. There are the
facts, and you must deal with them.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Alas! gentlemen, it does not stop there; there is another part of this
case which, though it may not have been the means of death, is of the
highest value in estimating the credit that is to be given to the point
which we advance of this death having been produced by strychnia--I
allude to the antimony. We have had medical men and analytical chemists
who have told us a great deal about strychnia, but not one has said a
word about antimony. On the Wednesday night, at Shrewsbury, when Cook
drinks his glass of brandy and water he fancies there is something in it
that burns his throat; he exclaims at the time, and he is seized
immediately with vomiting, which lasts for several hours. On that same
night Mrs. Brookes sees the prisoner shaking something in a glass,
evidently dissolving something in fluid. A man has been called here
to-day, the boon companion, the chosen associate, the racing confederate
of the prisoner, to come and tell you that all that story is
untrue--that the woman never came down stairs--that Palmer never carried
out the brandy and water--that there is not a word of truth in it--and
the fact is that Palmer and Cook only came in at twelve o’clock, when
Myatt, forsooth, had been waiting for two hours. Mrs. Brookes’ story is,
according to him, an entire invention from beginning to end; he swears
that he must have seen if anything had been mixed with the brandy and
water, and nothing was mixed with it. I think you will be more disposed
to believe Mrs. Brookes than to believe any of those persons who were
the associates of the prisoner, and who had been partners in his
transactions. It is a remarkable fact that Cook drinks that brandy
and water and a few minutes after is taken ill. There were other
persons taken ill at Shrewsbury; it may be within the verge of
possibility--although ten minutes after he had drunk the brandy and
water he was taken with vomiting--that it was the same form of complaint
to which other persons were subject in Shrewsbury; I do not want to
press it one jot further than it ought to go, but it is a remarkable
circumstance that the man is seen with a glass and with a fluid which he
is mixing up and holding to the light, and shortly afterwards his friend
who is drinking with him or drinking at the same table at which he is
drinking, who, if Myatt be telling the truth, was somewhat in liquor,
and ought not to have been pressed to take brandy and water--Palmer
says that he will not take anything until Cook has exhausted his
portion--and then immediately afterwards the man is taken ill. These are
circumstances not altogether incapable of producing certain impressions
upon one which it is difficult to shake off.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Nevertheless, I pass on from that, and go to Rugeley. From the Saturday
morning until the Monday morning I find this poor man suffering under
the influence of constant vomiting; that was not the Shrewsbury
disease--he had got rid of it; he was well on Thursday and he was well
on Friday. On Saturday morning, after dining at Mr. Palmer’s, he is
taken ill; and then we have the fact of Mr. Palmer administering his
food, administering his remedies, sending over toast and water, sending
over broth; and, no sooner has this poor man taken those things than he
is seized with incessant vomitings of the most painful description. What
about the broth? The broth is said to-day by Smith to have been sent
from the Albion. Yes; and where does it find its way to? It is taken,
not to the Talbot Arms, but to the prisoner’s kitchen. After that,
instead of leaving it, as one would suppose he would leave it, to the
woman to take to the Talbot Arms, he takes it himself from the fire,
puts it into the cup, gives it to her, it is taken over, and the man
vomits immediately after he has drunk it. On the Sunday the same thing
is done again; the broth is brought from the same quarter, and attended
with the same results. Of that broth the woman takes a couple of
spoonfuls, and she is sick for several hours. She vomits twenty times,
and is unable to leave her bed for some hours. My learned friend said
she did not state that before the coroner. Nevertheless, it is sworn to
by the other servant that the woman was ill. I can quite understand why
the woman did not state it before the coroner. It shows the honesty of
the woman’s character. It did not occur to her to connect the sickness
from which she suffered with the taking of the broth; but afterwards,
when the story of the antimony came up, and Cook’s sickness was
connected with it, then she remembered perfectly well, after the
evidence had been given, how she, having taken the broth, immediately
became ill. The fact is not one capable of dispute, although it may be
that she did not mention it before the coroner. And I think you will
regard it as a very important and significant fact in the case, that, on
the Monday when Palmer is absent, Cook is better. On the Tuesday he
vomits again, though not in the same degree. But after death--now comes
the important fact--antimony is found in the tissues of that man’s body,
and his blood shows the presence of it; the blood shows distinctly that
it must have been taken recently, within the last eight-and-forty hours
previous to his death. How came it there? The small quantity that is
found does not form the slightest criterion of the quantity that had
been administered to him. Part of it, you know, would be thrown up by
the act of vomiting which it provokes; part of it would pass away in
other forms, but none would be there unless he had taken some. When did
he take it? If you find that he is suffering from vomiting for days
before his death--that a person is constantly administering things to
him, and after taking those things he vomits--when the prisoner sends
him over a basin of broth he vomits, and when the servant takes a couple
of spoonfuls she is reduced to the same condition--what other conclusion
can you come to, knowing that antimony is an irritant that will produce
vomiting and retching in the human system, than that the antimony must
have been administered to him by some one? By whom? Who but the prisoner
at the bar could have done it? My learned friend says Cook might have
taken antimony at some former time--that he might have taken James’
powder for a cold. There is not the slightest trace of evidence from the
beginning to the end of the case that he ever had a cold, or ever took
James’ powder over the whole period we are now ranging. Moreover, as I
have even now said, it was in his blood, it must have been administered
eight-and-forty hours before death; who could have administered it but
the prisoner at the bar? I ask you to form your own judgment upon that
matter, but I cannot resist the conclusion, it is irresistible. If so,
for what purpose was it administered; it is difficult to say with
anything like precision; one can only speculate upon it. It may have
been, however, to produce the appearance of natural disease, to account
for the calling in of medical men, and to account for the catastrophe
which was already in preparation; but it may also have had another and a
different object, and it is this--if we are right as to the motives
which impelled the prisoner at the bar to commit this great crime, it
was, at all events in part, that he might possess himself of the money
which Cook would have to realise upon the settling day at Tattersall’s
on Monday. If Cook went there himself the scheme was frustrated; Mr.
Cook intended to go there himself, and if he had done so the prisoner’s
designs would have failed of accomplishment. To make him ill at
Shrewsbury--to get him in consequence to go to Rugeley, instead of going
to London or anywhere else--to make him ill again and keep him ill at
Rugeley might be part of a cleverly contrived and organised scheme. It
might have been with one or other of those motives, it might have been
with both, that the antimony was administered, and so sickness produced,
but that the sickness was produced and that the antimony was afterwards
found in the body are incapable of dispute. Put them together and you
have cause and effect; and if you are satisfied that antimony was
introduced into that poor man’s body for the purpose of producing
vomiting and sickness, then, I say there is no one who could have given
it to him within that recent period but the prisoner at the bar. Neither
the doctor at Shrewsbury nor the doctor at Rugeley ever gave him one
fraction of antimony which had those natural effects which as a cause it
was certain to produce; then it will be for you to ask yourselves
whether it can have been with any other than a fell purpose and
design--with a view of paving the way for the more important act which
was afterwards to follow.

My learned friend has dealt with this case of antimony in no other way
than that which I have suggested, namely, casting out some loose,
floating, imaginary notion that at some period or other, for which no
precise date is given, he may have taken James’ powder for the purpose
of getting rid of a cold. Alas! gentlemen, I feel that so idle an
objection cannot stand between you and the conclusion which, I submit to
you, arises from the fact that this antimony was given to Mr. Cook with
a wicked design. If it was, just see the important influence which it
exercises upon the other question. If antimony was found--if antimony
can have been given with no legitimate object, and if it can only have
been given by the prisoner at the bar--how great does it render the
probability that to carry out the purpose, whatever it may be, that he
had in his mind, he gave him this strychnia, of which the deadly effects
and consequences have been but too plainly made manifest.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Then, gentlemen, let us take the conduct of the prisoner into
consideration in the after stages of the case, and also in one
remarkable particular--in an incident that took place on the day of the
death, on the evening of the preparation of the pills--and in his
conduct taken in all its circumstances I fear you will find but too
cogent proofs of his guilt. I begin with the Tuesday, the day of the
death. Mr. Cook had had what every one will admit to have been a most
severe fit on the night before. Dr. Bamford comes upon the Tuesday, but
not a word is said to him about it. He comes, and the prisoner is
solicitous that he shall not see Cook; and twice in the course of that
morning, when old Mr. Bamford is desirous of coming up to see the man,
the prisoner said, “He is tranquil and dozing; I wish him not to be
disturbed.” That may have been innocent, but on the other hand, if Dr.
Bamford had come at that time when the fit was fresh in Cook’s mind, the
probability is great that Cook would have told him what had happened the
night before. Cook does not see him till seven o’clock, when Mr. Jones
had arrived. One would have expected that, having been invited to come
by the prisoner, the first thing Mr. Palmer would have done would have
been to mention how he found him the night before. He talks of nothing
but about the bilious symptoms--bilious at Shrewsbury, bilious to Dr.
Bamford, and bilious to Mr. Jones; and thus he is represented throughout
by the prisoner at the bar, yet all this time the medical men agree in
saying that there was not a bilious symptom about him from beginning to
end; no feverish skin, no loaded tongue, and none of the concomitants of
a bilious condition. The moment Mr. Jones sees him, considering he had
heard that this man was suffering under a bilious affection, he says,
“That is not the tongue of a bilious patient.” The only answer he gets
is, “You should have seen it before.” When? When the man saw him at
Shrewsbury, or when Dr. Bamford saw him, they both found his tongue
perfectly clean; the irritation in the bowels was not the result of
natural action, but of the antimony; and not one single word does he say
to Mr. Jones of the fit that had taken place the night before. It is a
remarkable circumstance, when the three medical men are consulting at
the bedside, the patient says, “I will have no more pills--no more
medicine to-night,” intimating that his sufferings of the night before
he ascribed to the pills which he had taken. There is no observation
made by Mr. Palmer as to what had been the nature of the man’s attack
the night before, he having been called up in the dead of the night.
They go into an adjoining room to consult as to the best thing to be
done. The man had declared his aversion to taking any pills or medicine;
and Mr. Palmer immediately proposes that he shall take the same pills
that he took the night before. He says to Mr. Jones, “Do not tell him
the contents, because he has a strong objection to them.” It is arranged
to have the pills made up; he does not wait to have the pills sent by
Dr. Bamford, though it was early in the evening, but he accompanies Dr.
Bamford down to his surgery. I cannot for the life of me understand why
Dr. Bamford should have made up those pills at all. The prisoner had a
surgery of his own close by, and he could have made up the pills in two
minutes, he knew perfectly well their contents, instead of which he goes
down with Dr. Bamford to his surgery. One would have supposed it would
have been quite enough, as he was the person who every night
administered the pills to Cook, if Dr. Bamford put the pills in a box
and handed them over to Mr. Palmer, who knew what was to be done with
them, instead of which Mr. Palmer asks Dr. Bamford to write the
direction. He does write the direction, and then Mr. Palmer walks away
with the pills. An interval occurs of an hour or two, during which time
he had abundant opportunity of going home to his surgery and doing what
he pleased in the way of substituting other pills. He comes back, and
before he gives the pills he takes care to call the attention of Mr.
Jones, who was present, to the remarkable handwriting of the old
gentleman, Dr. Bamford, as being worthy of attention in a man of his
advanced age. What necessity was there for all that? Was not it, think
you, part of a scheme, that in case there should afterwards be any
question as to the cause of this man’s death, or the possibility of his
having had poison administered to him, he should be able to say to Mr.
Jones, “Why, you know they were Dr. Bamford’s pills. You were present at
the bedside of the deceased, you saw that I administered nothing except
pills, and you must be clear they were Dr. Bamford’s pills. Did not I
show you the address written, and call your attention to the excellence
of the handwriting?” Who knows but all that prevented the possibility of
suspicion being excited and presenting itself to the mind of Mr. Jones.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Now, any one of those circumstances in itself would not be such as I
could venture to submit to you as conclusive of the prisoner’s guilt,
but I ask your attention to a series of things following one upon the
other, which, at the same time, are of a most remarkable character, and,
taken as a whole, lead but to one conclusion. The death having taken
place (I am passing over for a moment other circumstances which have no
reference to the immediate cause of death, I shall come back to them in
another part of the case), we find the father-in-law comes down to
Rugeley upon the Friday. Let us see what the conduct of the prisoner is
then. The father-in-law applies to him for information on the subject of
his stepson’s affairs. I pass that over, because that, too, will come
under a different head; but having done so, and it appearing from the
representation which the father-in-law made that the man had died in
comparative poverty, something is said about his being buried. “Well,”
says Mr. Stevens, “rich or poor, poor fellow, he must be buried.” Mr.
Palmer immediately says, “If that is all, I will bury him myself.” “No,”
says the stepfather, and the brother interposes. Mr. Stevens says, “No,
I am his stepfather and his executor, and it is my place to bury him.”
Well, there is nothing in all that. Palmer may have said, with regard to
his friend, that he would see the last respect paid to his memory. But
there is this remarkable thing, when the stepfather says that nobody
shall bury him but himself, and makes the observation that perhaps it
will be inconvenient to the people at the inn to have him lying there
for two or three days, because he intended to have him buried in town,
so that the poor man might lie in the same grave with his
mother--immediately after this Palmer says, “There will be no harm in
that, he can stay as long as you like; but the body ought to be put in a
coffin immediately.” After that Mr. Stevens gets into conversation with
Dr. Bamford about his son-in-law, and while they are in conversation Mr.
Palmer slips away, goes out into the town, and comes back in about half
an hour, when Mr. Stevens asks him for the name of some undertaker in
order that he may go and give the undertaker directions about the
funeral, and he finds to his surprise that Mr. Palmer has gone out, and
has himself, without any authority, ordered a shell and a strong oak
coffin in order that the body may be immediately put away. This, again,
is a circumstance not unworthy of consideration. Why should he interfere
and meddle in a matter which did not concern him, and which it was the
business and province of another man to attend to, except this, that he
had made up his mind that that body should be consigned to its last
resting-place and removed from the sight of man with as much rapidity as
circumstances would permit of? You have heard what took place in the
course of conversation upon the subject of the betting book. I pass that
by for the present.

I now come to Saturday, when, returning from London, Mr. Stevens and Mr.
Palmer met in the railway train, and at the different stations when the
train stopped had conversations with one another; and it appeared at
that time Mr. Stevens had fully made up his mind to have the body
examined--there were circumstances which had engendered suspicion in his
mind; he had seen the attitude of the corpse; he had seen the clenched
hands; and, being a man of sagacity and shrewdness, upon putting things
together, there was a lurking suspicion in his mind that he could not
overcome, and he was determined that he would be satisfied, and he made
known his intention of having the body examined before it was consigned
to the grave. It is due to Mr. Palmer to say that he did not flinch from
the trying ordeal of Mr. Stevens’ scrutinising glance when he mentioned
the subject of post-mortem examination; he makes no objection to the
post-mortem examination; he is anxious to know who shall perform it, but
Mr. Stevens will not inform him of the fact. It is to take place, and it
is appointed to take place on the Monday. On the Sunday we have that
remarkable conversation to which Newton speaks, and which has been in
the possession of the Crown (it is not, like the other part of his
evidence, brought forward at the last moment) and in the possession of
my learned friend. It is true he did not state it before the coroner,
but the explanation is extremely easy. Before the coroner, Roberts was
the man who came forward to prove the purchase of strychnia, and vouched
Newton being there. Newton was immediately fetched, and his deposition
will be found immediately following that of Roberts; not for the purpose
of giving a general statement, but for the purpose of corroborating
Roberts, which he does. Hence it came to pass, in answering only the
questions which were put to him by the coroner, nothing was said upon
the subject of that Sunday’s conversation, but it was given immediately
afterwards to the Crown.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

I think you will not believe that Newton comes forward for the purpose
of making a false representation as to this conversation. What was the
conversation? He is sent for by Mr. Palmer to his house, and he is
treated with a glass of brandy and water, and when he has a glass of
brandy and water they get into general conversation, and then, I think,
the prisoner says, “How much strychnia would you give if you wanted to
kill a dog?” “Why, I should give from half a grain to a grain.” “Would
you expect to find any appearances in the stomach after death?” “No
inflammation or erosion, no appearances.” Upon which a sort of
half-uttered ejaculation comes from the prisoner. “That is all right,”
and a sort of action of the hands. Was that entirely an invention? Was
nothing said about a dog? Was nothing said about strychnia? Now, it may
have proceeded from two causes, if you believe the conversation. It may
have been that the prisoner was in a state of great anxiety when he
found the post-mortem examination was to take place, and he was anxious
to know whether the views of another medical man confirmed his own with
regard to the appearances in the body after death, where death had been
occasioned by strychnia. It may have been that he meditated some
trickery, some jugglery, that involved the real destruction of a dog,
which may have given rise to those questions which were suggested on the
part of the defence to one of the witnesses who were called; it may have
been that something was in contemplation to destroy or attempt to
destroy a dog, to account for the purchase of the strychnia, which he
knew was likely to be brought up in evidence against him, and which it
would be a difficult matter to explain. Whether any such attempt was
afterwards made I know not; I imagined that we were going to have some
evidence to that effect, from the questions that were asked, but no such
evidence has been afforded--not the slightest as to what purpose this
quantity of strychnia has been applied. It has not been found upon the
prisoner’s premises. What has become of it? I cannot solve precisely the
secret of that conversation. Like many other matters in this case, it
remains a mystery; but this I know, I can look at it in no aspect in
which it does not reflect light upon the guilt in which this transaction
is involved; if you can solve the difficulty, for heaven’s sake do, but
I can suggest to you no solution. From that man Newton, then, he got his
strychnia on the Monday night, and for that man he sends on the Sunday.
With that man he holds a conversation--was it with the view of leading
Newton to believe that it was for the purpose of killing a dog he had
got it? These are speculations and surmises, into which I do not deem it
necessary further to go. It will be for you to say whether you can
entertain any doubt upon all these facts, when they are before you, that
this death was occasioned by strychnia, and that that strychnia was
administered by the prisoner, either from what he obtained upon the
Monday night, or from that which, beyond the possibility of question, he
obtained upon the Tuesday, for which he has failed to account, and for
which, indeed, he has not attempted to account.

But, then, my learned friend says that the man had no motive to take
away the life of his friend, and it is right we should see how that
matter stands. Gentlemen, if, indeed, I have satisfied you, beyond the
reach of reasonable doubt, by the evidence I have adduced, and by the
failure on the part of the evidence for the defence to neutralise its
effect, that the death here was occasioned by strychnia--that the
strychnia could have been administered by no one, and, in fact, was
administered by no one, save Mr. Palmer--the question of motive becomes
a matter of secondary consideration. It is often difficult to dive into
the breasts of men, to understand the motives that have been working
there, and by those motives to account for their actions. Omniscience
alone can exercise that faculty and that power; and therefore, where
acts are proved against a man beyond the reach of reasonable doubt, it
is not because we may not be able to exercise a sufficiently
scrutinising power to ascertain the motives that we are to doubt the
facts, the existence of which is brought beyond the reach of reasonable
doubt; but nevertheless it is always an important element in a case, and
it is, above all, an important element in a case upon which any
reasonable doubt can by possibility rest, to see whether there was an
adequate motive to lead to the perpetration of the act which is charged.
On the other hand, gentlemen, we must not be too precise in weighing the
question of adequacy of motive; that which, to the good, would appear of
no influence, however remote or minute, in inducing them to commit
crime, oftentimes, with the wicked, is quite sufficient to impel them
into crime, and it may have been so here.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

But let us see, before I make any further observations upon that point,
how the matter stands upon the proof which is before us. I told you that
Mr. Palmer was a man in circumstances of the direst embarrassment, with
ruin actually staring him in the face, and that nothing could avert that
ruin save pecuniary means at once obtained for his purpose. The proof
which I have offered to you has fully come up to the proposition with
which I started. The fact has been proved beyond the possibility of
doubt. It appears that in the month of November, 1855, Mr. Palmer was in
this position. He owed upon bills, all of which were forged, the sum of
£19,000; he had bills to the amount of £12,500 standing in the hands of
Mr. Pratt; he had bills to the amount of £6500 standing in the hands of
Mr. Wright; and he had a bill for £2000 in the hands of Mr. Padwick.
Although it is true that £1000 upon that account had been paid off to
Mr. Pratt, yet the bills still remained for the full amount in Mr.
Pratt’s hands. Although £1000 had been paid to Mr. Padwick, he held a
warrant of attorney and a bill of sale upon the stud for the remaining
£1000. All those bills, without exception, were forgeries. A
correspondence took place between Mr. Pratt and himself with regard to
the £13,000 policy upon his brother’s death, through which he hoped to
liquidate Mr. Pratt’s demand; he had been disappointed of that money,
and upon the office declining to pay the money, as early as the middle
of October, Mr. Pratt gave him to understand, in the most distinct and
positive terms, that the bills must be met. Bills for £4000 were due, or
were coming due, at the end of that month--one upon the 25th for £2000,
and another upon the 27th for £2000. Bills already renewed were coming
due from month to month, and there was £5500 which it was necessary
immediately to provide for. Mr. Pratt gave him notice that he could give
him no longer delay, inasmuch as the office had resolved to dispute this
policy. It was no longer an existing valid security, and consequently
Mr. Pratt could not be a party to representing to his clients, with
whose money those bills had been discounted, that it was in any respect
a valid security, therefore the bills must be met.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

The matter was coming to a crisis; the bills must be paid at maturity;
he sends him up three small sums, first a sum of £300, and then two sums
of £250 each, making the sum of £800. Of that sum £200 was to come off
other bills to fall due in January, leaving only £600 applicable to the
principal. He is told at once that he must do a great deal more; he is
told, late in October, that unless he does a great deal more writs will
be issued against his mother and against himself, which would at once
bring the matter to a termination by showing that those bills were
forgeries. He entreats that time shall be given; he obtains this
concession from Mr. Pratt, that the writs shall not be served until a
given day, and he in the interval must make further payments on account
of the principal bill due. That being the state of things upon the 13th,
Mr. Pratt writes and presses him for further payment. On that day
“Polestar” won. Cook was, as you have heard, in an ecstasy of delight,
feeling that his difficulties were, at all events for a time, removed;
that he should now get through the winter and live happily till the next
racing season. He little thought what was about to take place. If this
accusation is well founded, the mare winning, and his being entitled to
a large sum of money, was the most fatal thing that could have befallen
him. Alas! how great is the shortsightedness of mortal man! When we
have the highest cause of joy and exultation, often while the sunshine
of our prosperity warms and gladdens our heart for a moment, there is
lurking beneath our feet a fatal abyss, into which we are about to fall.
This poor man, if this charge be true, might have been living now, had
it not been that upon that fatal day his mare won, and he became
entitled to a large sum of money, which afforded temptation to his
murderer.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Now, it becomes perfectly clear that at this moment matters were
approaching an immediate crisis. What was Mr. Palmer to do? He had no
source to which to turn for money. It is clear that he could not go to
his mother. I presume that source had long since been exhausted, or he
would not have forged her name. What was he to do if he could not get
money to satisfy Pratt’s demand? You know, although a moneylender is
considerate and indulgent enough as long as he is certain of his
payment, and gets his heavy usurious interest paid down on the nail, if
he once becomes doubtful of the security and uncertain of payment, you
may as well ask mercy of a rabid tiger, or you may as well ask pity of
stones, as hope to find bowels of compassion in him. Pratt gave him fair
warning that the money must be paid, or something must be paid by way of
instalment on the principal, and to keep the interest down. Where was
Mr. Palmer to get money from? My learned friend says Cook was his best
friend, and that Cook was the man he was to look to; and that as long as
he kept Cook alive he had a friend in need to whom he could resort for
assistance. In what way? Was Cook to give acceptances to Pratt? Is
anybody weak enough to suppose that Pratt would have taken Cook’s
acceptances to keep those bills alive, unless there was a part payment
of the principal and interest? It is quite clear that he would not. When
even for the sum of £500 he was asked to take Cook’s security, he
refused to do so, unless there was the collateral security of an
assignment of his horses. Cook had assigned to him all the property he
possessed. All that Cook had in the world was his winnings upon that
day’s race at Shrewsbury, and what little money he may have obtained by
his winnings at the races at Worcester. If you believe the witness
Myatt, those winnings were exhausted, and therefore this man had nothing
except his winnings at the Shrewsbury races; and you are asked by my
learned friend to believe that it would have been of use to Palmer to
keep this man alive. The reverse is proved by the evidence. With Pratt
his personal security would have been unavailing. Pratt tells you that
he would not take anything from him unless it was the real security of
an assignment of his horses or other property. Just see the interest
which Palmer had in securing all Cook’s effects. My learned friend says
they were mixed up together in transactions in which they had a joint
and common interest--they were confederates upon the turf and had joint
bets together. Yes; but one man putting another on does not mean that
when A puts B on and says we are likely to make a good thing, and we
will share it, that B is to pay A’s losings if they do not win. They
might be confederates on the turf, but that did not make Cook
responsible for Palmer’s liabilities. Does any one suppose that Cook
intended to find the means to enable Palmer to meet Pratt’s insatiable
demands, to stave off the difficulties in that quarter? Was Cook to
deprive himself of his winnings, and leave himself without money, for
the benefit of his friend? That is the proposition, for the whole of
which my learned friend must contend before you before he can establish
anything like a case to show that if Cook had lived it would have been
better for Palmer than that he should die. My learned friend says there
is proof that they were mixed up closely together to be found in this,
that Cook writes to his agent, Fisher, and says to Fisher, writing on
the Friday after he had dined with Palmer, “There is a matter which is
of importance to Palmer and to me, that £500 should be paid to Mr. Pratt
to-morrow; £300 has been sent down to-night, and I request you will be
so good as to pay Mr. Pratt £200 to-morrow on my account, and charge it
to me.” My learned friend thought that that transaction would be
favourable to his client, and he put it prominently forward. To my mind
he could have adduced nothing more fatal. The explanation of it is to me
as clear as the sun at noonday. Cook had brought with him some £600 or
£700; at least at Shrewsbury he was seen by Fisher with a roll of notes
amounting to some £700 or £800. On the same evening the parties came to
Rugeley, when he had not had time to spend the money. He speaks of a
£500 transaction, in which he and Palmer have a joint interest. There is
only that one transaction with Pratt in which they had a common
interest, that was the £500 raised by the assignment of “Polestar,” and
a bill, of which we say Cook never got the proceeds; and he says,
writing on that night to Fisher, “£300 have been sent up to-night, and I
will be obliged to you to pay the other £200 to make up the whole.” No
£300 were ever sent up that night. Mr. Pratt has given an account of the
whole transaction. £300 were to be sent that night; by whom were they to
be sent? Can you doubt? Where is all Cook’s money gone? I can quite
understand that he handed over £300 to Palmer to send up to Pratt, and
directed Fisher to pay another £200. What followed in respect to the
joint transaction? What was the joint transaction? they never had but
one, and that was for £500. What was it? Why, it was the money which had
been got by the assignment of “Polestar” and “Sirius”; “Polestar” had
just won at Shrewsbury--it was natural that the man should desire to
redeem his mare; moreover, the bill was coming due; he had the cash in
his pocket, and he knew that he was going to receive money at
Tattersall’s, which he never did; and he says, “£300 will be sent up
to-night.” It is the only matter in which they have a common interest,
not only as to the £500, but in any respect; Pratt had no other dealing
whatever with them jointly or with Cook, if we except the bill for
£500--what does it show? It shows that £300 had been sent for the
purpose--he sends up £300, but how is it applied? Pause for a moment;
the £300 is not sent up, Palmer keeps it in his pocket; what is done
with the other £200? Is it carried to the account of the matter in which
they had joint interest with Pratt? No such thing; it goes as part of
the payment made by Palmer to Pratt on account of the bills which Pratt
then held--it never went to any matter of joint interest--it is an idle
and false pretence to say that Cook was in any way responsible to Pratt;
it may have been the intention of Palmer when Cook should be no more to
represent him as so, but there is no foundation in reality and in fact
for the statement. I say the transaction of the £500, so far from
helping the prisoner’s case, shows conclusively that the £200 advanced
by Fisher, and the £300 to be sent up that night to satisfy this bill
for £500, and the assignment to release “Polestar” and “Sirius,” was
£500 more taken from this young man and appropriated by the prisoner to
his own use.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

But the matter does not rest there--would it did. I come now to the
transaction of the Monday, and I find £1020 of Cook’s money applied to
the prisoner’s use. He goes up to London; he had ascertained by some
means or other the amount that Cook was entitled to receive on the
Monday--possibly Cook had told him; Fisher was Cook’s agent, and the
probability is that Cook desired the prisoner to hand an account of his
bets which he had won to Fisher, who would go and settle with the
parties at Tattersall’s; Fisher would have to pay himself back the £200;
we know that he intended his accounts should pass through Fisher,
because he asked Fisher to advance the £200 upon the credit of it; but
it is suggested that under the guidance of Palmer he now meditated a
fraud, and that he intended to pass his account through Mr. Herring, in
order to avoid paying Fisher the £200 for a time. Is it charitable to
Mr. Cook to ascribe to him a fraud of this description, which, so far as
we know, he was not in the habit of doing? I ask you this question as
reasonable men, supposing he had disposed of his ready money, and we
find none left--that he had given the prisoner £300 to send up, you
cannot suppose that this man who had nothing of his fortune left, who
sees ruin staring him in the face--he was not a ruined man as long as he
had this money, but having parted with this money he was a ruined
man--you cannot suppose that he intended to deprive himself of the whole
of the money that he had won, to leave himself destitute and naked for
the coming winter; the thing is out of the question--besides, if the
prisoner’s representation is true which he made to Mr. Cheshire, that he
had got the genuine cheque of this man for very nearly the amount,
through his agents, Messrs. Wetherby, of the stakes at Shrewsbury, you
are asked to believe on the one hand that he had given him his ready
money, and on the other hand that he had given him a cheque to receive
of Messrs. Wetherby, and that he had given him £1020, which constituted
absolutely the whole that the poor man possessed--you are asked to
believe that he hands it over to the prisoner to go and dispose of as he
pleases--that is my learned friend’s proposition, but I do not think you
will adopt it.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Then, if that be not so, what does the prisoner do? He goes to London,
but does not go to Fisher, who was the agent of Cook, who would, in the
first place, have paid himself back the £200, and, in the second place,
would not have paid the sums which he received except upon Cook’s
authority and instruction, but would have sent the money to Cook, or
have paid it upon Cook’s written direction as to what was to be done
with it. He takes the account, therefore, to a comparative stranger, who
never had acted for Mr. Cook before, feeling that that stranger would
have no hesitation or repugnance in paying the money according to the
direction of the man from whom he had the direction to receive it,
supposing that both emanated from Mr. Cook, the person interested in the
money. Accordingly he says to Mr. Herring, “Here is a list of bets which
Cook will be entitled to be paid at Tattersall’s; they are so much, you
dispose of it in this way; pay yourself £200”; it being the fact that
Mr. Cook and the prisoner had before raised the sum, I think, of £600;
£200 had been raised by Mr. Cook on his acceptance, and £400 had been
raised on the acceptance of the prisoner. Mr. Cook’s portion had been
paid off, but that of the prisoner remained unpaid. Palmer says to Mr.
Herring, “Pay yourself £200, then go to Pratt’s and pay him £450; then
go to Padwick and pay him £350.” Now, it is perfectly clear that the
£450 was a debt due from Palmer to Pratt, and it is untrue that Cook had
anything to do with it. The debt of £350 to Padwick was for some bet,
and although it is not proved, I have reason to believe that the minor
part of it was a debt of Cook’s, but the larger part was a debt of
Palmer’s upon a matter in which they stood in together. There is
evidence that Mr. Palmer treated the debt due to Padwick as his. He
says, “I will pay you my bet of £350 at such a time.” I am giving him
credit for what I believe was the fact, that a part of it was Cook’s.
Why was Cook’s debt paid then? There was a warrant of attorney in the
hands of Mr. Padwick, and Mr. Padwick was getting impatient for his
£1000, and if this bet had not been paid to Mr. Padwick, Mr. Padwick
would have resented the non-payment of the debt of honour which he had
no means of enforcing, and would have come down upon Mr. Palmer, no
doubt, at a very early period in respect of the £1000 due upon the bill
dishonoured twelve months before. Exactly that came to pass--in
consequence of Mr. Herring not receiving the whole of the money, he was
not able to pay Mr. Padwick, and the result was that Mr. Padwick put the
process of the law in motion against the prisoner on that bill, and
brought an action against his mother. The bill for £1000 was the bill of
Mr. Palmer, upon which Mr. Cook was not primarily liable. I say here was
a distinct interest which the prisoner had to appropriate this money to
himself, because it was the means for the moment, and the only means he
could resort to, of staving off the evil hour which was rapidly
approaching. The degree of difficulty in which he was placed must not be
measured simply by the amount of his pecuniary liabilities. It was not
merely that he had these large bills upon which at any moment process
might be issued, but he had made his mother answerable for those bills,
and the moment the first of them was put in motion in the Courts the
fraud and forgery would come to light, and he would be exposed not
merely to the consequences of his inability to pay his debts, but to the
consequences of the law which he had violated. The former might have
been got rid of in the Insolvent Court or the Bankruptcy Court, but the
crime of forgery could not have been got rid of; for that he would have
to answer at the bar of a Court of criminal justice, and would have
incurred the penalty of transportation, or of penal servitude in an
aggravated form. But there is a further sum besides the £1000; he
appropriated a further sum of £350, which was to be got from Messrs.
Wetherby. It is said that he got a genuine cheque from Cook to entitle
him to receive that money, but it is not for a moment suggested what
induced Cook to give it to him. Was it a genuine cheque? That matter
might have been solved by its production. It is not produced; yet it is
quite clear that it was returned to the prisoner’s hands by Messrs.
Wetherby when they could not get the money. It is quite clear that it
was of great importance to him to get the money, because there was £100
to be paid to Pratt, which must be paid in order to stave off the evil
day upon the bill of £1500, which was due on the 9th of November. Where
is that cheque? If it had been produced we could have seen whether it
was a genuine cheque or not. It is not forthcoming. What are the
circumstances under which he presents that cheque to Mr. Cheshire? He
goes to Mr. Cheshire upon the Tuesday, and, having shown the cheque to
Mr. Cheshire, he asks Mr. Cheshire to be so good as to fill up the body
of it. I suppose he saw some manifestation of surprise in Mr. Cheshire,
and he said, “Cook, poor fellow, is ill, and I am apprehensive if I fill
up the body of the cheque Wetherbys will know my handwriting.” Why
should not they know his handwriting? What objection was there, if the
cheque was genuine, and if the transaction was an honest one, to Messrs.
Wetherby knowing that the handwriting was his? Does not it pretty
plainly indicate that there was some fraud going on which he was afraid
might be detected? Why, in heaven’s name, should he send for Cheshire?
He had to send for Cheshire from the post office when Cheshire was
busily engaged in the business of the evening, at seven o’clock in the
evening. Just about that same period, a little before or a little after,
as the case may be, he had to meet Dr. Bamford and Mr. Jones in
consultation as to Cook’s case. Mr. Jones was his intimate friend--the
trusty friend that came over that afternoon. If poor Cook intended to
give him the cheque, and was at the same time so ill that he could not
write, why not have said to Mr. Jones, “Jones, I do not want to bother
Cook to fill up this cheque, fill it up in my favour for £350, and we
will get Cook to sign it?” Why should he send to the post office to get
Cheshire down to his house, alleging at the time that he was
apprehensive that if he filled it up his own handwriting might be known.
Does not that transaction bear fraud upon the face of it? On the other
hand, it may be a genuine cheque; but, I ask again, where is it? Between
the time when these matters were called in question and the time when
Mr. Palmer was finally arrested, not upon the criminal but upon the
civil process, which came down unluckily for him before the coroner’s
inquest, which secured his bodily presence to answer not only the
pecuniary matters but these charges, in the interval he had undisturbed
possession of his own papers. From the moment when that freedom of
action and possession ceased, we have traced the possession of the
papers; and it is clear that at the time those papers were taken
possession of that cheque was not amongst them; it is clear that the
prisoner, who had possession of it, must have dealt with it in some
manner. What has become of it? Why is it not produced? Can you help
drawing the inference from its non-production that there is something in
the transaction that will not bear the light? It is clear that he
intended to get possession of the £350, which ought to have been given
to Cook, upon false pretences. He had not a farthing himself, for when
he went to Shrewsbury races he borrowed £25. As I have shown, a person
made a bet for him upon the races, and, having won £200, pressed him for
the debt, but could not get another shilling from him. I show you that
he comes back to Rugeley, and is from that moment in the possession of
money. Where could he have got that money? It is clear that he must have
got it from Cook, who had not any left himself; it is clear that he had
all that money to the extent of £350, probably much more, and besides
that he gets £1020 as the proceeds of the betting at Tattersall’s, and
he attempts to get, but does not get, £375, which ought to have been
paid into Messrs. Wetherbys’ hands. This was the whole of the worldly
possessions, the whole sum of the wealth of this poor young man.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

But he is not satisfied with that--it is clear that he meditated another
fraud of a different description. On the Friday, almost as soon as the
breath is out of the man’s body, he intimates that he has a claim upon
him for £3000 or £4000 in respect of bills which had his (Palmer’s) name
or acceptance upon them, but which, in fact, had been negotiated for
Cook’s purposes. He tells the same story to the father-in-law, but it is
as clear as the sun at noonday that he endeavoured to fabricate an
instrument to give a show of colour to those representations. He goes on
the Thursday or the Friday to Mr. Cheshire, and brings to him a document
which he asks him to attest, that document bearing the signature “J. P.
Cook.” The man having left the body, and living only in the spirit
eight-and-forty hours before that signature had been brought to be
attested, who can fail to see that here was some great fraud and design
meditated? What was the document? It was a document which purported to
be an acknowledgment from Cook that certain large bills which had been
negotiated were for Cook’s benefit, and for Cook’s benefit alone, and
that he (Palmer) had had no part of the proceeds. Now, there are no such
bills in existence. We have exhausted the bills pretty well, I think,
and none such are proved to exist; but if there be any such bills in
existence, who would know it better than the prisoner at the bar? He
could have no difficulty in satisfying you of the fact, and of removing
this great stumbling-block in the way of his defence; but he produces
this document; and on the same day, the day that followed this poor
man’s death, he writes to Pratt, and says, “Mind, I must have ‘Polestar’
if it can be arranged.” What was this scheme? Having got every shilling
of the man’s money, his purpose was to secure the little property that
remained in “Polestar,” the value of which he may perhaps to himself
have considerably exaggerated. The mare had just won, and she might be
supposed to be worth more than she had been, or he had in view
speculating at other races to bring about results of benefit to himself.
Further, he may have intended to pay out of Cook’s estate some of those
bills, under the pretence that Cook had had the money for them. For all
these purposes, from the beginning to the end, it was necessary that
Cook should be put on one side. Then with this document in his hand he
goes to Cheshire, and he asks Cheshire to attest the signature of a man
who was then dead. If Cheshire had had the weakness and wickedness to
comply he would have had him in his power; and the next thing would have
been that he would have brought him trembling and reluctant into the
witness-box of some Court of justice to swear to the fact that he had
seen the dead man put his signature to that piece of paper. But it may
be suggested that, after all, the document was a genuine one, and that
the signature was not a forgery. Then produce it and we can judge. Here,
again, I point out, and there is no escape from it, that the papers of
the prisoner were in his possession till the time of his arrest, and
they have been taken care of since then, and are here one and all,
either to be answered for or produced in his presence, or they have been
handed over to his brother. Who would not fail to notice that this paper
has never been found or asked for? Who can doubt that that paper brought
to Cheshire remained in the possession of the prisoner? Who can doubt
that it is either destroyed or is purposely withheld? Under these
circumstances who can doubt that in it is to be found proof of some
meditated act--of some vast design of a fraudulent and flagitious
character, for the full completion of which the death of Cook was a
necessary thing?

Now, gentlemen, I have gone through that part of the case which relates
to the motives of the prisoner, and it will be for you to say whether
you are satisfied that this was a death by strychnia--that the prisoner
was in possession of strychnia--that he had access to the dead man’s
bedside, and that he administered pills to him at a period short enough
to be capable of being connected with the catastrophe that afterwards
happened; and it will be for you to say whether you do not find that the
state of things with reference to pecuniary matters to which I have been
just alluding is sufficient to account for the act which is ascribed to
the prisoner.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

But there is another part of his conduct as throwing light upon this
matter to which I cannot fail to refer. What has become of Cook’s
betting book? What has been the conduct and the language of the prisoner
with reference to it? On the night when Cook died, ere the breath had
hardly passed from that poor man’s body, the prisoner at the bar was
rummaging his pockets and searching under his pillow. That may have
been for a perfectly legitimate purpose. But let us see what takes
place. He calls to Mr. Jones, and he tells Mr. Jones that it is his
duty, as the nearest friend of the dead man, to take possession of his
effects, and Mr. Jones does take possession of his watch, and
afterwards, at the suggestion of the prisoner, of his rings. At the same
time Mr. Jones asks for the betting book. My learned friend endeavoured
to explain away this most awkward part of the case by saying, “There
were other persons who had access to the place. The undertaker came
there with his men, the women came to lay out the dead body, and the
servants were there; any one of those might have stolen the book.” But
all this is met by the fact that, on that same night, before the women
had had anything to do in the room--before they came to lay out the
corpse--before anybody made their appearance--that very night, when Mr.
Jones is seeking to gather up the effects of the dead man, he asks for
the book. What is the answer? “Oh,” says Palmer, adopting the language
which he afterwards repeated, “the betting book will be of no use to any
one.” Does anybody doubt in his own mind where that betting book had
gone to? The father-in-law came down on the Friday, and he begins to
discourse about the affair, and he is not satisfied with the answers he
gets. The day passes away. He says to Mr. Jones, “Be so good as to
collect my son-in-law’s betting book and papers and bring them away.”
Mr. Jones goes upstairs; he is immediately followed by the prisoner--up
they go, but there is no betting book to be found. Down comes Mr. Jones,
and says to Mr. Stevens, “We cannot find the betting book.” “Not find
the betting book! surely you must be mistaken”; and, turning round, he
says, “Why, Mr. Palmer, how is this?” Upon which Mr. Palmer says, “Oh,
the betting book is of no use.” “No use! I am the best judge of that. I
think it will be of a good deal of use.” The observation is again
repeated, “It is of no use.” Mr. Stevens said, “Why?” “Because a dead
man’s bets are void, and because he received the money himself upon the
course at Shrewsbury.” A dead man’s bets are void! Yes, that is true;
they are void, but not when they have been received in his lifetime. Who
received the dead man’s bets? The prisoner at the bar. Who appropriated
the proceeds of the dead man’s bets? The prisoner at the bar. Who was
answerable for them? The prisoner at the bar. Who had an interest in
concealing the fact that he had received them? He had. What was the best
mode of doing it? The destruction of the betting book. What was the best
mode of calming the determination of the man who was the executor of the
dead man, when he wanted to know what he was entitled to receive and
what he had received, and to see the record of his pecuniary
transactions? Why, to tell him that the record, even if found, would be
of no use, for a dead man was not entitled to any bets, he having died
before they were received--yet at that very moment he had received the
proceeds of the bets which he was representing as void, and was applying
the proceeds to his own purpose. Does not that throw light upon the real
nature of the transaction? What possible motive could he have for
representing that the bets were void, having himself received them,
unless he knew that he had received them fraudulently and wrongfully?
See what would have taken place if the truth had come out. Mr. Stevens,
if he had seen that book, would have seen that his stepson was entitled
to receive £1020. He would have inquired who was his agent, to see
whether by any possibility those debts could be realised; he would have
learned what everybody knew, at least that portion of the turfites with
whom Cook was in the habit of communicating, that Fisher was his agent.
Fisher would have told him, “I ought to have received the money to repay
myself £200, but Mr. Herring received the money.” He would have gone to
Mr. Herring, and he would have found that every shilling of the money
found its way into the prisoner’s pocket, and was appropriated for his
own purposes. How was all this to be done? By the removal of Cook, and
then by the destruction of the only record which could have afforded to
his representative, who was entitled to stand in his place and realise
his pecuniary rights, the information of the money having been received
by a wrongdoer, by a man who had no right to it. Gentlemen, I submit
these things to your consideration, but I submit them to you as leading,
unhappily, but to one conclusion, and that the conclusion of the
prisoner’s guilt.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

But, gentlemen, the matter does not even rest here; there is more of the
prisoner’s conduct yet to be commented upon, on which I must say a few
words before I conclude. Mr. Stevens determined upon having a
post-mortem examination. Let us watch the conduct of the prisoner in
respect of that most important part of the history of this case. Dr.
Harland comes over to perform this most important office; the prisoner
is on the watch to see who comes; he meets him as he alights at the inn;
he accompanies him to Dr. Bamford’s; they get into conversation about
this death, and Dr. Harland says, naturally enough, speaking to a
brother medical man who he supposed had been attendant upon the patient,
“What is this case? I hear there is a suspicion of poisoning.” “Oh, no,”
says Palmer, “not at all; no suspicion of poisoning; the man had two
epileptic fits upon the Monday and Tuesday, and you will find old
disease, both of the head and of the heart.” Well, there was no disease
found of the head or of the heart, unless that very wise gentleman, whom
I should have liked to have asked a few questions of to-day, was right
about his story of angina pectoris, which I doubt was ever accompanied
by tetanic symptoms in this world, or that any other man in the universe
would declare that it was. “You will find disease of the head and the
heart.” They opened him, and found neither. He said, “He had two
epileptic fits on the Monday and Tuesday.” That very same man the day
before had gone to Dr. Bamford, and asked Dr. Bamford to fill up the
certificate, and Dr. Bamford said naturally enough, “He is your patient,
not mine; I have only attended him at your request.” “No, I would rather
you did.” He gets Dr. Bamford to fill in “apoplexy”; the next day he
tells Dr. Harland that it is a case of epilepsy. This is not an ordinary
individual, but a medical man, possessing full knowledge and information
with regard to medical matters. However, the post-mortem examination
took place; before they go to it there is some conversation with Newton
which I will not again more particularly refer to; it is not
satisfactory, nor does it show the state of mind in which you would
expect to find a man whose friend had just died, from the way in which
he speaks of the examination about to take place. Let us come to the
examination itself. The stomach and its contents are, as we understood,
removed; there is some story about his having pushed against the parties
who were performing the examination; I think that is carrying the matter
too far; it may have been an accident, and we will look at it in that
light; at last the stomach, we say without its contents, and a portion
of the intestines are put into a jar, and the jar is fastened with a
parchment covering doubled over it; it is tied and sealed, and then it
is placed upon a table while the post-mortem examination, with reference
to other parts of the body, is made. Dr. Harland has this done; when Dr.
Harland turns round he finds the jar removed; he immediately makes an
outcry, and then at the other end of a long room, and at a door which
was not the proper entrance, but a door which led into a different
apartment, which apartment led into the passage, the prisoner was found
with the jar in his hand, and when Dr. Harland exclaims, he says, “I
thought it would have been more convenient to you when you were going
out.” That might have been his motive, though it was an awkward
circumstance that the jar containing the stomach should be in the hands
of the man against whom there rested a suspicion of having deprived the
deceased of life by unfair means. That is not all; two slits were found
in the parchment cover when it was tied and sealed up; who could have
made them except the prisoner? What did he do it for? There, again, we
are lost in conjecture, but the only conclusion at which we can arrive
is against the honesty of the purpose and the integrity of the
transaction; whether it may have been for the purpose of introducing
something which might be capable of neutralising the poison, I cannot
tell you; all I know is the fact, and it is a fact of very significant
importance in the consideration of the case.

It does not end there--we find that he is restless and uneasy as to what
is going to be done with the jar, and objects to its being taken away;
he remonstrates with Dr. Bamford at letting it go away, as if Dr.
Bamford had any interest in the matter, and as if any one would suspect
Dr. Bamford of having had any hand in the taking off of this poor man.
The jar is taken away, and then that occurred which must have made a
painful impression upon all who heard it in this Court--then comes the
story of his going to the post boy, and asking him to upset the carriage
which was conveying those who had possession of the jar to Stafford or
London, for the purpose of its contents being analysed. My learned
friend sought to give a comparatively innocent complexion to this
transaction; he says that this bribe of £10 to upset the carriage arose
simply out of resentment against the officious stepfather who had dared
to interfere in this matter--to insist upon a searching
investigation--he had been guilty, my learned friend says, in return for
the civility, courtesy, and kindness with which he had been treated by
the prisoner, of “prying, meddling, insolent curiosity.” A man who had
seen his poor stepson, to whom he was tenderly attached, lying dead
under circumstances which raised in his mind a suspicion--and I think I
am fully justified, at all events, whatever may be the result of this
inquiry, in saying that the very inquiry we are now upon--the gravity
and importance of it--at least fully justify Mr. Stevens in the
suspicions which he entertained for having insisted upon the inquiry,
and that ought to have protected him against the suggestion of “insolent
curiosity.” It was known that Mr. Stevens insisted upon inquiry--was it
a reasonable motive operating upon this man’s mind that it should
occasion such a sense of resentment and anger that he should desire the
destruction or mutilation of this man, and offer £10 to the post boy to
upset him upon the road? I believe the other to have been the true
version--if you upset him you may break the jar, and then the contents
never could be found, and there would be no danger of strychnia being
discovered.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

But it does not stop even there; the inquiry takes place, and the
post-mortem examination having been made, a coroner’s inquest is
insisted upon and becomes inevitable, and then we have the prisoner
seeking to tamper with the administration of a most important office;
sending presents to the coroner at the time the inquest was sitting;
presents, unquestionably, of game and things of that description, and if
the evidence does not very much mislead us a present of money also. For
what purpose was all that done? We find him, with uneasy restlessness,
obtaining through Cheshire information of what is taking place between
the professional man who was employed to analyse the contents of the
stomach and the attorney at Rugeley who was instructed on behalf of Mr.
Stevens; is that the conduct of innocence or of guilt? Why should he be
desirous of knowing whether strychnia, above all other things, should be
found in the intestines of the deceased? Let me call your attention to
the letter which he writes to the coroner--“I am sorry to tell you that
I am still confined to my bed; I do not think it was mentioned at the
inquest yesterday that Cook was taken ill on Sunday and on Monday night
in the same way that he was on Tuesday night when he died; the
chambermaid at the Crown Hotel can prove this; I believe a man of the
name of Fisher is coming down to prove that he received some money at
Shrewsbury; now, here he can only pay Smith £10 out of £41 he owed him.
“Does he tell what had become of the rest of the money that the man had
at Shrewsbury? “Had you not better call Smith,” that is, Mr. Jeremiah
Smith whom we saw here to-day, “to prove this?” What a witness Jeremiah
Smith would have been in the hands of the coroner, Mr. Ward, the
friendly coroner of Staffordshire! And, again, “Whatever Professor
Taylor may say to-morrow, he wrote from London last Tuesday night to
Gardner to say, we (that is, Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees) have this day
finished our analysis, and find no traces of either strychnia, prussic
acid, or opium; what can beat this from a man like Taylor, if he says
what he has already said of Dr. Harland’s evidence? Mind you, I know it,
I saw in black and white what Taylor said to Gardner; but this is
strictly private and confidential, but it is true. As regards his
betting book, I know nothing of it, and it is of no good to any one”;
the repetition of the same story. “I hope the verdict to-morrow will be
that he died of natural causes, and thus end it”; but the verdict was
not so, and it did not end it; and it is for you to say whether upon a
review of the whole of this evidence you can come to any other
conclusion than that of the prisoner’s guilt. Look at his restless
anxiety; it may possibly, it is true, be compatible with innocence, but
I think on the other hand it must be admitted that it bears strongly the
aspect of guilt; if it stood alone, I would not ask you upon that to
come to a conclusion adverse to the prisoner, but it is one of a series
of things, small perhaps, each individually in themselves, but, taken as
a whole, as I submit to you, leading irresistibly to the conclusion of
the guilt of this man.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

Now, gentlemen, the whole case is before you. It will be for you to
determine it. You have, on the one hand, a man overwhelmed by a pressure
almost unparalleled and unexampled of pecuniary liabilities which he is
utterly unable to meet involving the penalties of the law, which must
bring disaster and ruin upon him. His only mode of averting those
consequences is by obtaining money; and, under those circumstances, with
a bad man, a small amount, if that amount will meet the exigencies of
the moment and avert the impending catastrophe and ruin, will operate
with immense power. Then you find that he has access to the bedside of
the man whose death we are now inquiring into; that he has the means of
administering poison to him, and you find that, within eight-and-forty
hours, he has twice acquired possession of the very poison, the traces
of which are found in the death, and after the death; and then you have
the death itself in its terrible and revolting circumstances, all of
which are characteristic only of death by that poison and of no other.
You have then the fact that, to the uttermost of his ability, he
realises the purpose for which it is suggested to you the death was
accomplished. You have all those facts, and the undoubted and undisputed
fact, that a subsidiary poison was also used, of which traces have been
found in the man’s body, although no traces may have been found, for the
reasons and from the causes I have suggested, of the principal poison,
whose possession by the prisoner we have traced, and whose presence we
show in the symptoms which accompanied the death of the deceased. It is
for you to take all those circumstances into your consideration.

Gentlemen, you have, indeed, had introduced into this case one other
element which I own I think would have been better omitted. You have had
from my learned friend the unusual, and I think I may say unprecedented,
assurance of his conviction of his client’s innocence.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Not unprecedented.

[Sidenote: Attorney-General]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I can only say I think it would have been better
if my learned friend had abstained from so strange a declaration. What
would he think of me if, imitating his example, I at this moment stated
to you, upon my “honour,” as he did, what is my internal conviction from
a conscientious consideration of this case. The best reproof which I can
administer to my learned friend is to abstain from imitating so
dangerous an example. My learned friend in that address, of which we all
admired the power and ability, also adopted a course sometimes resorted
to by advocates, but which I cannot help thinking is more or less an
insult to a jury, the endeavouring to intimidate them by the fear of
their own consciences and the fear of the country’s opinion from
discharging firmly and honestly the great and solemn duty which you have
to perform upon this occasion. My learned friend told you if your
verdict should be “Guilty,” one day or other the innocence of the
prisoner would be made manifest, and you would never cease to repent
the verdict you had given. If my learned friend was sincere in that--and
I know he was--there is no man in whom the spirit of truth and honour is
more keenly alive--he said what he believed; but all I can say in answer
is, that it shows how when a man enters with a bias upon his mind upon
the consideration of a subject he is led into error; and when my learned
friend said that he had entered upon this case with an unbiassed and an
unprejudiced mind, who could have failed to feel that never in anything
could he have been more deceived than in thinking that? For who that has
to give his best energies to a defence upon such a charge as this would
not shrink in his own mind from the conclusion that he was to advocate
the cause of one whom he believed to have been guilty of the foulest of
all imaginable crimes? I say, therefore, I think my learned friend had
better have abstained from making any observations which involved the
assurance of his own conviction. I say, further, I think he ought, in
justice and in consideration for you, to have abstained from reminding
you or telling you that the voice of the country would not sanction the
verdict which you were about to give. I say nothing of the inconsistency
which is involved in such a statement, coming from one who but a short
hour before had complained in eloquent terms of the universal torrent of
passion and prejudice by which he said his client was oppressed and
borne down. Why, gentlemen, in answer to my learned friend, I have only
to say, pay no regard to the voice of the country, whether it be for
condemnation or acquittal; pay no regard to anything but the internal
voice of your own consciences, and the sense of that duty to God and man
which you are to discharge upon this occasion. Seek no reward, except
the comforting assurance when you shall look back to the events of this
day, that you have discharged to the best of your ability and to the
uttermost of your power the duty that it was yours to perform. If, upon
a review of this whole case, comparing the evidence upon the one side
and upon the other, and weighing it in the even scales of justice, you
can come to a conclusion of the prisoner’s innocence, or even entertain
that fair and reasonable amount of doubt of which the accused is
entitled to the benefit, in God’s name acquit him. But if, on the other
hand, all the facts and all the evidence lead your minds, with
satisfaction to yourselves, to the conclusion of the prisoner’s guilt,
then, but then only, I ask for a verdict of guilty at your hands. For
the protection of the good, and for the repression of the wicked, I ask
for that verdict, by which alone, as it seems to me, the safety of
society can be secured, and the demands, the imperious demands, of
public justice can alone be satisfied.


The Court then adjourned.




Eleventh Day, Monday, 26th May, 1856.

The Court met at ten o’clock.

Charge to the Jury.


[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

LORD CAMPBELL--Gentlemen of the jury, we have at length arrived at that
stage of these solemn proceedings when it becomes my duty, as the chief
judge presiding in this Court, to explain to you the nature of the
charge brought against the prisoner, and those questions and
considerations upon which your verdict ought to be found. And,
gentlemen, I must begin by conjuring you to banish from your minds all
that you have heard with reference to these proceedings before entering
into that box. There is no doubt that a strong prejudice elsewhere did
prevail against the prisoner at the bar, in the county of Stafford,
where the offence for which he has now to answer is alleged to have been
committed; that prejudice was so strong that the Court of Queen’s Bench
made an order to remove the trial from that county. The prisoner, by his
counsel, expressed a wish that the trial should take place in the
Central Criminal Court. To enable that wish to be accomplished an Act
has been passed by the Legislature authorising the Court of Queen’s
Bench to direct the trial to take place in the Central Criminal Court,
where it was believed and known that the trial would be fair and
impartial. I must not only warn you, gentlemen, against being influenced
by what you may have before heard, but I must likewise warn
you--although I am sure it is an unnecessary caution, but one which it
is my duty to offer--against being improperly influenced by the evidence
that has been laid before you; because there has been evidence which
certainly implicates the prisoner in transactions of a very
discreditable nature. It appears that he had forged a great many bills
of exchange, and that he had entered into transactions not of a
reputable nature. These transactions, however, would have been excluded
from your consideration altogether had it not been necessary to bring
them forward to assist you in arriving at your verdict. By the law and
practice of some countries it is allowed to raise a probability that the
party accused has committed the offence which he has to answer, to show
that he has committed other offences, with a view of showing that he is
an immoral man, and not unlikely to commit other offences, whether of
the same or of a different nature; but the law of England is different,
and, presuming every man to be innocent until his guilt is established,
it allows his guilt to be established only by evidence directly
connected with the charge brought against him.

[Illustration: Lord Chief-Justice Campbell.]

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Gentlemen, it gives me great satisfaction to find that this case has
been so fully laid before you. Everything has been done that could be
accomplished for the purpose of assisting the jury in coming to a right
conclusion. The prosecution has been taken up by the Government of the
country, so that justice may be effectively administered. The
Attorney-General, who is the first law officer of the Crown, has
conducted the prosecution as the Minister of Public Justice. Again, I am
much pleased to think that the prisoner appears to have had ample means
to prepare for and conduct his defence. Witnesses very properly have
been brought from all parts of the kingdom to assist in his defence; and
he has had the advantage of having his case conducted by one of the most
distinguished advocates at the English bar. Gentlemen, I most strongly
recommend to you to attend to everything that fell so eloquently, so
ably, and so impressively from that advocate, with the exception of his
own private personal opinion. It is my duty to tell you that that ought
to be no ingredient in your verdict. You are to try the prisoner upon
the evidence before you, according as that evidence may be laid before
you upon the one side and on the other, and by that alone, and not by
any opinion of his advocate. I feel also bound to say that it would have
been better if his advocate had abstained from some of the observations
which he made in his address to you, in which he laid great stress upon
his own conviction of the prisoner’s innocence of the crime imputed to
him and of his apprehension that if you returned a verdict of guilty you
one day would have to regret your verdict. The fact of the prisoner
saying “Not guilty” is a mere form; it goes for nothing, and it may lead
to the most disastrous consequences if that formal answer is to be dwelt
upon with too much importance, as it may lead a jury to believe that a
prisoner is not guilty because his advocate expresses his perfect
conviction of his innocence. And, upon the other hand, if the advocate
withholds an opinion, the jury may suppose that he is conscious of his
client’s guilt, whereas it is the duty of the advocate to press his
argument upon the jury, and not his opinion.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Gentlemen, I will now in a few words give you the allegations upon the
one side and on the other. On the part of the prosecution it is alleged
that the deceased, John Parsons Cook, was first tampered with by
antimony, that he was then killed by strychnia, and that his symptoms
were the symptoms of poison by strychnia. It is then alleged that the
prisoner at the bar had a motive for making away with him; that he had
an opportunity of administering the poison; that suspicion fell upon no
one else; and that on two days, when the poison was supposed to have
been administered, he actually purchased strychnia, the poison
employed; and that, as they allege, his conduct before that transaction,
before the deed, while it was going on, and afterwards, was that of a
guilty, and not of an innocent, man. On the other side it is contended
(and you are to say whether or not truly contended) that the prisoner at
the bar was really the victim of prejudice; that he had no interest in
the death of the deceased; and, on the contrary, that the death of the
deceased was to his prejudice; further, that Cook did not die from
poison by strychnia, but from natural disease; that his symptoms were
those of natural disease, and not of poison by strychnia; and, further,
it is contended that no part of the evidence which has been given shows
anything which is at all consistent with the guilt of the prisoner.
Gentlemen, it is for you to determine between the allegations on the one
side and the other according to the evidence. A most anxious task is
imposed upon you, knowing that the life of the prisoner is at stake;
and, if you find him guilty, he must expiate his crime by an ignominious
death. It is of the last importance that you should be convinced of his
innocence or his guilt; and, if you are not convinced of his guilt, you
will rescue him from the fate with which he is threatened. On the other
hand, when you have heard the statements which were given in
evidence--if you are satisfied of his guilt--it will be your duty to
return a verdict of guilty; for if the poisoner were to escape with
impunity, there would be no safety for mankind, and society would fall
to pieces. Gentlemen, the burthen of proving the guilt rests on the
prosecution; and unless that is fully sustained, and you are not
convinced upon the evidence that he is guilty, then it will be your duty
to acquit the prisoner; but in a case of this kind you cannot expect
that witnesses should be called to state that they saw the deadly poison
administered by the prisoner or mixed up by the prisoner openly before
them. Circumstantial evidence as to that is all that can be reasonably
expected; and if there are a series of circumstances leading to the
conclusion of guilt, then, gentlemen, a verdict of guilty may
satisfactorily be pronounced. With respect to the alleged motive, it is
of great importance to see whether there was a motive for committing
such a crime, or whether there was not, or whether there is an
improbability of its having been committed so strong as not to be
overpowered by positive evidence. But, gentlemen, if there be any motive
which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you that the adequacy of that
motive is of little importance. We know from the experience of criminal
Courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from very
slight motives, not merely from malice and revenge, but to gain a small
pecuniary advantage and to drive off for a time pressing difficulties.
It seems to me, gentlemen, you will have to consider well whether the
symptoms of Cook’s death are consistent with a poisoning by strychnia.
If they are not, if you believe that death arose from natural causes,
the prisoner is at once entitled to a verdict of not guilty at your
hands; but if those symptoms are consistent with a poisoning by
strychnia, then you will have another and an important question to
consider, whether the evidence which has been adduced is sufficient to
convince you that it was a death by strychnia, and by strychnia which
the prisoner administered. In cases of the sort the evidence has often
been divided into medical and moral evidence, the medical being that of
the scientific men, and the moral the circumstantial facts which are
calculated to prove the truth of the charge against the party accused.
Gentlemen, they cannot be finally separated in the minds of the jury,
because it is by combination of the two species of evidence that their
verdict ought to be found. In this case you will look at the medical
evidence to see whether the deceased, in your opinion, did die by
strychnia or by natural disease; and you will look at what is called the
moral evidence, and consider whether that shows that the prisoner not
only had the opportunity, but that he actually availed himself of that
opportunity, to administer to the deceased the deadly poison of which he
died.

Now, gentlemen, with these preliminary observations I will proceed to
read over to you the evidence which has been given in this long trial;
and I must implore you earnestly that, in any observations I may make
upon its effect, you will be guided only by your own judgment. To assist
you from time to time I may make observations, but you will not be in
the slightest degree influenced by them unless so far as your own
judgment concurs in them. The verdict must be yours, and in your hands
the life of the prisoner must rest.

[His lordship then began with and took the jury through the story of
Palmer’s financial transactions; next the evidence of Cook’s illness at
Shrewsbury; and then that of Elizabeth Mills and Lavinia Barnes, and of
Mr. Jones as to the illness at Rugeley; and passed to the evidence of
Newton.]

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Now, gentlemen, comes a witness of the greatest importance, Charles
Newton. (His lordship read a portion of Mr. Newton’s evidence.) I may
notice to you that Roberts swears, and is, I think, not contradicted,
that he had sold strychnia, among other drugs, to Palmer; and you are
called upon to observe the demeanour of Palmer at that time, and the way
in which he tried to prevent Newton from observing that he had been
obtaining this drug at the shop of Mr. Hawkins. (His lordship then read
a further portion of the evidence of Mr. Newton.) Then the deposition of
Newton was read, and it had better be read again. (The deposition of
Mr. Newton, taken before the coroner, was then read, and his lordship
concluded reading the evidence of the witness.) Now, gentlemen, this is
the evidence of Newton, and most important it is for your consideration.
It certainly must be recollected that he did not mention the furnishing
of the strychnia to Palmer on Monday before the coroner, and that he did
not mention it till the Tuesday morning, when he was coming up here.
That certainly requires consideration at your hands; but then,
gentlemen, you will observe that in his deposition, which has been read
before you, although there is an omission, which is always to be borne
in mind, there is no contradiction of anything that he has said. Well,
then, you are to consider what is the probability of his inventing this
wicked and most abominable lie. He had no ill-will towards the prisoner
at the bar; he had nothing to gain by injuring him, much less by saying
anything to affect his life. I see no motive that Mr. Newton could have
for inventing a lie to take away the life of another person. No
inducement could be held out to him from the Crown; he says himself that
no inducement was held out to him, and that he at last disclosed it from
a sense of justice. If you believe him, certainly the evidence is very
strong against the prisoner at the bar. Now I will take you to the
evidence of the next witness, whose evidence is closely connected with
the witness Newton--who did furnish strychnia to the prisoner--I mean
Joseph Roberts. (The learned judge read the examination-in-chief of Mr.
Roberts.)

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Now comes the cross-examination, which consists in this, and this only,
“I did not make an entry of any of those things in our books; if
articles are sold over the counter and paid for at the time, we do not
enter them in our books.” Now, gentlemen, this is the evidence of Mr.
Roberts, which is most important, for he is not cross-examined as to the
veracity of his testimony, nor is it contradicted at all. It is not
denied that on this Tuesday morning the prisoner at the bar got 6 grains
of strychnia from Mr. Roberts. If you couple that with the evidence of
Mr. Newton, believing that, then you will have positive evidence of
strychnia being procured by the prisoner at the bar; that the symptoms
of strychnia were exhibited in Mr. Cook, the deceased; and you have the
evidence of Mr. Roberts, undenied and unquestioned, that on the Tuesday
the 6 grains of strychnia were supplied. Now, gentlemen, if you believe
both, a very serious case is adduced, supposing you should come to the
conclusion that the symptoms of Mr. Cook were consistent with that
poison. If you think the symptoms are accounted for by merely ordinary
tetanus, of course the fact of strychnia being obtained by the prisoner
at the bar is entitled to very little weight; but if you should come to
the conclusion that the symptoms which Mr. Cook exhibited on the Monday
night and Tuesday night are consistent with strychnia, then a fearful
case is made out against him. Gentlemen, I have listened with the most
anxious attention to know what explanation would be given respecting the
strychnia that was purchased on the Tuesday morning. The learned counsel
for the prisoner told us that we must believe nothing, that he would
combat and disprove everything, and no doubt, according to his
instructions, he very properly denied that Mr. Newton was to be
believed; and, disbelieving Mr. Newton, you have no evidence of any
strychnia being obtained on the Monday evening; but, disbelieving Mr.
Newton and believing Mr. Roberts, you have evidence of 6 grains of
strychnia having been obtained on the Tuesday morning, and no
explanation is given of it. The learned counsel did not favour us with
the theory which he had formed in his own mind respecting that
strychnia, and how he considered it to be consistent with the view that
he suggested. There is no evidence of the intention with which it was
purchased; there is no evidence how it was applied, what became of it,
or what was done with it.

Then I say, gentlemen, that it will not at all influence your verdict
unless you come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Mr. Cook were
consistent with a death by strychnia; but if you come to that conclusion
I should shrink from my duty, and I should be unworthy to sit here, if I
did not draw to your consideration the importance of the testimony and
the inference it may afford of the death having been occasioned by
strychnia, and that that was administered by the prisoner.

[The evidence as to the post-mortem was then read, and that of the
postboy, of Cheshire, the postmaster, and several others, without
comment of material importance. Passing to the scientific witnesses, his
lordship said--“Now, gentlemen, you are called upon to form your opinion
as to the opinion of scientific men respecting the appearance of the
symptoms that Cook exhibited, and how far they can be accounted for by
natural disease, and how far also, upon the evidence, they are
consistent with strychnia. Whether they agree with traumatic or
idiopathic tetanus, whatever it may be, or whether the symptoms
correspond with a natural disease, and do not correspond with strychnia,
is a matter that is of very great importance for you to consider.” Until
his lordship reached Dr. Taylor the scientific evidence was read to the
jury with no material comments.]

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

The next witness is Dr. Taylor. Now, gentlemen, here is something most
important for your consideration. You see it is very properly relied on,
on the part of the prisoner, that, though strychnia may be found in the
body by analysis, none was found upon the analysis which was made by
Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, for they, and they alone, experimented upon it,
and they could find none. We know that experiments were made by those
two individuals, and they say that, so far as their skill goes, there
may be death by strychnia and yet that strychnia cannot be detected. But
Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees state experiments that they made where the death
had been by strychnia which they themselves administered; and in at
least two of those cases where there had been death by strychnia they
could discover none. Now, it is possible that other chemists and other
medical men might have discovered strychnia in those animals, and might
have discovered strychnia in the body or in the jar which contained the
stomach of Cook, but they found none in their analysis. They found none
also in at least two cases where they killed animals by strychnia, and
afterwards did all their skill enabled them to do for the purpose of
discovering the strychnia. I thought at one time that these examinations
were made with a view to show that, if the pills prepared by Mr. Bamford
had been taken as he prepared them, mercury ought to have been found in
the body of Mr. Cook; but I think that was not pressed, and I should
think that it ought not to have any influence upon your verdict--there
was no mercury found. There was mercury in the pills which Mr. Bamford
prepared, and which Cook ought to have taken, but the simple fact of no
mercury being found in those parts of Cook’s body that were examined
ought not to have any influence upon your verdict; but that, of course,
you will judge of for yourselves. Then the learned counsel, in
cross-examination, read a passage from Orfila about a dog who had taken
antimony, and some few minutes afterwards antimony was found in the
bones, in the fat, and in the liver. (His lordship read the letter
written by Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardener.) You will bear in mind,
gentlemen, that was written before the symptoms were known to Dr. Taylor
and Dr. Rees, but they had been informed that prussic acid and strychnia
and opium had been bought by Palmer on the Tuesday. They search for all
these poisons and they find none; but they swear distinctly that they
found antimony in the body, and therefore, in the absence of the
symptoms, they do not impute the death to strychnia, but they say it may
possibly have been produced by antimony, because the quantity they
discovered in the body was no test of the quantity that had been
administered to the deceased. Then a letter was read which Dr. Taylor
wrote to the _Lancet_, and I must say that he would have done better to
have abstained from taking any notice whatsoever of what was said about
him, but you will say whether what he did write materially detracts from
the credit which would otherwise be due to him. I think the passage in
this letter in the _Lancet_, which was relied on, is the last passage
which I will read to you. He explains what his evidence had been, and
complains of the reports that had been spread abroad respecting him, and
then he concludes his letter thus--“In concluding this letter I would
observe that during a quarter of a century which I have now specially
devoted to toxicological inquiries, I have never met with any cases like
those suspected of poisoning at Rugeley. The mode in which they will
affect the person accused is of minor importance compared with their
probable influence on society. I have no hesitation in saying that the
future security of life in this country will mainly depend on the judge,
the jury, and the counsel who may have to dispose of the charges of
murder which have arisen out of these investigations.” I again say that
I think it would have been better if he had trusted to the credit which
he had already acquired, instead of writing a letter to the _Lancet_;
but it is for you to say that he, having been, as he says,
misrepresented, and writing this letter to set himself right, whether
that materially detracts from the credit which is due to him.

Then Dr. Rees follows, and he corroborates the evidence given by Dr.
Taylor. Here, therefore, is Dr. Rees, whom no one can suppose to have an
interest in the matter. I do not know what interest it can be supposed
that Dr. Taylor had in the matter, for he was regularly employed in his
profession; he knew nothing about Mr. Palmer until he was called on by
Mr. Stevens to analyse the contents of the jar; he had no animosity
against him, and no interest whatever in misrepresenting the matter.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--He said that the experiments with the two rabbits
were made after the inquest.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

LORD CAMPBELL--Certainly; it cannot matter whether they were made before
or after if they are witnesses of truth. It is the case that there was
the death of the animals by strychnia, and that after death no strychnia
could be found in the animals; and, if the experiments had been made
this morning, the effect would have been the same. Dr. Taylor has been
questioned about the indiscreet letter which he wrote to the _Lancet_
and some indiscreet conversation which he had with the editor of the
_Illustrated Times_; but with regard to Dr. Rees that imputation does
not exist, and he concurs with Dr. Taylor in the evidence that the
rabbits were killed by strychnia, and that, although they did everything
in their power, according to their skill and knowledge, to discover the
strychnia, as they did with regard to the contents of the jar, yet no
strychnia could be found. You will judge from the vomiting that took
place at Shrewsbury, and afterwards at Stafford, whether antimony may
have been administered to Cook at Shrewsbury or Stafford. Antimony may
not produce death; but it is part of the transaction, and deserves your
deliberate consideration.


The Court then adjourned.




Twelfth Day, Tuesday, 27th May, 1856.

The Court met at ten o’clock.


[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

LORD CAMPBELL--Gentlemen of the jury, at the adjournment of the Court
yesterday evening I had finished the task of laying before you all the
evidence on the part of the prosecution; and certainly that case, if not
answered, does present for your consideration a serious case against the
prisoner at the bar. It appears that in the middle of November he was
involved in pecuniary difficulties of the most formidable nature; he had
engagements to perform that he was unable to perform without some most
extraordinary expedients; he had to make payments for which he was
unprepared; there were actions brought against both himself and his
mother upon the forged acceptances; he had no credit in any quarter upon
which money could be raised. It so happened that at that time Cook, the
deceased, by the winning of the race on the 13th November, became the
master of at least £1000, and there is evidence from which an inference
may be drawn that the prisoner formed the design of appropriating that
money to his own use, and that he is prepared to do whatever was
necessary to accomplish that object. There is some evidence that he did
appropriate that money to the payment of debts for which he alone was
liable. There is evidence from which it may be inferred that he drew a
cheque in the name of Cook, which was a forgery, upon which to obtain
payment of part of the money which was due to Cook; and there is further
evidence that he employed Herring to collect money on the Monday and to
appropriate it to his own use. What effect would have been produced by
the survival of Cook, under such circumstances, you are to consider.
However, it appears that from Cook’s death he contemplated the advantage
of obtaining possession of the horse “Polestar,” which had belonged to
Cook; and you have evidence of his having fabricated a document which
was to declare that certain bills of exchange with which it appears that
Cook had no concern were negotiated for Cook’s advantage, and that the
prisoner at the bar had derived no benefit from them. Gentlemen, that
was brought forward after Cook’s death, and if Cook had survived that
fraud must have been exposed, and might have been punished. Then,
gentlemen, with respect to the joint liability of Cook and Palmer,
which, it is said, would now be thrown entirely upon Palmer, that was
rather a distant object; and if Palmer had got possession of all Cook’s
property by the means that he resorted to, he would not have been a
sufferer by his death. Then, gentlemen, as to the important question
whether Cook must be supposed to have died by natural disease or by
poison. You have the evidence of Sir Benjamin Brodie and other most
skilful and honourable men, who say that, in their opinion, he did not
die from natural disease; they know no natural disease in the whole
catalogue of diseases which attack the human frame that will account for
those symptoms. Further, gentlemen, the witnesses go on to say that they
believe that the symptoms that were exhibited by Cook were the symptoms
of strychnia, that they were what would be expected from strychnia, and
that, comparing those symptoms with natural tetanus, they do not
correspond with it, but they do correspond with the symptoms brought on
by a man being poisoned by the administration of strychnia. Then,
gentlemen, with respect to the consideration that no strychnia was found
in the body, that is for you to consider, and no doubt you will pay
great attention to it; but there is no point of law according to which
the poison must be found in the body of the deceased; and all that we
know respecting the poison not being in the body of Cook is that in that
part of the body that was analysed by Drs. Taylor and Rees they found no
strychnia. But witnesses of great reputation have said, Dr. Christison
among the number, that, under certain circumstances, where there has
been poison by strychnia, they would not expect the strychnia should be
detected; and you have the evidence of Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, who made
the examination, that they having experimented upon animals killed by
strychnia which they themselves administered, and by resorting to the
same means that they had employed in examining the body of Cook, no
strychnia could be found.

Then, gentlemen, with regard to the length of time that occurred between
the alleged administration of the strychnia and the time that the
symptoms appeared, the evidence seems to me to lead to this conclusion,
that, where it is administered to animals with a view of making
experiments and with a view of observing its operations as quickly as
possible, it generally operates more rapidly than in the human frame
when it is put in the shape of pills, and that will depend upon the
manner in which those pills are compounded, and likewise on the state of
the health and body of the person to whom they are to be administered,
and whether there may or may not have been any previous tampering with
the health of that person. Instances are referred to where, even in the
human body, a greater space of time has elapsed than in this case
between the administration of the poison and the symptoms which were
exhibited.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I think that is not so upon the evidence, my lord.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

LORD CAMPBELL--There are instances referred to in which it has been
detected; there have been instances referred to in the course of this
trial in which there has been as long an interval.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I believe that is a mistake.

LORD CAMPBELL--With regard to there being no blood in the heart, which
seems to have been relied upon, it appears that the result is this, that
if the death is produced by an obstruction of the respiratory organs,
producing asphyxia, the blood is found in the heart; but if it be
produced by a spasm upon the heart itself, the heart contracts, the
blood is expelled, and no blood is found after death. Now, taking the
evidence before us, there are two instances where that took place.

Then, gentlemen, we have to look to the evidence as it implicates the
prisoner at the bar. You must consider the evidence to show that he must
have tampered with the health of the deceased, by administering
something to him in the brandy and water, in the broth, and in the other
things which were administered to him at Rugeley. One part of the broth
was taken by Elizabeth Mills, as she swears, and the consequence which
followed, according to her evidence and the evidence of Lavinia Barnes,
was that she was taken ill with a vomiting in the stomach as Cook the
deceased had been.

Then, gentlemen, you have antimony found in the body of the deceased;
antimony, which would show that tartar emetic, producing vomiting, had
been administered, and it seems to be clearly proved that that substance
was found in his body, from what source you are to say from the evidence
before you.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Then, gentlemen, comes the more direct evidence that the prisoner at the
bar, if you believe the witnesses, procured this very poison on the
Monday and on the Tuesday--3 grains, I think, on the Monday, and 6 on
the Tuesday. For what purpose was that obtained? The evidence of the
witness who swears to the poison being obtained on the Monday is
impeached, but no impeachment rests upon the evidence of the witness who
swears to the poison being sold by him on the Tuesday to the prisoner at
the bar. You have no account of that poison; what was the intention with
which it was purchased, and what was the application of it, you are to
infer. Then, gentlemen, it is impossible that you should not pay
attention to the conduct of the prisoner at the bar, and there are some
instances of his conduct which you will say whether they belong to what
might be expected from an innocent or a guilty man. He was eager to have
the body fastened down in the coffin. Then, with regard to the betting
book, there is certainly evidence from which you may infer that he did
get possession of the betting book, that he abstracted it and concealed
it. Then, gentlemen, you must not omit his conduct in trying to bribe
the postboy to overturn the carriage in which the jar was being
conveyed, to be analysed in London, and from which evidence might be
obtained of his guilt. Again, you find him tampering with the
postmaster, and procuring from the postmaster the opening of a letter
from Dr. Taylor, who had been examining the contents of the jar, to Mr.
Gardner, the attorney employed upon the part of Mr. Stevens. And then,
gentlemen, you have tampering with the coroner, and trying to induce him
to procure a verdict from the coroner’s jury which would amount to an
acquittal. These are serious matters for your consideration, but you,
and you alone, will say what inference is to be drawn from them. If not
answered, they certainly present a serious case for your consideration.
It is for you to say whether the answer is satisfactory. Either you may
be of opinion that the case on the part of the prosecution is
insufficient, or you may be of opinion that the answer to it is
satisfactory.

Then, gentlemen, that answer consists of two parts--first, of the
medical evidence, and, secondly, of the evidence of facts. With regard
to the medical evidence, I must say that there were examined on the part
of the prisoner a number of gentlemen of high honour and solid integrity
and proved scientific knowledge, who came here only to speak the truth
and assist in the administration of justice. You may be of opinion that
others came whose object was to procure an acquittal of the prisoner.
Gentlemen, it is material, in the due administration of justice, that a
witness should not be turned into an advocate, any more than an advocate
should be turned into a witness. It is for you to say whether some of
those who were called on the part of the prisoner did not belong to the
category which I described as witnesses becoming advocates.

Gentlemen, the first witness on the part of the prisoner was Mr. Thomas
Nunneley. (The learned judge read the evidence of Mr. Nunneley and the
documents therein referred to.) You will recollect what he says, and you
will form your opinion as to the weight that is to be given to it. He
certainly seemed to me to give his evidence in a manner not quite
becoming a witness in a Court of justice, but you will give all
attention to the facts to which he refers in the evidence he gave. He
differs very materially in his general opinion from several of the
witnesses who were examined on the part of the prosecution. He speaks of
there being an extraordinary rigidity of the body after death, when
there has been a death of this description, with other symptoms, and he
attaches considerable importance to the heart being empty, but you will
say what weight ought to be attached to his opinion.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Mr. William Herapath is then called. (The examination-in-chief of Mr.
Herapath was read.) He seems to differ from Mr. Nunneley with respect to
the rigidity produced by this poison. Now, gentlemen, Mr. Herapath is a
very skilful chemist, and I have no doubt he spoke sincerely what he
thought, and what was his opinion? That when there has been death by
strychnia, strychnia ought to be discovered; but it seems he intimated
an opinion on this very case of Cook that there might have been
strychnia, and that Dr. Taylor did not use the proper means to detect
it. Now, the only evidence that we have in this case that there was not
strychnia is the analysis by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees that they did not
discover it. As I before pointed out to you, in two other cases in which
there certainly had been poisoning by strychnia the result was the
same--they could not discover it.

Then the next witness is Mr. Rogers. Now, this is a gentleman whom there
seems no reason to doubt; there seems no reason to doubt the facts that
he stated, and that he does sincerely entertain the opinion that he
expresses; and, according to his evidence, where there has been
strychnia mixed with impure matter, it may be expected that it would be
detected by skilful experimentalists, and by using the proper tests.
Then Dr. Letheby is called; he is the medical officer of health to the
city of London and of the London Hospital. I doubt not that Dr. Letheby
speaks sincerely, and according to his experience and opinion, but he
does say truly that cases vary very much, and that there may be cases
which he calls “exceptional,” alluding to the case of the lady at
Romsey; and it may probably be the fair result that enough of this
disease is not known to be aware of all its varieties, and that any
peculiarity that may arise where there is strong probability of
strychnia having been administered would not be anything like conclusive
evidence to rebut that result.

Then Mr. Robert Gray is examined. Now, gentlemen, here you have a case
of what is called idiopathic tetanus; but you are to say whether from
this you can infer that the illness of Mr. Cook was idiopathic tetanus.
The great weight of evidence seems to me to show that it was not
idiopathic any more than traumatic tetanus; but that whatever form of
disease it might be, it would not be idiopathic tetanus; and you will
find that the symptoms vary most materially in their appearance from the
case that is here detailed in the duration as well as the rest of the
course of events.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

The next witness that was called was Mr. Brown Ross. Now, gentlemen, I
do not know for what purpose the case alluded to by Mr. Ross was brought
before you, unless to lead to an inference that Mr. Cook’s was a case of
tetanus of the same sort with this which is here described, because this
was tetanus; and I suppose it was intended that you are to infer that
Mr. Cook’s was of the same description; but whether you call it
idiopathic or traumatic, it was a case of tetanus--was directly to be
ascribed to wounds which were upon his body, and which are here
described. No such wounds were upon the body of Mr. Cook; and other
witnesses who were examined on the part of the defence say that this was
not a case of tetanus at all; but then, even in this case that has been
described, you see there were the symptoms so nearly approaching those
of strychnia that strychnia was suspected, but there was no ground for
it; and in the case described there was no ground for supposing
strychnia could by possibility be the cause of death.

The next witness is a witness worthy of all praise for the sincerity
which he exhibited. I mean Dr. Wrightson. Now, gentlemen, this witness,
who, I have no doubt, is a most scientific and a very honourable man,
speaks as a man of science, and, according to him, the poison would be
found in the body; but he speaks with proper caution, and upon his
evidence you ought to say whether, under particular circumstances, it
might not be discoverable, or whether the person seeking for it might
fail to employ the proper means for detecting it in the body.

Then comes Mr. Partridge, a most respectable gentleman, who says he has
been many years in practice as a surgeon, and is professor of anatomy at
King’s College. Now, gentlemen, you have here the opinion of a very
respectable witness as to the different topics that he touches upon; and
the most important one is that he thinks that the symptoms that were
exhibited did not correspond with what he should expect from strychnia;
but he speaks from his own experience, and you have it from the other
witnesses that the symptoms vary considerably in different cases.

The next witness is Mr. John Gay. Now, gentlemen, this was a case, you
see, of tetanus arising from the toe being smashed; and it seems to me,
although, of course, you will form your own opinion upon it, bears no
analogy whatever to the case of Cook, with regard to whom no such cause
could be assigned. Again, gentlemen, he says, what is very material,
that, in the event of a given state of tetanus, it would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, without collateral evidence, to ascribe
the tetanic disease to any cause in the absence of any evidence as to
the cause. But you will form your own opinion upon it. Therefore you are
to look to collateral evidence; and if the collateral evidence would
impute the symptoms of tetanic convulsions to any particular cause,
according to this witness that cause may be assigned. That I say with a
view to get what is called the moral evidence with regard to the conduct
of a particular person, and with regard to what he may have done or what
he may have had in his possession.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Now comes Dr. M‘Donald. You will observe that he gives an account of
experiments he made for the prisoner, and you will see the lengths to
which he goes in adopting a new form of disease of epilepsy with these
complications. You are to say what weight you give to that evidence
compared with the witnesses who have given evidence before you.

The next witness is Mr. John Bainbridge. The object of this witness’s
evidence seems to be to induce you to believe that this was a case of
epilepsy, and from the symptoms you will say whether you can come to
that conclusion.

The next witness is Mr. Edward Steady. The case referred to by this
witness seems to be a case of traumatic tetanus; and you will say, if it
were idiopathic, whether the course of it in the slightest degree
resembles the symptoms of Cook, the deceased.

The next witness is Dr. Robinson. Now, gentlemen, you have this
respectable physician, who gives an account from which you are called to
infer that Cook’s case was a case of epilepsy. He says he should only
take it to be epilepsy in the absence of evidence of strychnia being
administered. He says that all the symptoms described by Jones on the
Tuesday night are consistent with strychnia; and, with regard to
epilepsy, he says in no case where epilepsy had existed would it cause
death without a loss of consciousness. Cook, you will remember, remained
conscious to the last, and you will say whether, upon the evidence that
is laid before you, there was or was not a bending of the body, which is
characteristic of tetanus, and what the witnesses have described as
being inconsistent with epilepsy.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

The next witness is Dr. Richardson, who now brings in for the first time
angina pectoris as a disease of which it may be presumed Cook died. Now,
gentlemen, you have to attend to this case; the witness, who seems most
highly respectable, says this case being detailed by him, the symptoms
were consistent with strychnia, and that, if he had known as much of
strychnia then as he does now, he would have made an analysis to see
whether strychnia was in the body. The great question that I propounded
for your consideration was whether Cook’s symptoms were consistent with
strychnia, and, if they were not, then the conclusion would be in favour
of the prisoner; but if they were consistent with strychnia, then you
are not upon that alone to find a verdict of guilty against him; but you
are to consider the other evidence and see whether the death arose from
strychnia or not. Dr. Wrightson is recalled, and he says that, in his
opinion, when strychnia is entirely absorbed in the system it is
diffused equally throughout the entire system. Dr. Wrightson is a
philosopher, and, as a man of science, he speaks with caution, and you
have heard his evidence. He says that if the minimum dose were taken to
destroy life, and then a long interval elapsed between the taking of the
poison and death, the more complete would be the absorption, and the
less chance there would be of finding it in the stomach.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I think he said he would expect to find it in the
spleen, the liver, and the blood.

LORD CAMPBELL--Yes; “I should look for it elsewhere, in the spleen, the
liver, and the blood.”

Then comes Mr. Oliver Pemberton. The evidence of this witness only goes
to show that, in his opinion, an examination of the body at that time
was not of much value, and did not afford the means of coming to a
satisfactory opinion, differing in opinion, therefore, from others that
had been called.

His lordship then dealt with the witnesses as to facts, and pointed out
that, according to the trains, Palmer could not have arrived in Rugeley
on the Monday night before ten o’clock.

Now, gentlemen, comes a very material witness, who, if he were to be
believed, would be very important, particularly upon one part of the
case. I mean Jeremiah Smith--and you, having heard the whole of his
evidence, the examination and cross-examination, are to say what faith
or reliance you can place upon his testimony. Now, gentlemen, this would
show, if true, that the genuine and very identical pills that Bamford
had made, and in the state in which he had prepared them, were taken by
Cook before Palmer arrived from London at Rugeley, or, at any rate,
before he came to the Talbot Arms. It is for you to say whether you can
place reliance upon such testimony. You saw how he conducted himself in
the witness-box, and how he at last denied that the signature to the
instrument which he purported to have attested, and which he received
from the prisoner at the bar, was in his handwriting. He said it was
like it, but it was not his handwriting. Then it appears that he did
receive £5, and you are to say whether it was not clearly for attesting
that very assignment. The counterfoil of the cheque for £5, from William
Palmer the prisoner, is shown him; and with that piece of paper he goes
to the bank and receives the £5. Can you believe a man who so disgraces
himself in the witness-box? It is for you to say what faith you can
place in a witness who, by his own admission, engaged in such fraudulent
proceedings. We are now upon veracity, and you are to say whether you
can believe a witness who at last acknowledges that he had been applied
to and had been engaged in procuring an insurance on the life of Walter
Palmer, who had been a bankrupt six years before, and who had no means
of living except by the allowance of his friends and an allowance made
to him by the prisoner at the bar.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Again, he acknowledges that he was engaged in the proposal to insure the
life of Bates for £10,000. Bates being at that time superintending the
stables of the prisoner at the bar, living in lodgings at 6s. 6d. a
week, apparently having no property, and nothing depending upon his
life, his life was to be insured for £10,000. Smith gets himself
appointed agent to an insurance office, and, with a knowledge of these
facts, he proposes the insurance to be accepted by the office which he
represents; and can you believe such a witness who acknowledges himself
to have been engaged in such fraudulent proceedings, and who, now being
examined upon his oath, denies the handwriting of his own attestation to
that document? Gentlemen, of his credit you are to judge. His evidence
would be material as to what took place on the Monday night, because it
would show that the pills that Cook took that night were taken as they
had been prepared by Bamford, and before the prisoner at the bar had had
any opportunity to substitute others for them in the pill box. Such is
the case with regard to what took place on the Tuesday. If it stood
there, and if it were believed, it would be evidence in favour of the
prisoner at the bar; and you are to say whether you believe it, or, if
you disbelieve it, what effect it has upon the other testimony that has
been brought forward.

Gentlemen, the case is now in your hands; and, unless upon the part of
the prosecution a clear conviction has been brought to your minds of the
guilt of the prisoner, it is your duty to acquit him. You are not to
proceed even upon a strong suspicion; there must be the strongest
conviction in your minds that he was guilty of this offence; and if
there be any reasonable doubt remaining in your mind, you will give him
the benefit of that doubt; but if you come to a clear conviction that he
was guilty, you will not be deterred from doing your duty by any
considerations such as have been suggested to you. You will remember the
oath that you have taken, and you will act accordingly. Gentlemen, I
have performed my task; you have now to discharge yours, and may God
direct you to a right finding.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Your lordship stated to the jury that _the_ question
for them to consider was whether the evidence that has been brought
forward is consistent with the death of Cook by strychnia. I submit to
your lordship that that is not the question which ought to be submitted
to the jury.

LORD CAMPBELL--Serjeant Shee, that is not _the_ question that I have
submitted to the jury; it is _a_ question. I told them that unless they
considered that the symptoms were consistent with death by strychnia
they ought to acquit the prisoner.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--It is my duty, my lord, not to be deterred by any
expression of displeasure at my stating it; I am accountable not only
to your lordships, but I am accountable to a much higher tribunal; and I
am bound to submit to you what occurs to me to be the proper question to
be put to the jury in this case--it is your lordship’s duty to overrule
it if you think proper. I submit to your lordships that the question,
whether the symptoms of Cook’s disease were consistent with death by
strychnia is a wrong question, unless it is followed by this, “and
inconsistent with death by other and natural causes”--and that the
question should be, whether the medical evidence establishes beyond all
reasonable doubt the death of Cook by strychnia--it is my duty to submit
that to your lordship.

LORD CAMPBELL--Gentlemen of the jury, I did not submit to you that the
question upon which your verdict alone was to turn was whether the
symptoms of Cook were consistent with death by strychnia, but I said
that that was a most material question for you; and I desired you to
consider that question with a view to guide your judgment as to whether
he died from natural disease, or whether he did not die by poison, by
strychnia administered by the prisoner. Then I went on to say that if
you were of opinion that the symptoms were consistent with death from
strychnia, you should go on to consider the other evidence given in the
case, whether strychnia had been administered to him; and whether
strychnia had been administered to him by the prisoner at the bar; and
those are the questions that I again put to you. If you come to the
conclusion that those symptoms were consistent with the strychnia, do
you believe from the evidence that it was strychnia, and do you believe
that that strychnia was administered by the prisoner at the bar? Do not
find a verdict of guilty unless you believe that the strychnia was
administered to the deceased by the prisoner at the bar. But if you
believe that, it is your duty to God and man to find a verdict of
guilty.

       *       *       *       *       *

The jury retired, and, after an absence of an hour and eighteen minutes,
returned a verdict of guilty.

The prisoner was asked what he had to say why the Court should not pass
sentence of death upon him according to law, and he made no answer.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

LORD CAMPBELL then said--William Palmer, after a long and impartial
trial you have been convicted by a jury of your country of the crime of
wilful murder. In that verdict my two learned brothers, who have so
anxiously watched this trial, and myself entirely concur, and consider
that verdict altogether satisfactory. The case is attended with such
circumstances of aggravation that I do not dare to touch upon them.
Whether it is the first and only offence of this sort which you have
committed is certainly known only to God and your own conscience. It is
seldom that such a familiarity with the means of death should be shown
without long experience; but for this offence of which you have been
found guilty your life is forfeited. You must prepare to die; and I
trust that, as you can expect no mercy in this world, you will, by
repentance of your crimes, seek to obtain mercy from Almighty God. The
Act of Parliament under which you have been tried, and under which you
have been brought to the bar of this Court at your own request, gives
leave to the Court to direct that the sentence under such circumstances
shall be executed either within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal
Court or in the county where the offence was committed. We think that,
for the sake of example, the sentence ought to be executed in the county
of Stafford. Now, I hope that this terrible example will deter others
from committing such atrocious crimes, and that it will be seen that
whatever art, or caution, or experience may accomplish, such an offence
will be detected and punished. However destructive poisons may be, it is
so ordained by Providence that there are means for the safety of His
creatures for detecting and punishing those who administer them. I again
implore you to repent and prepare for the awful change which awaits you.
I will not seek to harrow up your feelings by any enumeration of the
circumstances of this foul murder. I will content myself now with
passing upon you the sentence of the law, which is, that you be taken
hence to the gaol of Newgate, and thence removed to the gaol of the
county of Stafford, the county in which the offence of which you are
justly convicted was committed; and that you be taken thence to a place
of execution, and be there hanged by the neck until you be dead; and
that your body be afterwards buried within the precincts of the prison
in which you shall be last confined after your conviction; and may the
Lord have mercy upon your soul. Amen!

       *       *       *       *       *

The prisoner was executed at eight o’clock on Saturday morning, 14th
June, 1856, in front of Stafford gaol. He reiterated that he was
“innocent of poisoning Cook by strychnia.”




APPENDICES.




APPENDIX I.

LETTER FROM THOMAS PALMER, BROTHER OF WILLIAM PALMER, TO THE LORD
CHIEF-JUSTICE CAMPBELL.


The following extract from the Diary of Lord Chief-Justice Campbell will
serve as introduction to the following letter:--

June 28.

     Since my last notice in this journal the great event has been the
     trial of William Palmer at the Central Criminal Court for
     poisoning, which began on Wednesday, May 14th, and did not finish
     till Tuesday, May 27th--the most memorable judicial proceedings for
     the last fifty years, engaging the attention not only of this
     country but of all Europe.

     My labour and anxiety were fearful; but I have been rewarded by
     public approbation. The Court sat eight hours a day. When I got
     home, renouncing all other engagements, I employed myself till
     midnight in revising my notes and considering the evidence. Luckily
     I had a Sunday to prepare for my summing up, and to this I devoted
     fourteen continuous hours. The following day, after reading in
     Court ten hours, I had only got through the proofs for the
     prosecution. My anxiety was over on the last day, when the verdict
     of _guilty_ was pronounced and I had sentenced the prisoner to die,
     for I had no doubt of his guilt, and I was conscious that by God’s
     assistance I had done my duty. Such was the expressed opinion of
     the public and of all the respectable part of the Press. But a most
     ruffian-like attempt was made by the friends of the prisoner to
     abuse me, and to obtain a pardon or reprieve on the ground that the
     prisoner had not had a fair trial. Having unbounded funds at their
     command, they corrupted some disreputable journals to admit these
     diatribes against me. They published a most libellous pamphlet
     under the title of “A Letter from the Rev. T. Palmer,” the
     prisoner’s brother, to Lord Chief-Justice Campbell, in which the
     Chief-Justice was represented to be worse than his predecessor
     Jeffreys, and it was asserted that there had been nothing in
     England like the last trial since the “Bloody Assize.” However, the
     Home Secretary remained firm and the law took its course.

     The Rev. T. Palmer has since disclaimed the pamphlet, and it is
     said to have been written by a blackguard barrister. I bear him no
     enmity. He has done me no harm; but for the sake of example he
     ought to be disbarred.

       *       *       *       *       *

A LETTER TO THE LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE CAMPBELL.

After a struggle with internal emotions too dreadful to be described,
amid the tears and lamentations of my family, the bereavement of a
household knit together in bonds of strongest love and amity, and the
smothered, not wholly-concealed indignation of relatives and friends, I
address your lordship, not only as the man who has sealed my brother’s
fate and borne him to the foot of the scaffold, but as the judge who
will have to render an account to your fellow-men, to posterity, and to
God of your dealing towards a human being whose fate was, to a certain
extent, placed in your hands, and on whose destiny you operated in a
manner hitherto unknown, at least in our days. The law, with bitter
irony, propounds it is an axiom dear to Englishmen that a magistrate
invested with powers like your lordship is “counsel for the prisoner”;
but every man who witnesses the late mockery at the Old Bailey, in which
you played so prominent a part, confesses--to his own heart, at least,
whatever he may own in public--that a more infamous delusion has never
been solemnly enacted before a British audience since those days of
shame when Jeffreys went forth upon the “bloody assize,” and, in the
name of Justice and the Law, consigned the young, the innocent, the
helpless, and the stricken with years to the dungeon and the gallows,
professing all the while to be actuated by a sense of duty to the Crown
and to the people.

These may appear strong words, and this a heavy accusation, but I will
demonstrate it to all who read this letter. What though I may not hope
to move your lordship to justice, yet I may, at least, awaken within you
a sense of that awful day which approaches you as certainly as it looms
on my brother, and which, at your advanced age, cannot be far removed. I
may awaken within you a feeling of compunction, or, at all events, of
solemn reflection; for you, also, will have to stand before a Judge
enthroned in majesty and power; before whom you will be, indeed, as
nought; and when upon your brow appears the awful record of your
administration of justice to the man whom you have condemned, in that
hour also shall you remember this word from the brother of his
affections. May it avail you before that terrific moment! May it serve
to save yourself from yourself, and to warn you in time that it is the
duty of a British judge to hear, not to condemn; to adjudicate, not to
execute; to administer the law as the representative of the country, not
to pervert it to his own purposes with the anxiety of a hangman.

My lord, in one week--in some short days from this--William Palmer, my
brother, will stand before his God; he will have to answer for his life,
and for the sins of his life; he will have to endure that fearful
scrutiny into his past from which even the best of us may well shrink
with terror. But there is one crime for which he will not have to
answer, and that is the crime for which your lordship has convicted him.
My brother, William Palmer, is no murderer. His whole life, his whole
character, his whole bearing at and since the trial are quite convincing
of the fact. From childhood upward no man was gentler of heart; his
charity was inexhaustible; his kindliness to all who were in distress
was well known. To him the wanderer resorted in his afflictions; by him
the poor and houseless were fed and comforted. I write in the face of
the public, with my character as a gentleman and a clergyman at stake,
and I avow only facts that cannot be denied. His liberality was a
proverb, his frank sincerity, his courage, his faithful loyalty to his
friends, his temperance, his performance of the duties of religion, his
social relations in the character of father, husband, and son won for
him the love and confidence of all who approached him; and though it is
true that in one fatal instance he violated the laws of his country, and
subjected himself to a severe penalty for an infringement of its
commercial code, yet this excepted, his was in all respects the very
opposite of that cool, calculating, cowardly, crafty temper which is
essential to the poisoner, and which we know cannot co-exist with these
qualities which my brother possessed from his earliest years down even
to the day when your lordship sent him to his death. My lord, beware,
lest while you convict of murder you are not yourself a party to a
murder! It is not the first time that the annals of our own
jurisprudence have exhibited traces of blood; it is not the first time
that judges have persuaded juries to convict to death on circumstantial
evidence. The records of every country abound in remarkable cases of
persons judicially destroyed for crimes of which they were entirely
innocent. A mistaken resemblance to the actual perpetrator, the fact of
having been seen near the spot where the crime was committed, an
apparent motive of self-interest, a confusion of manner when he was
accused, or some other suspicious circumstance has contributed to bring
the odium of guilt and consequent punishment on the wrong party. At one
time cases of frightful injustice were committed by condemning
individuals for murder when it was not proved that a murder had been
perpetrated. The now well-recognised principle in criminal
law--violated, indeed, by your lordship in my brother’s case--that no
murder can be held as having been committed till the body of the
deceased has been discovered, had, apparently, terminated this form of
legal oppression until your lordship persuaded a jury to find a man
guilty of blood where there was no actual positive proof that a homicide
had at all been perpetrated, and when the chemical analysis had even
demonstrated that it had not. Another, and perhaps one of the most
common causes of prejudice in trials of this nature was the
prevarication or the suspicious conduct of the party charged with the
offence, and this, likewise, your lordship told the jury was proof of my
brother’s guiltiness. Finding himself, though innocent, placed in an
awkward predicament, the accused sometimes invented a plausible story in
his defence, and the deceit being discovered, he was at once presumed to
be in every respect guilty. Sir Matthew Hale mentions a melancholy
instance of this kind. An uncle, who had the bringing up of his niece,
to whom he was heir-at-law, correcting her for some offence, she was
heard to say, “Good uncle, do not kill me!” after which she could not be
found. The uncle was committed on suspicion of having murdered her, and
was admonished by the judge of the assize to find out the child by the
next assizes. Being unable to discover his niece, he brought another
child, dressed like her, and resembling her in person and years; but, on
examination, the fraud was detected, and upon the presumption of guilt
which those circumstances afforded, he was sentenced to be hanged, and
the sentence was executed. The child afterwards reappeared, when of age,
to claim her land. On being beaten by her uncle she had run away, and
had been received by a stranger; a jury, worked upon by suspicion, and
probably also by a judge who pandered then, as judges pander now, to
public prejudice, had thus murdered an innocent man; and that great
Chief-Justice has preserved the fact as a warning for all time to beware
of judgment in cases of life and death. Yet your lordship, who has
succeeded that noble luminary of the law, forgot this memorable case in
the moment when you ought most to have remembered it; though I take upon
myself to say the circumstantial evidence against my brother was not
half as powerful as that against this gentleman whose fate has thus been
commemorated in vain by your lordship’s wise and Christian predecessor
in the judgment seat. Yet do I believe that, as surely as the sun shines
or that God lives in the heavens, there will come a day when my
brother’s innocence will be demonstrated before all men, and though your
lordship may not live to see it, yet will his blood cry out from his
prison grave, and his fate will blacken the memory of all who were
parties to his death with immortal infamy. For it is at your door the
public will lay his conviction--not at that of the jury who were worked
upon to convict, and who would have been more than men if they had
resisted your looks, your gestures, your actions, and your arguments. My
lord, since this conviction of death has been recorded I have seen
William Palmer. I have visited him in his condemned hold. I have beheld
that darling brother, the playmate of my infancy, the companion of my
youthful sports, in whom my heart’s blood circulates, and with whom my
love is entwined. And how did he present himself? And how did he bear
our presence? I say, like Socrates in his cell; I say, like Sidney in
the Tower; I say, like Calas before the wheel. He preserves a cheerful,
an undaunted, an English heart and spirit, and I am proud of him even in
his death doom. Your lordship has not crushed or trampled my brother’s
soul. He maintains his energy and his hope in justice, not indeed from
men, for he was condemned long since, but in the course of events, in
the discoveries of science, in the confession or conviction of those
perjured witnesses against him; or, these all failing, in the God of
truth. Though I never doubted his innocence, yet did I resolve to make
all certain and positive before I hazarded this letter. I fell on my
knees before him. I implored him by our past love and kindred, by our
early recollections and hopes, by our common faith, by all the duties
which he owed to man and God, to disburthen his conscience if he were
guilty, and not to enter before the presence of his Creator with a
falsehood upon his lips. I adjured him to say if he were guilty or not
guilty. Oh, my lord! he did not wince; he did not change his noble
composure; he spoke and looked all innocence. Calmly, earnestly, and
solemnly he answered, and the seriousness of his words went into our
hearts with the fullest persuasion of his perfect guiltlessness of
blood; the most complete reliance on that dying tongue which never spoke
falsely to one of us, but to whose language we listened ever with full
assurance in its integrity and its faith. Under these circumstances,
therefore, I make no apology for addressing your lordship. A great, a
majestic duty is now imposed on you. If you shrink from executing it you
are undone. There are but seven days between this and the irrevocable
hour of death. All your repentance, all your shame will be unavailing if
that dread sentence be rashly carried into effect. I ask you not to
recommend a pardon for my brother--for that, I know, you will not do;
but I ask you--for in you it lies--to obtain a respite for him till his
guilt or innocence be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the world.
Bear in mind that my brother’s counsel offered fearlessly at the trial
that an experiment should be made. Bear in mind that some of the most
able chemical analysts in the world have declared upon their oaths that
if strychnia were administered it can be found; that the
Attorney-General himself, to a certain extent, repudiated Dr. Taylor,
and supported himself by Mr. Herapath’s supposition that strychnia was
there, though Taylor could not find it; bear in mind that Taylor’s
theory of the absorption and decomposition of strychnia was never heard
of until this trial; that it was hit upon by him to bolster up his
credit, and that all the ablest of the chemists at the trial unanimously
repudiated it as a heresy, unworthy of credit, and whose fallacy they
had themselves proved by actual experiment; bear in mind, I say, all
this, and remember with what a harsh and angry denial you refused to
permit such an experiment, though upon it depended the blood of a man. I
say deliberately that if these chemists have sworn the truth, and that
there is no strychnia discernible in Cook’s body, then will William
Palmer be murdered as effectually under the semblance of English law as
ever the most innocent was butchered under the worst forms of the Papal
Inquisition; and that the most fearful responsibility of blood that ever
rested upon human head will be upon those who refuse to concede the test
which is now challenged. I ask that that experiment shall be performed,
which will set at rest for ever the imputation of judicial murder that
will sear your lordship’s character with the present and with the
future; an experiment which may probably clear your soul from the stain
of blood that it must risk if you oppose this application. What is
there unusual, what is there criminal, what is there illegal in
only asking for a respite until it be proved--as it can be proved
incontrovertibly--whether Cook died of strychnia or not? And if he did
not die of strychnia, then is my brother’s innocence made manifest, even
to your satisfaction! While, if it is shown that he did so die, then is
the voice of accusation silent for ever, and the much-vaunted majesty,
the supposed impartiality and purity of English law vindicated in
triumph before mankind. The precise mode in which this experiment might
be made it is not for me to suggest. I have no objection that it shall
be made in any way which may appear satisfactory to the Home Office,
provided only that neither Dr. Taylor nor Dr. Rees is entrusted with its
management. In this pair of worthies I have no confidence. The first
pronounced my brother guilty of poisoning on grounds the most ridiculous
that can be imagined, upon which even a Stafford Grand Jury did not
think there was sufficient to warrant them in finding even a _prima
facie_ case for investigation at the assizes. He wrote letters to the
newspapers branding the accused as a most desperate criminal; he largely
assisted in getting up the prosecution, and was busily engaged all
through the trial in writing notes and making suggestions to the
Attorney-General and the other prosecuting counsel; he smiled
perceptibly when the case was strong against my brother, and could not
conceal his chagrin as it grew weak. As to Rees, he seems to endorse all
that Taylor says, and I have no confidence whatever in him. A writer in
the papers, who is unknown to me, makes a suggestion which you may bring
if you choose before the Home Secretary; but it matters little by whom
the experiment is made so that it is done by an honest man. “If it is
proved,” says the writer, “that Cook died from strychnia, there is no
difficulty in connecting Palmer with the administration of it. But if
that fact is not proved, then the other circumstances do not lead to the
irresistible inference of his guilt.” For the sake of all parties
concerned in the case, for the sake of society at large, and, above all,
for the sake of justice, let that point be set at rest; and let that be
done in this manner--Mr. Herapath says he can detect strychnia wherever
present. Then let there be a certain number of animals killed, some by
strychnia and some by other means; let their interiors be taken out and
put in jars, each separately and numbered, and verified with all the
necessary formalities, Mr. Herapath being kept in the dark as to which
was the poisoned jar and which was not; and if he then can distinguish
between those which contained strychnia and those that did not, let the
Home Secretary have the moral courage to step in and avert the
disgraceful and horrible-to-contemplate possibility of having one day,
in token of his acknowledged innocence, to wave a flag over the grave of
William Palmer, to which he has been consigned upon insufficient
evidence, despite of the revelations of science, and because (to use the
words of Dr. Taylor), “society demands a victim.”

My lord, I have been told by lawyers that all presumptive evidence of
crime should be admitted cautiously, for the law holds that it is better
that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. And there
is a famous case which so strongly illustrates this noble principle of
the law that I may remind your lordship of it here. The mother and
reputed father of a bastard child were observed to take it to the margin
of the dock in Liverpool, and, after stripping it, to throw it into the
dock. The body of the infant was not afterwards seen, but, as the tide
of the sea flowed and reflowed into and out of the dock, the learned
judge who tried the father and mother for the murder of their child,
observed that it was possible the tide might have carried out the living
infant, and the prisoners were acquitted. The case is mentioned by
Garrow, one of the ablest and purest judges that ever adorned the bench;
and it has been brought before me as illustrative of the wise and
merciful caution which the judges of the past were used to exercise
before they persuaded juries to condemn men who might possibly be
innocent. How your lordship would have decided this trial had it taken
place before you, and had the public Press, under the influence of
insurance societies, hounded on the many to a cry for blood, I can
easily anticipate; but that the great judge who ruled for mercy
adjudicated according to the well-known principles of the Constitution
is what I am assured by every man who has made the English law his
study, and who is too pure to be influenced by a shout of “Crucify him!
crucify him!” will admit without the slightest shadow of a doubt. Take,
again, the ordinary case which I find mentioned in an anonymous letter
in one of the morning papers, and which, I am informed, is so strongly
illustrative of the caution exercised in all criminal cases where the
judge is impartial, and where medical science must occasionally be
fallible, that it needs no words of mine to add to its force. Its value
is increased by this fact, that neither I nor any person connected with
my family has the least knowledge of who the writer is, and, therefore,
no considerations but those which do him honour can be supposed to
operate on his mind.

“To establish,” he says, “a perfect chain of circumstantial evidence,
every circumstance in the case must be proved beyond all cavil. And the
first and most important and absolutely indispensable circumstance in a
case like that of Palmer’s is the fact of a murder having been
committed. That is the groundwork of the circumstantial fabric, without
which the rest of the edifice topples over. It is a circumstance of
which merely the conduct, however suspicious, antecedent or subsequent
to its occurrence, of the alleged murderer furnishes no valid proof. To
convict a man of poisoning, you should distinctly trace the death of the
deceased to poison.

“Take a case in point. It is of frequent occurrence in this country that
a woman is charged with the murder of her newly-born infant. She is
unmarried; she is proved to have been suspected of pregnancy, and to
have denied the fact; she is proved to have been recently delivered of a
child; she has been seen going to a water-closet, and, after she has
left, there are found, rammed down the pipe of that water-closet, the
dissected members of an infant’s body; a knife smeared with blood is
discovered hidden away, and traced to the prisoner’s possession; she has
made no provision for the reception of the child, which, should it
survive the moment of its birth, must prove an incubus upon its mother
and a living witness to her shame. Here are circumstances of a damning
nature. A strong motive, a cool premeditation, a mutilated body, and
physical traces which cannot be mistaken. Mark the result. A surgeon is
called at the trial, and states that he cannot positively swear that the
child was born alive; that it may by possibility have been born dead;
that there being no proof that the child was ever alive, he cannot be
sure that it was killed by being cut in pieces. In that case there is no
Professor Taylor, who, while the case was _pendente lite_, has written
letters in a newspaper stating that ‘society demands a victim,’ and
whose sworn testimony is to the effect that, inasmuch as 99 children in
100 are born alive, his solemn belief is that so was this child, and
that he has therefore come to the conclusion that the cutting off of its
head was the cause of death. There is no Chief Justice to tell the jury
that they are to take all the circumstances surrounding the case into
consideration, and that, although it was not proved beyond a doubt that
death was the result of mortal agency, yet if they arrived at the
conclusion that the prisoner had a strong motive for destroying the
deceased, and had possession of an instrument by which to effect that
purpose, there was a _prima facie_ case made out which would lead them
to the next question, namely, was the state of the body, or was it not,
consistent with the fact of a violent death? There is no infuriated and
Press-prejudiced populace regarding the prisoner as a great criminal,
and thirsting after her blood. No! The judge says to the jury you
cannot, according to the law of the land, whatever your suspicions in
this case may be, find a verdict of guilty; there is no proof of a
murder having been committed, and the prisoner must be acquitted on that
charge. That may be a vicious law, but it is the law, and had no more
right to be violated in the case of William Palmer than in that of any
other individual. If it be, the whole proceedings of the trial are a
mockery and a delusion--a disgraceful pandering to out-of-door
prejudices and a lasting disgrace to this country.”

This is the language of a man who writes as an unprejudiced observer,
and, I am told, with a deep knowledge of the law. If it be, as he says,
that this is the law in cases of this nature, with what face can my
brother be executed when precisely the very reverse was done by your
lordship in his case, and, when forgetting or despising all the
precedents of mercy with which our jurisprudence abounds, you took only
the sanguinary view of the evidence, and enforced everything against the
prisoner by argument, by gesture, and by look.

That the law is wise in exercising this salutary caution I think may be
proved even by the testimony of the actor who next, after your lordship,
had most influence in the verdict against my brother--I mean Dr. Taylor.
In that writer’s work on “Poisons,” page 139, I find the following
statement:--“It often happens, in the hands of the ablest analyst, that
the last steps of a process lead to a result very different from that
which was anticipated at the commencement; and, therefore, a suspicion
derived from a few incipient experiments is very likely to be overthrown
by continuing the investigation. In the Boughton case Dr. Rattray gives
an opinion, in the first instance, that the poison administered to the
deceased was arsenic; but he subsequently attributed death to
laurel-water! A case occurred within my knowledge where arsenic was
pronounced to be present when sulphuric acid was really the poison. In
another case, tried at the Kingston Assizes in 1832, the medical witness
admitted that at the coroner’s inquest he stated the poison to be
arsenic, but by subsequent experiments he found that it was oxalic acid,
and in a case which has but recently occurred the poison was at first
stated to be oxalic acid, but on a more careful examination it was shown
to be arsenic!” Whether or not all the unhappy persons in whose cases
these chemical mistakes were thus made, and thus coolly avowed, suffered
death is not stated, but, as I am told that one of them, Donellan, was
certainly executed, and as it is even now a question deeply involved in
doubt whether the person whom he is supposed to have poisoned was
poisoned at all, and the most able medical authorities incline to the
opinion that he was not, it is likely that the others also were as
ruthlessly sacrificed to what is called “public opinion,” and that they
have been sent to their graves with the stigma of murder when they were,
in fact, but victims to medical delusions, or toxicological mistakes,
which are as coolly confessed by Taylor as if they were merely ordinary
trifles, not affecting in any way the life and death of the wretches
whose interests were at stake.

My lord, how comes it to pass that not one of these most important facts
was mentioned by Taylor at the trial? that his henchman, Rees, who swore
exactly as Taylor swore, did not give the jury the slightest information
upon these questions of vital value to the prisoner? Why were they kept
back from the knowledge of the jury? Why were they concealed from your
lordship? It was proved at the trial that Dr. Harland sent Stevens his
medical notes of the first post-mortem examination; that Stevens handed
them over to Taylor, and that, up to the third day of the trial, Taylor
withheld, even from the knowledge of the Attorney-General and the Crown
solicitor, that he possessed these notes, which contained circumstances
strongly favourable to the case of the prisoner. Was not his silence as
to the medical facts just mentioned of a piece with his suppression of
this material document? Your lordship made no comment to the jury upon
this extraordinary conduct. You severely attacked Mr. Nunneley, you
bitterly censured others of the witnesses for the defence, you weakened,
by all the means within your power, the effect of their evidence when it
told for the prisoner; but not one syllable of censure had you for
Taylor, who kept the jury in ignorance of these facts, and the cases
mentioned by him in his own book, though he was sworn in the language of
the law to tell “the truth and the whole truth.” The whole truth,
indeed, he did not tell; otherwise these matters which I have now quoted
would have come before the jurors, and, as I believe, with all-powerful
influence.

If the wilful suppression of evidence by the prosecution had ended with
Taylor the case would have been infamous enough; the Crown would have
showed that it prosecuted for victory, not for truth, for I take it to
be the unquestioned duty of a prosecutor, more especially when he is
backed by the Crown authorities and the Home Office, not merely to
squabble for a petty triumph on a prisoner charged with murder, or to
attempt to higgle a jury out of an adverse verdict, but to present not a
part but the whole case fairly before the public--the features
favourable to a prisoner as well as those that are unfavourable, the
weak portions of the accusations against him as well as those that are
strong, so that the jury, who are (in theory) his judges, may see and
know every circumstance, however minute, and, from an aggregate of the
whole, come to a right conclusion as to the verdict which they are to
pronounce. But this salutary rule was not followed by the Crown
prosecutors in the present case; they wilfully deceived and misled the
counsel for my brother, and by this trick, which I shall presently
expose, they deprived the prisoner of two of the most material
witnesses, who could prove his innocence, that it was possible for man
to have. The first of these witnesses was a man named Henry Cockayne.
Your lordship remembers the questions which Serjeant Shee put to that
wretched Bates; and you recollect also, I doubt not, the artful way in
which he answered those questions. It was of importance to my brother to
show for what purpose he had purchased, and in what manner he had used,
the strychnia, which he never denied, and does not now mean to deny,
that he bought from Roberts on the Tuesday.

He had a number of valuable brood mares in a paddock, separated from the
adjoining land only by a thin fence, over which the dogs were in the
habit of leaping and hunting these animals (nine in all), so much so
that even Bates was obliged to admit that one of them, the “Duchess of
Kent,” had slipped her foal; and it is a fact that “Goldfinder” had
suffered from a like mishap, though Bates refused to acknowledge it.
Indeed, Bates would scarcely admit anything, or give a direct reply to
any of the questions put to him. Here is an example, taken from the
verbatim report of the trial--“Can you give me any notion of their
value?” “I do not pretend,” answers Bates, “to tell the value of the
stock myself.” No one had asked him to do so, yet this stable-boy,
brewer, farmer, or whatever else he chooses to call himself, who has
been about horses all his life, could not give Serjeant Shee a notion of
the value of these brood mares. “Do you know,” pursued the serjeant,
“that one of them sold for 800 guineas?” Now, Bates knew this as well as
my brother himself, but mark his answer--“I have heard so.” Again, he is
asked--“Were any of them in foal shortly before or at the beginning of
the month of November?” Bates, you will remember, was in the stables and
paddocks every day, yet he answers this question, “I cannot say whether
they were or not. I should suppose there were some in foal.” A witness
who answered in this way would probably have been rebuked by any fair
judge, and ordered to answer the questions put to him; but your
lordship, who was so dreadfully sarcastic on Mr. Nunneley and Dr.
Macdonald, had no word of reproof for Bates. This man was again asked,
“had any complaint been made about dogs going about the paddock?” Mark
the artful way in which he evaded this interrogatory--“I think I once
said to Harry, ‘The turf seems a good deal cut up here; how is it?’”
Your lordship sees Bates had not been asked what he had said to Harry
(this was Cockayne), but he had been asked about repeated and well-known
complaints made by my brother as to the way in which his mares were
constantly hunted by the dogs in the neighbourhood; and you now see,
though you would not at the trial, the evasive and equivocating way in
which he replied. Serjeant Shee then proceeded--“What did you see on the
turf that induced you to make that observation?--I saw it cut up, which
I supposed to be with horses’ feet, for they could not cut it up without
they galloped. Did you attribute that to anything?--I attributed it to
the mares galloping about. Had you any reason to think they had been run
by dogs?--I never saw any dogs run them.” This was no answer to the
question, but your lordship said not a word, and this Bates, who was
with Day in the paddock, who, to use the words of the Attorney-General,
“was a hanger-on of Palmer’s, working in his stables,” could not tell,
as he pretended, how it was that the mares were galloping about and
cutting up the turf. The serjeant then proceeded--“Did Harry keep a gun
there?--I have seen a gun there. (This again was not a direct answer,
but an evasion.) Did he keep a gun, which belonged to his master, for
any purpose?--I have seen a gun at the paddock. Did it belong to his
master?--I cannot say. Did you ever see it used?--No. Was it in a
condition to be used?--I never had it in my hands to examine it.” In
ordinary cases I am told that where a witness misconducts himself in
this manner, the Crown immediately gives him up, and the judge informs
the jury that no reliance is to be placed on his testimony. But, so far
from abandoning him, the Attorney-General relied all through upon this
man, and pressed against my brother the effect of the evidence which he
gave. Now, your lordship was told at the trial, by Serjeant Shee, that
the object for which the poison was purchased was to destroy these dogs.
Bates was found to admit that a gun was kept in the stables, and though
he cunningly kept back for what purpose the gun was used, yet was there
another witness on the back of the indictment who had been examined
before the coroner, and who was present in the Court, of whose evidence
your lordship was well aware, for it was in the depositions, and this
witness the Crown withheld from the jury. Had Cockayne been called, as
he ought to have been called, he would have proved that he kept a gun
loaded in the stable, by order of my brother, to shoot the dogs that
worried his brood mares; that he had also threatened to poison them,
that the strychnia was purchased for that object, and that he had missed
dogs since then which had been in the habit of prowling about the
paddock and hunting the mares. That my brother left poisoned food about
the place is a matter which can be proved only by himself, for these
things are not always trusted to servants; and, as it is a positive
medical fact that animals to which this poison has been given go away
into secret, concealed, and quiet places, where they die undiscovered,
and would be mortally attacked in so short a time that they could not
get to their own homes. Is it not almost demonstrated that this has been
the case here, and that my brother is thus made the victim of
circumstances, harmless in themselves, but which, having occurred at
this precise period, tell now with fearful weight upon his unfortunate
case? The Crown may cry out, “Produce the dogs, and show us the
strychnia in them.” With how much more freedom may the condemned man
say, “Produce the poison from Cook’s body before you hang me to satisfy
a medical theory invented for this trial and broached against me by a
deadly foe!”

In the same way, the non-discovery of the money which Cook is said to
have possessed at Shrewsbury was urged by your lordship as startling
evidence against my brother, and you signified to the jury, by gestures,
by looks, and shakes of the head, that my brother had fraudulently got
possession of that money, and poisoned Cook in order to conceal the
fact. But your lordship was well aware at the time, for it was in the
depositions of Saunders, who was also in Court, and who had been
examined before the coroner and the Grand Jury, that Cook had sent for
Saunders on the Monday before his death, that he had paid him £10 (his
account), and excused himself for not paying any more, by stating that
he had given my brother all his money to take with him to London, to
settle his affairs. Thus the disposal of the money was accounted for by
Cook himself; and Saunders, whose testimony was thus highly favourable
to my brother, ought to have been called to prove this fact. But,
strange to say, Saunders, though in Court, was not called; he waited
until the end of the case for the prosecution, and then was sent away by
the Crown lawyers, who not only thus deprived the prisoner of the
advantage of his testimony, had they called Saunders for the
prosecution, but absolutely put it out of the power of the prisoner to
call him for the defence by sending him away into the country at the
last moment, when they had all along left the counsel for the defence
under the idea that it was intended to examine Saunders as a witness on
behalf of the prosecution. A more scandalous trick than this, I believe,
was never committed, and I do not envy the feelings of the parties who
perpetrated it.

It may be asked, why did not Mr. Smith, an able, indefatigable, and
skilful lawyer, get Cockayne and Saunders put into the box as witnesses
for the prisoner? My lord, the answer is already given. They were the
witnesses for the Crown; they were kept in London, in the custody of the
Crown, until after the case for the prosecution had terminated; they
were then sent out of London, into a distant part of England not so
easily accessible as was needed by the prisoner; and if we are to take
your lordship’s manifest and angry impatience at the ten minutes’ delay
in calling witnesses for the defence, which occurred on the morning of
Saturday, the tenth day of the trial, as indicative of your feelings, we
may be very certain that if you so chafed at that brief interval,
repeatedly during those few minutes asking Serjeant Shee if he could not
go on--if, I say, we are to consider that angry haste significant of
anything, we may very well conclude that you would not have waited until
Saunders and Cockayne were brought up from the centre of England, if,
indeed, it was possible for the prisoner at all to discover their exact
lodgings at the time. I have myself heard, on many occasions, in Courts
of justice where judges themselves called witnesses whose names were in
the indictment and order them to give their evidence for the Crown. But
this was where the judges were not biassed against the accused--where
they had no desire to become the objects of public praise or to
prostitute their high places to the low desire of popularity acquired by
pandering to a cry for blood. Why your lordship did not follow the
well-known precedents of law in my brother’s case is best known to
yourself. Yet there are many of the public also who can form a pretty
accurate guess as to your real motives. Let me revert, however, to the
subject, from which this is a digression, and pursue the confession made
by Dr. Taylor of the general inaccuracy of medical men when they are
retained to carry out a theory by the prosecution. These, which I have
quoted, are not the only instances in which mistakes have been made for
want of proper caution. Taylor (p. 63) mentions the case of M. Pralet,
where “several medical witnesses deposed that the deceased had died from
prussic acid, administered to him by M. L’Heritier, the accused. Orfila
was requested to examine the medical evidence, and found it extremely
defective. The inferences drawn from the application of the medical
tests were highly improper, and the results were extremely negative. Had
it not been for the interference of Orfila, it is most probable that the
accused would have been convicted, more from the strong medical opinions
against him than from the medical facts of the case. The witnesses
appear to have acted on the principle that the whole of their duty
consisted in rendering the charge of poisoning probable, whereas we
shall hereafter see that no person can be convicted of this crime on
mere probability. The fact of poisoning must be made reasonably certain
either by medical or moral evidence, or by both combined.” He cites also
(p. 110) a case reported by Anglada, in which there were circumstances
of grave suspicion, though the party suspected was wholly innocent. “A
lady, in perfect health, while supping with her husband and family,
complained, after having taken two or three mouthfuls, of severe pain in
the region of her heart. She fell back in her chair and died instantly.
The parties not having lived on the best of terms, the husband was
openly accused of having been accessory to the poisoning of his wife--a
circumstance which was rendered still more probable in the opinion of
his neighbours by the fact that the wife had lately made a holograph
will in his favour. One of his servants, with whom he was said to live
in adultery, was arrested, and a paper containing a white powder was
found in her possession. The husband endeavoured to compromise the
affair by offering to give up the will. Here, then, were strong moral
presumptions of death from poisoning. Three surgeons (experts!) were
appointed to examine the body. They opened the abdomen, and, observing
some green spots in the stomach, produced (as it afterwards appeared, by
imbibition from the gall bladder), pronounced an opinion that the organ
was in a gangrenous state from the effects of some corrosive poison.
Some doubt arising on the correctness of this view, four other surgeons
were directed to re-examine the body. They found that the stomach had
not even been opened, and that its mucous membrane, as well as that of
the intestines, was perfectly healthy. It contained a small quantity of
undigested food, which was free from any trace of poison. The deceased
had died from natural causes. The white powder found in the possession
of the servant was nothing more than white sugar!” Nor does he omit the
case of Hunter (p. 144), whose trial at Liverpool Assizes somewhat
resembles that of my poor brother, but who was fortunate enough to be
tried by an honest judge and an impartial jury. “A woman was charged
with having poisoned her husband by arsenic. The medical evidence rested
chiefly on the symptoms and post-mortem appearances, for no arsenic was
discovered in the body. The mucous membrane of the stomach and
intestines was found throughout its whole extent exceedingly inflamed
and softened. The medical witnesses for the prosecution referred (as
they always do) this condition to the action of arsenic; those for the
defence considered that it might be owing to idiopathic gastroenteritis,
independently of the exhibition of any irritant. The circumstances of
the case were very suspicious, but the prisoner was acquitted, not
merely on account of the variance in the medical evidence, but from the
absence of positive proof of poison, i.e., its detection by chemical
analysis.” This generally weighs much with a Court of law. Yet your
lordship so contrived that it did not weigh one hair in my brother’s
case. The principles of law being thus clear, and the mistakes of
medical science being also equally admitted, let me follow them up by a
further quotation from the gentleman out of whose powerful letter I have
already extracted a passage--“Is there clear, and distinct, and
unimpeachable proof that beyond all reasonable doubt Mr. Cook died a
violent death? Let us see how that question is answered. For the
prosecution a number of medical men of eminence state that the symptoms
in his case were such as they would expect to have resulted from the
administration of strychnia, and were irreconcilable with death from any
other cause. Upon the part of the prisoner a number of equally eminent
medical men state that they can account for the death of the deceased
without being compelled to resort to the hypothesis of strychnia, and
that in many important particulars the symptoms were different from
those which that poison invariably produces. Each set of witnesses, upon
cross-examination, qualified their statements in some degree, but in the
result such is the substance of their respective experience.

“Then comes Professor Taylor, who analysed the contents of the stomach,
&c., and who states that he found no strychnia nor any poison which
could account for the death of Mr. Cook. As Lord Campbell said with a
sneer, ‘Of course, upon this the whole defence rests.’ It strikes me as
being a very feasible defence indeed, but more of that presently.
However, Dr. Taylor states that you must not draw the conclusion that
because no strychnia was found, therefore none was administered, because
he had known cases (though of very rare occurrence) where he had himself
administered that drug to animals, and afterwards tested for and failed
to discover it; and from the symptoms he is convinced that Mr. Cook must
have died from strychnia. Dr. Rees is of a similar opinion. Now, the
result of this evidence is to destroy the practical utility of analysis
for strychnia altogether; for although if strychnia be detected, it is
proof that it has been administered, yet if it be not detected, that is
no proof that it has not been administered.

“Then let us look at the other side. Mr. Herepath, who is confessedly
one of the greatest analytical chemists of the present day, states that
if the minutest particle of strychnia were present in the body, he would
guarantee to find it, and in that statement he is corroborated by a
series of eminent toxicologists. It is suggested, in answer to this
evidence, that Professor Taylor did not apply the proper tests. Surely,
if he did not, it did not lie in the mouth of the prosecution to urge
that argument. He was their witness; he was employed by them to make the
analysis, and they trusted to his capacity to do so; and when he states
that he found no strychnia, the fair and logical deduction is, not that
he did not use the proper tests, but that there was no strychnia to be
found. Notwithstanding this, Lord Campbell put it very strongly--and, as
I conceive, very unjustifiably and illegally, to the jury--that
Professor Taylor might not have used the proper tests, and that it was
for them to consider whether, if the proper tests had been applied,
strychnia might not have been discovered. But, however, Mr. Herepath,
whose testimony is borne out by other chemical witnesses for the
defence, states that he will guarantee to find strychnia in all cases
where it is present, however infinitesimal the quantity; that he never
found his tests to fail, and that the only conclusion he could draw from
the fact of strychnia not being found is that none was administered.
Upon the one hand, therefore, you have the positive opinions of fallible
medical men, founded upon a second-hand knowledge of the symptoms, as to
the impossibility of their resulting from any other cause than
strychnia. Upon the other hand you have the equally positive opinions of
medical men similarly situated as to the effect of those symptoms being
reconcilable with natural causes. Cast into the scales the unerring
inspirations of chemical science, add that the life of a fellow-creature
is at stake, and which way lies the balance of evidence?”

My lord, what answer can you make to this argument? You will say,
perhaps, that you have convinced yourself that my brother is guilty.
This, indeed, may satisfy a man of weak or of no conscience; but how
will it fall upon the great body of the enlightened British public, who
have been wound up, it is true, to the most awful excitement against
this unhappy man, but who will assuredly awaken from that excitement and
demand in tones of thunder how it came to pass that you, who should have
stood between the prisoner and prejudice, ministered to that prejudice,
and were found to be his accuser rather than his judge!

And here, my lord, before I proceed further, let me exonerate you from
all the blame of this sham trial. You had a brother judge by your side
who shares with you all the responsibility of prejudice against my
brother, who made no secret, but rather an indecent display of that
prejudice in a manner which astonished the whole auditory, and who ought
also to be recorded with you to all time coming as having participated
in the laurels of blood with which you should be crowned--I allude to
Mr. Baron Alderson. That learned functionary, who inaugurated the first
day’s proceedings by falling asleep and nearly tumbling over his desk
during the Attorney-General’s opening speech, amused himself during the
progress of the trial by suggesting questions to Mr. James, the counsel
for the prosecution, by lifting up his hands in apparent astonishment
when anything favourable to the prisoner was elicited on
cross-examination, by looking at the jury with every mark of incredulity
and contempt when Serjeant Shee suggested any matter beneficial to my
brother, and by joining with your lordship in overruling every legal
objection which was raised by the counsel for the defence. Once also,
when Serjeant Shee asked one of the witnesses, “Where are the pathionic
glands?” Baron Alderson started up with every mark of anger and
exclaimed, “Humbug!” And on another occasion, when your lordship, or Mr.
Justice Cresswell, addressed the serjeant as “Brother Shee,” Baron
Alderson impatiently cried out, “Oh, bother Shee!” I can feel no
surprise, therefore, when I find your lordship, while pronouncing
sentence on my brother, declaring that Baron Alderson concurred with the
finding of the jury, though, unless he concurred with you before the
verdict was pronounced, he certainly did not do so in Court, as no
communication passed between you and either of the judges after that
fatal word. But of Mr. Justice Cresswell I feel bound to declare the
feeling of my brother, of all my family, and, unanimously, as I am told,
that of my brother’s counsel, that his conduct was in accordance with
all that we hear or know of the purity of the bench; that his demeanour
was dignified, noble, impartial, and most honourable; and that, but for
his interference, visible, as was remarked on many important occasions,
your lordship would have admitted evidence illegally against my brother,
or excluded testimony which his advisers hoped would operate favourably
for him on the minds of his jury. Never shall the memory of his conduct
be erased from our hearts; we all have felt, and we shall always
continue to feel it; nor shall any sunset close on me for the remainder
of my days that shall not witness my earnest prayer for him who did all
that a judge should do to maintain the character of our country and its
criminal jurisprudence; and who probably would have exerted himself
still more strenuously but for the feeling that upon your lordship, as
chief judge, the great responsibility of this case rested, and that he
himself was but an appendage rather than a ministering officer at the
trial.

My lord, the remarks which I have up to this time made may be considered
preliminary to my investigations of your charge, but they seem to me of
consequence to a right understanding of the language in which you
thought it proper to address them, and to a due appreciation of the kind
of way in which the guilt has been fastened upon my brother’s shoulders.
A writer in a daily paper says--“However horrible it may be that a
systematic poisoner should escape the penalty of his crimes by an effort
of legal chicanery, there is something even more repugnant to the
principles of British law, and that is, that a man should be found
guilty upon insufficient evidence; and there is something still more
revolting, both to the constitution of the country and to human nature,
namely, that a man should be hanged for a murder which there is no
satisfactory proof had ever been committed.”

Yet, my lord, there is something still more dreadful, and it is this,
that the time-renowned prestige of British trial by jury should be
abrogated, as abrogated it will be, if your lordship’s precedent is to
be followed by present or future judges. Did your lordship really leave
any question to the jury upon which to exercise an impartial reason? Did
you throw upon them the whole responsibility of the verdict, as by the
theory of the law you ought to have done? Did you merely lay down the
legal principles governing the case, or did you not step out of the way
to comment (like an advocate) on the evidence? To get up this witness
and to knock down that one, to praise those who supported Dr. Taylor’s
theory and to censure those who were independent of such nonsense? Did
not your lordship convey, as clearly to the jury, by meaning looks, by
thumping the desk with peculiar energy, by laying emphasis on certain
parts of the evidence, and then pausing and gazing intently upon the
jurymen, by shaking your head, as if your thoughts of my brother’s guilt
were too dreadful for utterance; by repeating over and over again those
parts which told heaviest against him; by running on the evidence for
the prisoner so that it was impossible for the jury to understand it; by
charging against him, for a whole day and on the morning of the second,
recapitulating with fearful emphasis and solemnity all your arguments of
the preceding night, condensing them and summing them into one
argumentative whole, from which it was almost impossible for the jury to
draw any other conclusion than that you wished them to find a verdict of
guilty? And when you had done all this you devoted the rest of the
day--about two hours and a half--to the prisoner’s evidence, having
given upwards of eleven hours to the evidence for the prosecution. If
you think this consistent with your duty and with trial by jury, I can
only say you stand alone; for if any faith is to be placed in the public
Press, in the tone of general conversation, in the loudly-expressed
voice of all independent persons, you have struck a blow at trial by
jury from which it never will recover, unless the great mass of the
community now protest against such a course in language that cannot be
mistaken. If persons are thus persuaded into giving verdicts by judges
in high station there is an end to the liberties of Englishmen. Trial
by jury becomes, in the language of Lord Denman, “a mockery, a delusion,
and a snare,” and the most glorious privilege which we have inherited
from our ancestors degenerates into an engine of tyranny, cruelty, and
falsehood, to entrap and destroy those who regard it as their dearest
birthright. My lord, if there be no sympathy for my brother, let there
be at least a feeling for our own rights when they are invaded, and let
the public meditate in time that it is by little and little the grandest
rights of states and empires are insidiously sapped until they perish.

I am not about to recapitulate the arguments of Serjeant Shee, which
prove that this charge of murder is one of the most improbable in the
annals of criminal jurisprudence. These arguments failed with the jury
because they were not permitted to exercise a calm judgment upon them.
But I may call attention to the gross fallacy on which the whole
prosecution was founded--that of starting with the positive theory of a
murder and then endeavouring by all means to fix that murder upon my
brother.

It is, therefore, clear that in this case a great, and what would have
proved in any other an insurmountable difficulty meets one at the
threshold--that in order to obtain a conviction one must reverse the
legal and customary order of proceeding. Instead of proving a murder
first and discovering the murderer afterwards, you first prove the
murderer and thence deduce a murder. That is the course which the
necessities of the case compelled the Attorney-General to pursue, and it
was your duty to have exploded that theory in your summing up. But you
did no such thing. On the contrary, you went into all the antecedents of
the prisoner, and put them to the jury as an element in the
consideration of whether a murder had or had not been committed. And
having thus prepared the minds of the jury by the antimony of motives,
suspicious circumstances, &c., you then administer to them the strychnia
of a murder. You descanted more especially upon the purchase of
strychnia by the prisoner just before Cook’s death as strong evidence
that Cook was poisoned. That circumstance, coming after proof of Cook’s
death by strychnia, would reduce the case to one of almost geometrical
accuracy; but by itself, in the absence of such proof--nay, in presence
of scientific proof to the contrary--of what value is it? Besides, it is
quite incompatible with the case for the prosecution. The prosecution
suggests that my brother had a deliberate intention to murder Cook, and
had for ten days been adopting preliminary measures to carry that
intention into effect; that when the time for the completion of his
infernal purpose approached (which was on the Sunday), he wrote for Mr.
Jones, of Lutterworth, a surgeon, and a personal friend of the deceased,
to come over and be present at his last moments, in order that his
presence there might stave off suspicion. Now, if that were so, is it
not reasonable to suppose that he would have had the poison ready to be
administered, and not trust to the doctrine of chances to procure it at
a village like Rugeley when wanted for immediate use? Surely the
professional poisoner might naturally be expected to keep a good
stock-in-trade? Nothing of the sort. On the Monday night (if the case
for the prosecution is to be believed) he gets from Newton three grains
of strychnia, which he gives almost immediately afterwards to Cook. Cook
is attacked with strychnia-tetanus, but recovers, and is nearly quite
well the next day. The prisoner, finding Cook not dead, gets six grains
from Roberts on the Tuesday, which he also gives to Cook, and this time
he succeeds in his purpose. Now, is not this--the blackest part of the
case against my brother--very improbable? Would the poisoner of fourteen
people do his work in such a clumsy fashion? But, then, the possession
or destination of those six grains is not attempted to be accounted
for. That certainly is a most inculpatory circumstance. But we must
remember this, that until it was known that the prisoner had had this
strychnia, it was never suspected that Cook died from strychnia. It was
that circumstance which originated the train of ideas as to my brother’s
guilt; and when charged with murder he may naturally have thought that
the strychnia, if found in his possession, would be evidence of his
guilt, and so may have destroyed it; whereas, if he had preserved it, it
would have been the strongest proof of his innocence. Then, if he did
destroy it, he could give no proof of the fact, for, of course, it would
be done without the privity of any one else. Now, if he had been in
France he himself would have been subjected to a strict examination upon
all the points of the case, and his own statement upon that point,
whether for or against him, would have been in evidence. Moreover, how
does this part of the case reconcile with the medical evidence? It is
admitted on all hands that half a grain is sufficient to destroy life;
but a grain, or two, or three, no man could survive that. Still, the
inference unquestionably is that that quantity was administered on
Monday night but did not kill, and the next day the dose was doubled!
Nine grains in all! And of these nine grains of strychnia, which
unquestionably were administered if Cook died from that poison, no trace
whatever can be discovered in the body!

I will not further dwell upon this subject, but come to your lordship’s
conduct and charge, which are the more immediate objects of this letter.

The first thing which appeared to me unfair was the order which your
lordship made that the medical witnesses for the Crown should be
accommodated with seats in the most convenient part of the Court, while
the greater number of witnesses for the defence were obliged to stand
during the greater part of the trial--no slight mode of exhausting them
mentally as well as physically. And so rigidly was this carried out that
none of the medical witnesses for the defence were admitted into Court
until all the witnesses for the prosecution had taken their seats, and
fully preoccupied all the vacant space. This may appear a slight thing,
but I know how greatly it affected some of the older medical witnesses
for my brother, and how much it weakened them for the violent attacks
which the Attorney-General made upon them. There are few men, however
vigorous, who will not be worn out by standing for eight or nine days in
the crowded atmosphere of such a Court as the Old Bailey.

The next thing which appeared to me unfair was your permitting the
Attorney-General to open to the jury all the facts connected with
Bates’s insurance, and this you did after Serjeant Shee objected. It is
true that evidence of this negotiation was afterwards excluded as being
irrelevant, but why did you not exclude the statement which you must
have known beforehand would prejudice the jury against my brother? The
simple fact of that affair was that my brother wanted to raise money for
Bates, whom he pitied; that this device was resorted to for that
purpose, and I am told that not on the turf alone, but in commercial
circles, it is a common thing to raise loans upon the deposit of
insurance policies. Your lordship, however, allowed the jury to infer
that my brother and Cook wanted to insure Bates’s life in order that
they might afterwards murder him!

It is a principle of the law that nothing which is said in the absence
of a prisoner can be given in evidence against him. But you permitted a
conversation between Cook and Fisher to be proved when my brother was
not present, and when he could, consequently, have had no means of
contradicting Cook’s drunken folly about the “dosing.” In this, I am
told by a most accomplished member of the bar, you violated one of the
leading rules of evidence--one adapted for the protection of all men, as
it is obvious that if private slander be once permitted to be detailed
before a jury, the most innocent man living may be hanged on statements
made behind his back. In your charge to the jury you seemed conscious of
the impropriety you had committed, and you did not read that portion of
the evidence to them, but it had already produced a fatal influence on
their minds. Yet you would have read it, as I could plainly see, only
that Judge Cresswell interposed just as you came to it. What renders
this more indefensible is that Serjeant Shee objected to it, but you
overruled his objection. (See verbatim report of trial, p. 26.) And the
Attorney-General himself refrained from stating it in his opening
address, because he said it was not evidence (report, p. 9). Upon its
manifest falsehood I need not say a word. It is incredible that Cook
should say to Fisher my brother poisoned him, and yet afterwards go to
Rugeley with him, dine with him, send for him every hour in the day,
entrust him with all his moneys, make no mention of “dosing” to his
oldest friend, Dr. Jones, and retain his affectionate faith in William
to the last. Yet, not one word of these obvious reflections did you put
before the jury to weaken the force of the illegal evidence you allowed
to go before them. You only said that it was “mysterious,” whereas, in
truth, it was incredible; and you added that “Cook was under the
influence of Palmer to a very great degree,” as if he would have
continued so after an attempt to kill him. It was very soon apparent
that your lordship was resolved not only to admit illegal evidence, but
also to allow the prosecuting counsel great liberties in their mode of
examination. Serjeant Shee repeatedly called your attention to Mr. James
putting “leading questions” to the witnesses, but you overruled him,
until he told Mr. Smith that it was quite useless to object any further.
I am told that every member of the bar in Court was of opinion that the
questions were irregular in the leading shape in which they were put.

In his opening speech the Attorney-General made the following statement
to the jury:--“The next morning, at an early hour, Palmer was with him,
and from that time, during the whole of Saturday and Sunday, he was
constantly in attendance on him. He ordered him some coffee. Coffee was
brought up by the chambermaid, Elizabeth Mills. It was taken into the
room, given to the prisoner, and she left. Palmer, having received the
coffee, gave it to the man, who was in bed, and had, therefore, an
opportunity of dealing with it” (report, p. 12). Elizabeth Mills was
called to prove this statement. So far from proving that it was given to
Palmer, she distinctly swore that she “placed it in Cook’s hands,” so
that Palmer had no opportunity of tampering with it (report, p. 33). Yet
your lordship, whose duty it was to see that none of these misstatements
should be unobserved upon to the jury, did not point out this remarkable
discrepancy, nor did you think it incumbent on you to set them right
upon a point of such material import to my brother. You allowed them to
believe that he had poisoned that coffee when the evidence negatived his
dealing with it at all.

In commenting upon the evidence of this woman, Elizabeth Mills, you said
that Serjeant Shee had made “a most foul charge against her and
Stevens,” representing that she had been bribed, but that you did “not
see the smallest pretence for such a suggestion.” I wonder that, after
your three score and ten years in this wicked world, you could have been
so exceedingly innocent and simple. You come from a country where the
inhabitants are keen-sighted enough, yet you thrust yourself forward as
the defender of Eliza Mills, a woman upon whose countenance her
character was written, and whose whole demeanour flashed conviction to
every mind of the sort of person she was. This woman was brought away
from Rugeley by Stevens, she was lodged by him at Dolly’s, where she saw
him “always” in the sitting-room, that gentleman having called “merely
to see how I liked London, and whether I was well in health, and all
that, to see whether I liked the place,” though she afterwards added
that he called about “sometimes one thing, sometimes another,” and “many
more things which I cannot remember. I do not keep things in my head for
weeks or months together. I do not pretend to keep in my head what the
conversation was,” yet “there were many more things talked about that I
do not wish to mention. Perhaps my thoughts were occupied about
something else.” And when the same woman is asked to give some account
of herself, and her visit to the man Dutton at Hitchingley, and asked to
name “who are your friends?” she answers, “I have some friends there.”
“Who are they?” says Serjeant Shee, to which Mills answered, “Friends
are friends, I suppose,” and then she gave an account that she slept
with the mother, and was “engaged to the son,” though what she meant by
this she did not venture to explain. Your lordship, however, “saw not
the smallest pretence,” &c.

Again, when the deposition of the same woman was read, in which there
was no mention of the “twitchings and jerkings,” and all those other
horrors which she imparted into her narrative, and which she enforced by
so much pantomimic action; and when in the deposition she proved that
the “broth was very good,” while in the evidence at the trial she swore
that “it poisoned her,” you coolly told the jury that it was “an
important omission; but you will say whether that which is stated is not
substantially the same as the evidence which she gave on oath when
examined before you.” Whereas you ought to have said that they were
substantially opposite, the two statements being reconcilable by no
manner of even Scotch chicanery. In fact, the manner in which you
supported this woman was exactly opposite to that which judges usually
do when persons of that description come before them; and I have heard
of judges telling juries to place no reliance on witnesses whose conduct
and demeanour were every way superior to that of Mills. I can conceive
no greater blow to public trial than the support given by a judge to a
witness like Mills, but “a fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind,” and
you adopted her with all the fervour of a champion of romance. When it
was proposed to contradict this woman by Dr. Collier, who was in Court,
Judge Alderson said, with unrestrained anger, “It is better Dr. Collier
should be absent from the Court. If he is to be examined as to facts, he
ought not to be here at all; he is here under the false pretence of
being a doctor,” forgetting that Taylor, Rees, and Monkton, who were
also to be examined as to facts on behalf of the Crown, were then
present, though not, of course, “under the false pretence of being
doctors!” The jury very soon saw what the judges thought of the case.
Mr. Gardner, the lawyer of Rugeley, was then called to prove that the
coroner had not asked several questions of Mills, and that the jurymen
had expostulated with him for not doing so. This illegal course you
permitted, assigning the following strange reason for it:--“What was
said there is part of the transaction of taking the evidence. It cannot
be evidence against the prisoner, but it may explain the manner in which
the depositions are taken.” It requires no lawyer to tell me that “if it
cannot be evidence against the prisoner, then it has no right to go upon
your notes, or to be stated in the presence of the jury at all, whom it
cannot fail to affect, although they are sworn to decide according to
the evidence.” Yet all this you permitted, allowing the Attorney-General
to damage the character of the coroner in every way he could; and there
is no knowing what you could not have got Gardner to say had not Judge
Cresswell interposed and terminated the scene. He said “the depositions
which had been put in did not show that any questions had been put by
the jurymen. If they had contained such questions they would have shown
the motive of the jury in putting them. But the Court was left totally
in the dark as to whether questions had been put by the coroner or any
other person. For anything that appeared to the contrary, the witnesses
might have made a voluntary statement without any questions at all being
put to them. No foundation was, therefore, laid for the
Attorney-General’s inquiries.” Every one in Court saw how chagrined you
were at this interposition of Judge Cresswell, but you were obliged to
submit, as Alderson concurred with him. One word with reference to Ward,
the coroner. He is a very able lawyer. The jury wanted to put questions
as to various rumours about my brother William poisoning Lord George
Bentinck, Bladen the brewer, and twenty other people; and as the coroner
overruled all such folly, the sapient jurymen did expostulate with him,
and this was Gardner’s mare’s nest!

The next witness examined was Mrs. Brooks, and though she gave evidence
of the most valuable kind to the prisoner, yet not one syllable of it
did you comment upon to the jury. The main evidence against my brother,
connected with Shrewsbury, related to the sickness with which Cook was
seized. If, therefore, other persons in various parts of the town were
similarly affected, it could not fail to benefit William, for he could
not be said to have poisoned or “dosed” all the others, especially as he
was not at Shrewsbury at all when they were sick, but was at home at
Rugeley. Serjeant Shee asked Mrs. Brooks (report, p. 54), “Do you know
whether other racing men were taken ill on the Wednesday at
Shrewsbury?--There were a great number; one of my company was dreadfully
ill, and there was a wonder what could cause it. We made an observation.
We thought the water might have been poisoned at Shrewsbury. We were all
afflicted in some way by sickness--sick and purged.” After twelve days
the jury can be scarcely expected to have remembered this most important
admission. It was your incumbent duty to have recalled their attention
to it, for it was strongly in my brother’s favour; but, if they
recollected it at all, you took care that they should pay no attention
to it, for, after reading to them all that she said in her direct
examination, you remarked, “This ends the affair about Mr. Cook’s
illness at Shrewsbury, and, taken by itself, it really amounts to very
little, but, you observe, it is connected with what follows when he
returned to Rugeley” (report, p. 311). You then passed on, not saying a
word about the incident just mentioned, and, associating in the minds of
the jury with subsequent transactions at Rugeley that part of Mrs.
Brooks’ evidence which was brought forward for the prosecution, you kept
back the most valuable portion of her testimony to my brother, and
entirely ignored its existence in the case.

Dr. Jones, of Lutterworth, the friend of Cook, to whom my brother
writes, gave evidence of the most valuable kind, showing Cook’s broken
constitution, his sores, his syphilis, his secondary symptoms, his
unbounded confidence in William, and William’s brotherly kindness to
him, yet not one word of comment did you offer to the jury upon these
matters. The only remark you made was one highly damaging to my brother,
and was as follows:--“At first sight it would appear very much to be in
his favour that he sends for a medical man, who is a friend of Cook’s,
and who took a lively interest in him, and wished him well. But, at the
same time, there are circumstances in this case that may enable you to
draw a different conclusion, but I will not suggest” (report, p. 312).
No, you did not suggest in words, but, pausing here, you looked at the
jury and shook your head at them for half a minute in the most
mysterious manner, so that they must have been the dullest of all
mankind if they had not perfectly well known what you meant. I have
heard more than one person remark upon the Scotch subtlety of this mode
of proceeding. Your lordship is a sort of biographer of the Chief
Justices of England, though I am told that the unfortunate Dr. Giles,
whom you had the pleasure of sentencing at Oxford to twelve months’
imprisonment, is the real author of that production; and I suppose you
hope to figure one day in the literary gallery with those whom you have
commemorated. It would be impossible, perhaps, for a future historian
who merely read your proceedings in my brother’s trial, to form an
accurate notion of your demeanour; but, with the light which this letter
will throw upon the transaction, such an annalist--if ever you should be
thought worthy of notice--will be able to inform future times how you
managed to convince a jury without leaving any trace behind of the means
by which you did it.

The next witness of any consequence was Newton; and here I should have
thought your lordship’s feelings as a man, if they had not entirely
perished, would have exhibited some trace of natural passion. Newton,
according to his own account, was an accessory to the murder, and the
murderer after the fact; he knew the current gossip of Rugeley and
Stafford, that Cook had been poisoned by my brother; he assisted at the
post-mortem examinations for the purpose of detecting the poison which
the murderer had used; he had an interview on the Sunday after Cook’s
death with William, in which this skilful poisoner (whose chemical
knowledge of the minimum dose of strychnia which destroys life, and of
the hitherto unknown fact that antimony neutralises the discovery of
strychnia, places him a hundred years in advance of all the chemists of
the age), asks the ignorant shopboy of the nature and the effects of
strychnia! And when the learned Newton gives him information on the
matter, the poisoner snaps his fingers in joy and exclaims, “That will
do”; and after that he goes with him to the post-mortem examination; and
after that Newton swears against him at the inquest; and after that he
keeps the deadly secret buried in his bosom from November until the
middle of the month of May, just one day before the trial! And after the
trial he communicates the further fact to the Attorney-General that it
was he who made up the deadly pills for my brother on the Monday night.
With reference to the credibility of this monstrous witness you have not
one word to say, though you did not hesitate to stigmatise Mr. Nunneley
and Dr. M‘Donald as persons on whom the jury could place no reliance;
and in the course of their cross-examination you looked at them in a
manner significant of total incredulity of their testimony. Observe the
mode in which you support Newton. You say, “There is no contradiction of
anything that he has said.” Why did you not tell the jury that, as he
fixed no time or place when any one but the prisoner himself, whose
mouth was sealed, was by, it was impossible he could be contradicted?
You go on (report, p. 313)--“Well, then, you are to consider what is the
probability of his inventing this wicked and most abominable lie? He had
no ill-will towards the prisoner at the bar.” (Who told you that? Who
proved it? What right had you to assume it? What right had you to tell
it to the jury?) “He had nothing to gain by injuring him much less by
saying anything to affect his life.” (I ask again who told you all this,
and on what pretence did you venture to say so to the jury?) “I see no
motive that Mr. Newton could have for inventing a lie to take away the
life of another person.” (Are you omniscient, then, and do you profess
to read that inscrutable mystery, the human heart, and have you not read
in the annals of crime of innumerable murders and perjuries committed
without apparent motive?) “No inducement could be held out to him by the
Crown; he says himself that no inducement was held out to him, and that
he at last disclosed it from a sense of justice.” (As if a man who
screened a murderer for six months could have any sense of justice.) “If
you believe him, certainly the evidence is very strong against the
prisoner at the bar.” Not a word of caution is here given; not one
Scotch hint of doubt in this witness. Your “canny” countrymen are not
always so credulous; they are not at all times so easy of belief in
persons of this description. Yet your milk of human kindness is so pure
that you cannot for your life imagine the least reason why Newton should
not be believed.

But it was on the evidence of Roberts that your lordship used
observations which had the most powerful effect on the jury, and since
then upon the public mind. I have already explained how it was that the
prisoner, even if he were a guilty man, might have denied the purchase
of the strychnia from Roberts, as he always denied its purchase from
Newton, was deprived by artifice of the witness Cockayne, who could have
thrown a new light upon this affair, and I have shown how Bates
prevaricated with reference to the dogs and the brood mares. My brother
being in this way at the mercy of Bates, and juggled out of Cockayne, in
what possible way could he account for the disposal of the strychnia?
Yet you, who knew all this a thousand times better than the jury, told
them that “a very serious case is adduced, supposing you should come to
the conclusion that the symptoms of Mr. Cook were consistent with that
of poison. If you think the symptoms are accounted for by merely
ordinary tetanus, of course the fact of strychnia being obtained by the
prisoner at the bar is of very little weight; but, if you should come to
the conclusion that the symptoms which Mr. Cook exhibited on the Monday
night and Tuesday night are consistent with strychnia, then a fearful
case is made out against him.” The learned counsel did not favour us
with the theory which he had formed in his own mind respecting that
strychnia, and how he considered it to be consistent with the view that
he suggested. There is no evidence of the intention with which it was
purchased. There is no evidence how it was applied, and what became of
it, or what was done with it (report, p. 313). What modern judge before
yourself in a case of death ever ventured to tell a jury that “a fearful
crime was made out against the prisoner”? Scraggs or Belknap might have
done it; Jeffreys might not have blushed to use the words, but that they
should now be used in the face of an open Court, and with a pantomimic
gesture and grim stare at the jury such as you gave, are facts
discreditable to any law. By what right, with what face, on what
authority did you venture to tell the jury that his “learned counsel”
was bound to prove his innocence or to account for his possession or
disposal of the strychnia? I have always understood it to be the law
that every man was presumed to be innocent until he was proved to be
guilty; but you have reversed this majestic, merciful principle, and
intimate that every man is guilty until his counsel proves him to be
innocent. A more shameful perversion of the law than this, I am told by
persons in authority, has never been witnessed. Well also did you know
that Serjeant Shee was not entitled to put forward to the jury “the
theory which he had formed in his own mind respecting the strychnia.”
Had he ventured to do so I have no doubt you would have interrupted him
with unfeeling harshness, and repeated to him in even stronger language
than you did that species of insult “that a witness had no more right to
make himself an advocate than an advocate to make himself a witness.”
And then you glaringly tell the jury that there has been no “evidence of
the intention,” as if you did not well know that if such evidence were
possible to be given it could only be given by my brother William
himself (who, by law, could not speak); and that, even if he could speak
and was about to mention his intention, you would have stopped him, and
said that such evidence was illegal, facts, not intentions, being the
only admissible evidence in a Court of law. Yet you gravely complain as
if the thing might have been done, and the jury, who probably believed
you, convicted my brother because he could not prove an impossibility.

My lord, if our present system of representation were anything but a
mockery, and if the House of Commons were constituted as it was in the
days of Pym, Vane, and Hampden, I verily believe you would be impeached
for such a charge as this, for you stated to the jury that the prisoner
was guilty because he did not do that which you absolutely knew he could
not do, namely, prove his intention. But, under the present system of
things, judges may do anything they please with impunity, and no one
calls attention to it, because the wretches whom they hang or exile are
friendless outcasts, deprived of all sympathy from the world, enemies
often of society, which thus becomes their enemy; and the great body of
the community not being acquainted with the law, and the only persons
who are, namely, the bar, being a body of degraded, crawling, sneaking
slaves and sycophants who do not venture to arraign a judge, because if
they do they fear that attorneys will desert them; in this way the most
frightful licentiousness of power is given to men like you, and they are
as despotic as the Cadis in the remotest part of Turkey. In civil cases,
indeed, there is a check upon them, because there the parties are rich,
and there is an opportunity for a new trial, but in criminal cases there
is no new trial, even in the most scandalous and infamous conduct of the
judge; and the consequence is that a wicked man may commit almost any
conceivable crime upon the bench, and gratify his love of blood to the
utmost without restraint or fear, than which I can conceive no more
shocking infamy to exist.

Next, as to the evidence of Mr. Stevens, you made it a rule all through
violently to censure Serjeant Shee whenever he said anything against the
witnesses for the Crown, but not one syllable did you say against the
Attorney-General for his attack on the medical witnesses for my brother.
Thus you say here (report, p. 313)--“The learned counsel in the
discharge of his duty did, as he was perfectly justified in doing, make
very violent attacks upon the character and conduct of Mr. Stevens. It
rests with you to say whether that attack was well founded.” But had you
not said that he was justified in doing so, and did not this imply that
Stevens deserved it? And if it “rested with the jury,” what right had
you to add, “I own I can see nothing in Mr. Stevens in the slightest
degree calling for it”? Thus you first say Serjeant Shee was
“justified,” then you say it “rests with the jury,” and then, lest they
may jointly agree with the serjeant, you volunteer your own opinion,
that Serjeant Shee was not justified. Conduct like this requires no
comment, but if my brother is hanged upon such a charge, who is guilty
of his blood?

The next witness was Mary Keeling. She gave important evidence as to the
condition of the body. Mills and one or two other of the witnesses had
endeavoured to show that the body was “bent like a bow,” to use the
imaginative language of that man Taylor, and this was pressed in to
support your view of the case that “the death was consistent with
strychnia.” Now, Mary Keeling proved the exact reverse of this, but you
did not either take it in your notes or read it to the jury. Serjeant
Shee was obliged to interrupt you. I copy from the report, p. 313--

     “Mr. Serjeant Shee--I am not quite sure whether your lordship read
     that the witness said that the body was lying straight on the back
     on the bed?

     “Lord Campbell--I have read all that I have taken down. Is it in
     the cross-examination?

     “Mr. Serjeant Shee--No, in the examination in chief. ‘How was the
     body lying?--On the back, straight down on the bed.’

     “Mr. James--Where do you read that from?

     “Mr. Serjeant Shee--It is in two reports; one in the _Times_ and
     one from the shorthand writer’s notes.

     “Lord Campbell--Bamford says it was lying straight on the bed.

     “Mr. Serjeant Shee--I did not allude to Bamford’s examination. This
     witness says so too.”

And there the matter ended, and though it was admitted that it had been
said, and though it corroborated Dr. Bamford and Dr. Jones, and entirely
refuted the “opisthotonos” theory of Taylor and Mills, and thus got rid
of one of the most remarkable symptoms “consistent with poisoning by
strychnia,” yet not one word of comment did you offer upon it; but, as
you said, it was not upon your notes--where it ought to have been--you
left the jury unadvised upon this essential contradiction, which, taken
with the evidence of the two medical men, entirely demolished Mills and
her congenial companion Taylor, and took out of the mouth of Sir
Benjamin Brodie and the other medical witnesses one of those vital
symptoms on which they founded their diagnosis of the causes of death.
For, if there was no opisthotonos, or bent bow-like shape, then Cook did
not die of strychnia; and this being proved not to have been so by these
three witnesses, or, at all events, left in deep doubt, my brother was
entitled to the benefit of that doubt, and should have been acquitted.

The same wish of omission was manifest in your notes when you read out
the evidence of Devonshire to the jury; you forgot to tell the jury that
Cook’s left lung was diseased, which was important, as his death arose
from natural causes. Serjeant Shee was again obliged to interfere
(report, p. 314)--

     “Mr. Serjeant Shee--I think the witness said there were traces of
     emphysema in the left lung?

     “Mr. Baron Alderson--Yes.”

But not one word of comment did you make.

Myatt, the postboy, whose testimony was wholly incredible, you bolstered
up with this remark, “Now, there seems no reason to doubt the evidence
of this poor boy.” As if you could fathom the secret motives of man.

Upon the letter which my brother addressed to the coroner you say--“This
letter is a most improper letter, addressed by the prisoner to Mr. Ward,
the coroner, who is, of course, a judge. It so happens that I myself am
the chief coroner of England, but all the coroners are judges as much as
I am, and ought, with equal integrity and indifference, to administer
the law of the country.” This self praise, my lord, is of that species
which is said to stink. It would have been better if you had not
eulogised your conduct upon this trial, but allowed others to do so. You
did the same thing when you were sentencing my brother, for you prefaced
your “hanging speech” by these words--“William Palmer, after a fair and
impartial trial,” &c., &c. You then go on, and suggest to the jury that
my brother was guilty because he wrote that letter. “You will say
whether this is consistent with innocence; it is clear tampering with
the judge.” Yet the conduct of the gentleman mentioned by Sir Matthew
Hale, or the French gentleman who offered to surrender his wife’s will,
was just as suspicious, though the first was hanged innocently, and the
last, fortunately for himself, not tried by you.

When Cheshire was cross-examined by Serjeant Shee he asked him, “Did he
not say I knew they would not, for I am as innocent as a baby?” You
immediately interrupted, in a most angry tone, saying, “He has already
said that,” whereas in truth he had not done so, but the phrase was
likely to have an influence on the jury.

Again, when Herring was examined, and Mr. Welsby proposed to give some
evidence from the pages of the lost betting book, about whose
disappearance one of the greatest points was made against William,
Serjeant Shee said, “We cannot have the contents.”

     “Lord Campbell--The last account we have got is that it was in Mr.
     Palmer’s possession.

     “Mr. Serjeant Shee--I do not think there is any proof of its ever
     having been in Mr. Palmer’s possession.

     “Mr. Attorney-General--We show that it was in the dead man’s room
     on the Tuesday night before his death, and Mr. Palmer is afterwards
     seen looking about; we have no one else, my lord, that we can
     resort to.” ... (This was utterly false, for the last person who
     saw it, or swore she saw it, was Mills, and that was on Monday
     night.)

     “Lord Campbell--I do not think we can receive this evidence”
     (report, p. 41).

Thus you were about to admit the contents of that book on the plea that
my brother possessed it, a plea entirely untrue, and not only not
supported, but even negatived by the evidence. My lord, if you do these
things in matters of life and death, who among us is safe?

When Bates was called, it was proposed to give in evidence the facts of
the insurance, and you permitted a discussion to arise which put the
jury in possession of all the facts. You then said, “On the
Attorney-General’s opening I doubted whether this would be relevant and
proper evidence to be received at this trial” (yet you permitted him to
open it!), “and upon consideration my brothers agree with me it is too
remote to be admissible.” But all the evil had then been done, the jury
having been prejudiced by the statement and discussion. And not one word
did you say to them in your charge about disabusing their minds of the
false impression which it might have made.

When you commented on the medical evidence you told the jury that my
brother had an opportunity of substituting for Bamford’s pills others
made by himself. What right had you to do that? Was it not leading their
minds to an inference that he did so, and that the substituted pills
contained poison? (report, p. 315).

You introduced Sir Benjamin Brodie with great praises; in fact, you
praised all the medical witnesses for the Crown, and confined your
applause to only one of those for the prisoner, who slightly coincided
with Taylor’s notions. You said of Sir Benjamin--“You will take into
consideration the solemn opinion of this distinguished medical man, that
he never knew a case in which the symptoms that he heard described arose
from any disease. He has seen and known the various diseases that
afflict the human frame in all their multiplicity, and he knows of no
natural disease such as will answer the symptoms which he heard
described in the case of Cook; and if it did not arise from natural
disease, then the inference is that it arose from other causes” (report,
p. 316). Now, Sir Benjamin formed his opinion upon two inconsistent
statements made by Mills and Dr. Jones. If what Mills swore was all
true, then, perhaps, Sir Benjamin Brodie would have been justified in
saying that no disease that he had seen accorded with that description;
but if what Mills swore was all false, and it was entirely inconsistent
with what Dr. Jones proved, then also it would not be consistent with
natural disease, or with anything in Nature, and yet my brother be
innocent of this crime. If Mills invented a number of symptoms which no
medical man had ever seen, and it is what an ignorant chambermaid who
was disposed to perjure herself might be supposed to do, then what Sir
Benjamin Brodie proved would have been correct, and he could not assign
to any natural disease that which was, in truth, but a fictitious
narrative; but it would not necessarily follow from that that Cook died
of poison, as you told the jury it would, but it would as logically
follow that the whole of the symptoms not being in accordance with any
known disease were invented by an unskilful person, and unskilfully put
together for the occasion. I think you saw in its full force the effect
of this, for it will be seen by the report that you prevented Serjeant
Shee from discovering on which of these two witnesses Sir Benjamin
relied in premising his opinion.

     “Considering how rarely tetanus is witnessed at all, would you
     think that the description of a chambermaid, and of a provincial
     medical man who had only seen one case of tetanus, could be relied
     upon by you to state what description of disease the disease
     observed was?--I must say I thought the description very clearly
     given.” (How could it be given clearly if it accorded with no known
     disease? Besides, the answer is an evasion of the question.)

     “Mr. Serjeant Shee--On which of the two would you rely, supposing
     they differed--the chambermaid or the medical man?

     “Lord Campbell--That is hardly a proper question” (report, p. 120).

     In my judgment no question could be more proper, for if Sir
     Benjamin relied on Mills, then the jury would have known why he
     pronounced so strong an opinion, and if they disliked her, the
     opinion would go for nothing; but if Sir Benjamin relied on Dr.
     Jones, then the symptoms described by him were accordant with many
     known diseases, and Sir Benjamin Brodie must have said so. This
     ruling therefore hanged my brother!

     But let me hasten to a close. I am so heartbroken, so wearied out
     with fatigue, and pain, and grief; I am so utterly disgusted by
     these enumerations that I feel I cannot go on. From the first to
     the last my brother had no chance. You introduced him to the jury
     as a forger in the following words:--“There has been evidence which
     certainly implicates the prisoner in transactions of a very
     discreditable nature. It appears that he had forged a great many
     bills of exchange, and that he had entered into transactions not of
     a reputable nature.” If all this was irrelevant why did you
     introduce it? In the same tone was your allusion to the “student’s
     book,” which even the Crown abandoned. “This book has been laid
     before you in evidence, and certainly I think I need hardly beg of
     you to pay no regard to it, because it was a book that Palmer had
     when he was a surgeon, and at a time when I have no doubt he would
     have shrunk with horror at any such crime as that with which he is
     charged here to-day. There is, in the title page of the book,
     ‘Strychnia kills by causing tetanic fixing of the respiratory
     muscles,’ and in another part there is a description of what nux
     vomica is, and how strychnia is produced from it, with these
     words--‘Strychnia kills by causing tetanic fixing of the
     respiratory muscles.’ Again I say that I think this being found in
     his possession ought not to weigh at all against the prisoner at
     the bar” (report, p. 315). If it ought not to weigh against him,
     why, in Heaven’s name, did you so solemnly drag it in? Why did you
     read and re-read it? Would it not have been fairer to put it aside
     altogether than to impress it on the minds of the jury, and then
     tell them it ought not to weigh at all? Is it possible to believe
     you were sincere? Is it possible the jury could have drawn any
     other conclusion from your dwelling on it than that you wished them
     to regard it as proof of guilt?

     With what regret I have written this letter I need not say. My own
     avocations are mercy, peace, and charity, but there is a time when
     duty compels a man to lay aside his garb of peacefulness, and to
     assume the weapon of the world. I feel I should have been a
     traitor to the truth, to my family, yea, even to the country, if I
     had feared, from any selfish motives, to abate one word that I have
     here written. Against yourself personally I feel no anger; but,
     indeed, I am sorry for you, and I tremble. My lord, you are in a
     fearful condition. If your mind is so tainted that you decide all
     other cases as you decided this, you will have a most dreadful
     account to render to a most just God. Before Him how contemptible
     is human nature in its pride, and robes, and silken vanity, and
     self-worship; before Him what a wretched insect is the judge who
     makes others tremble, and flings about his sentences of death, and
     dabbles in blood as if it were water. You are now exulting in your
     station, but in a few short weeks, or months (for you can scarcely
     hope for years) you will be no more; nothing but a noisome corpse
     from which all will flee--loathsome and abominable, dust and ashes,
     a shadow and a name. You will be shut up in a box, and put away
     into the earth, to form food for worms and to deal with
     abomination; and all your state, and all your bowing, sycophantic
     train will fear to look upon you, and will fly to others, and you
     will have left nothing but perishable mercy and a vain name, and
     your life will have been like smoke. But there is within you a part
     that liveth, and will have to answer for the past, and to render up
     an account of the things done in the body, before a Lord and Judge
     who makes the heavens tremble and before whom the mountains are but
     as grains of dust. Answer me, and say how will you face that
     fearful tribunal if you leave one stone unturned in the present
     case to discover the whole truth, or if you oppose the application
     that will be made for a respite until science has made clear either
     guilt or innocence! All human testimony is fallible; most dangerous
     it is to destroy life upon a train of circumstances depending on
     the veracity of such persons as Mills, and Taylor, and Wyatt, and
     Newton. But the conclusions of science are certain, and this fact,
     the first chemists of the day aver, can be made as clear as light,
     that if strychnia were administered to Cook in his lifetime, it is
     now in his body, and can be detected by means that are infallible.
     If, then, it is undoubted that my brother poisoned Cook, what
     objection can there be to exhume the body, and convince the whole
     world of the fact? but if it be not certain, what a frightful crime
     are we then plunging into, to hang a man about whose guilt there
     still remains a tremendous body of doubt? or what reparation shall
     you make to his orphan boy, to his mother and sister, who love and
     have faith in him, if a few short weeks shall demonstrate, as in
     the rapid advance of science they may do, that William Palmer has
     been murdered on a scientific theory invented for the purpose of
     blood, and scouted by men of the greatest eminence in chemical
     analysis? Even while these pages pass through the press I read in
     the papers a letter which utterly destroys Taylor’s new hypothesis,
     and annihilates for ever the foundations on which he rested. It is
     published also in a morning journal, the _Times_, which cries aloud
     for my brother’s blood and fixes his guilt, not upon the fact
     proved at the trial, for the editors of that able paper knew that
     these facts are but as cobwebs, but upon what he is supposed to
     have done when he was taken to Stafford prison, upon his threat, if
     he used the threat, to destroy his life. Weak and miserable must be
     the case for the prosecution when their advocates are compelled to
     resort to this flimsy _ad captandum_ argument for the vulgar. Who
     is there so hardy as to be able to answer for himself that, under
     similar accusations, he would not resort to suicide, or who but the
     most uncharitable would regard that suicide as proof conclusive of
     the guilt of poisoning? He was overwhelmed with debts which he had
     no means of paying, he had violated the civil law, and had forged
     his mother’s name to the extent of thousands; he was accused of
     fourteen or fifteen hideous and dreadful murders. He was prostrated
     in mind and body by sickness, by weakness, by anxiety, by a
     thousand conflicting passions of grief, despair, remorse, and
     indignation at the fearful torrents of calumny against him; and
     because the human mind gave way under this awful load of
     calamities, and he declared that he would willingly die--who is the
     man that can fairly say he is therefore guilty of a murder? The
     editor of the _Times_ has indeed said so; and many influential
     persons will, perhaps, blame him, but I, for one, consider that his
     conduct, though censurable, was natural, and what might have been
     expected, and I draw no such conclusion from the circumstances as
     the _Times_ has done. But however this may be, it is not to the
     _Times_, but to you and the Home Secretary I look, and in your
     hands is the life of William Palmer. I have not flattered you in
     aught, but I have spoken as I felt. I ask you not to respite him
     for my sake, for the sake of his family, nor even for public
     justice and humanity. These appeals would probably be lost on you.
     But I, as a minister of the Gospel, ask you to respite him for your
     own sake--for you will have the guilt of his blood and the infamy
     of his death if he is wrongly executed; and if his innocence should
     be hereafter demonstrated, his memory will cling upon your soul; it
     will be like a mountain of lead upon your heart; it will stifle
     your cries to God, and drag you down with that darkness of hell
     which is prepared for those who violate the commandment, “Thou
     shalt not kill.”

THOMAS PALMER.






APPENDIX II.

SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE JUDGES AND COUNSEL ENGAGED IN THE CASE.


JOHN CAMPBELL, Baron Campbell, Lord Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench.
Lord Campbell had been Lord Chief Justice six years when he presided at
the trial. He was seventy-seven years of age. Three years after he
resigned the Chief Justiceship, and became Lord Chancellor at eighty, a
greater age than any of his predecessors on the Woolsack had reached on
being appointed. He held his office for two years longer, and died at
eighty-two, an age which none of his successors reached while holding
it. On the day of his death, in 1861, he had sat in Court and attended a
Cabinet Council. Lord Campbell’s life as Chancellor and politician, and
as the writer of the celebrated lives of the Lord Chancellors and the
Chief Justices, forms too considerable a part of general history and
literature to be detailed here. As a lawyer and judge his name stands
high. His contemporaries never denied his abilities; but they considered
his personal character and ambitions were selfish and by no means
magnanimous. He is said by Sir John Macdonnell in the Dictionary of
National Biography to have shown on the bench somewhat too openly an
unworthy love of applause; and a tradition still lingers amongst lawyers
of an ostentatious kind of politeness assumed by him when he intended
anything deadly. The Usher of the Court at the Palmer trial is credited
with saying that he knew the Chief meant to hang Palmer; he was so
polite in requesting him to be seated. The tone of the letter we print
from Palmer’s brother expresses much of a prevalent feeling against
Campbell. But, in Sir John Macdonnell’s words, whatever difference of
opinion there may be as to the spirit in which he served his country,
there is none as to the value of the services themselves.

       *       *       *       *       *

MR. BARON ALDERSON. Sir Edward Hall Alderson was in 1856 a Baron of the
Court of Exchequer, where he was transferred in 1834, his original
appointment as judge having been in 1830 to the Court of Common Pleas.
He was born in 1787, so that he was now sixty-nine years of age. He was
of Norfolk, and his father was Recorder of Yarmouth, Norwich, and
Ipswich. His career at Cambridge was remarkable. In the year 1809, when
he took his degree, he was Senior Wrangler and first Smith’s prizeman,
besides being first Chancellor’s medallist, which was the highest honour
then for classics. From 1817 to 1822 he was joint editor of the
well-known Barnewall and Alderson’s Reports of those years in the Court
of King’s Bench; and whilst so reporting he was, unlike reporters of
these days, rapidly acquiring a practice, though he never took silk. He
made no particular mark on the bench during his twenty-seven years of
occupancy, and he died in 1857, the year after the trial. It is rather
curious, in view of the attack made on him for prejudice in the letter
to Lord Campbell, that he should have been known as a humane judge, with
a desire to restrict capital punishment.

       *       *       *       *       *

MR. JUSTICE CRESSWELL. Sir Cresswell Cresswell was the junior judge on
the bench. His age was sixty-two, and he had been on the bench in the
Court of Common Pleas since 1842, where he had established a reputation
as a learned and strong judge. At the bar he had a large practice, and
his legal name, apart from his judicial career, would have lived as one
of the editors of the Barnewall and Cresswell’s Reports in the King’s
Bench from 1822 to 1830. But his most abiding fame rests on his having
been the first appointed judge of the new Probate and Divorce Court
which was established in 1858. He became for the new principles and
practice of divorce what Mansfield had been for commercial law--their
creator and expounder. He sat in this Court, achieving a distinction
which falls to the lot of few judges, until 1863. In July of this year
he was knocked down in Constitution Hill by runaway horses belonging to
Lord Aveland, which had been frightened by the breakdown of the
carriage, and he died from the shock. On being made judge of the Probate
and Divorce Court he was offered a peerage, but declined it, probably,
as he was a bachelor, being sufficiently content with the ancestral name
of Cresswell of Cresswell, near Morpeth. Though as a judge he was
considered overbearing, it is noticeable that he did not intervene very
much in the trial; the letter to Lord Campbell makes a point of
contrasting his opinions on admission of evidence, and in other
respects, as being in favour of the prisoner, while those of Lord
Campbell and Mr. Baron Alderson were asserted to show bias and even
strong and unfair prejudice.

       *       *       *       *       *

SIR ALEXANDER JAMES EDMUND COCKBURN was appointed Solicitor-General in
July, 1850, and early next year, in succession to Sir John Romilly, was
made Attorney-General. He had up to the former year been obtaining
considerable reputation as an advocate, had been appointed Q.C. in 1841,
and especially had attracted attention by his defence of M’Naughten, who
shot Mr. Drummond, Sir Robert Peel’s secretary. He obtained his
acquittal on the ground of insanity; a defence less credible and easy in
1843 than it subsequently became. But he first obtained real public
distinction, and proved his qualifications to be of the highest class,
in 1850 by speeches in Parliament,

[Illustration: Mr. Baron Alderson.]

which led immediately to his appointment as Solicitor and
Attorney-General as above mentioned. In the Don Pacifico debate Lord
Palmerston had made the great speech of his life; and the law had been
prepared for him by Cockburn. On the fourth night of the debate Mr.
Cockburn replied to a long speech made by Mr. Gladstone against
Palmerston’s policy. At the end of his reply, according to a description
by Sir Robert Peel, “one half of the Treasury benches were left empty,
while honourable members ran one after another, tumbling over each other
in their haste to shake hands with the honourable and learned member.”
He remained Attorney-General in Palmerston’s Government until November,
1856; and thus it fell to him to conduct the Palmer prosecution. It is
worth mentioning that Cockburn’s reply at the end of the case was made
without a single note. Palmer had therefore against him the greatest
figure at the bar, and one of the most accomplished orators of his
generation. It was in November, 1856, that Cockburn gave up his enormous
income, and his Parliamentary position, to become Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas; and the rest of his distinguished career, until his death
in 1880, was spent in that office, or in that of Lord Chief Justice of
England, which under the Judicature Acts superseded the two ancient
Chief Justiceships. Sir Alexander Cockburn was of an ancient Scottish
family; he was several times offered a peerage, but declined; he was
never married, and his baronetcy expired with him.

       *       *       *       *       *

JOHN EDWIN JAMES was forty-four years of age in 1856. “With the
appearance of a prize fighter,” he failed when he went on the stage as a
young man and played “George Barnwell.” His father, being a solicitor
and an officer of the city of London it was natural for him to turn to
the bar, and he was called at the Inner Temple in 1836, when he was
twenty-four. By 1856 he was a noted advocate, had been made a Queen’s
Counsel, was Recorder of Brighton, and had a professional income of
£7000 a year. He was member of Parliament for Marylebone in 1859; but in
1861 his retirement was announced. He was overwhelmed with pecuniary
difficulties, and owed £100,000. An inquiry by his Inn in 1861 showed
that he had in 1857 and 1860 inveigled a young man, a son of Lord
Yarborough, into debts of £35,000; had obtained, three years before the
trial, £20,000 from a solicitor by false misrepresentations; and in a
case in which he was acting for the plaintiff had borrowed £1250 from
defendant, promising to let him off easily in cross-examination. He was
disbarred; went to America in 1861; was admitted to the bar there and
practised; but in 1865 was playing at the Winter Garden Theatre, New
York. He returned to England in 1873, and failed in persuading the
judges to reconsider his case. He had married in 1861, but his wife
divorced him in 1863. After his failure to return to the bar he was
articled as a solicitor, but was not admitted; and he even offered
himself again as candidate for Marylebone. He practised as an expert in
American and English law, but sank into very poor circumstances, and a
subscription was being made for him when he died in 1882.

       *       *       *       *       *

SIR WILLIAM HENRY BODKIN. Three years after the trial Mr. Bodkin was
appointed assistant judge of the Middlesex Sessions, and in 1867 was
knighted. He held his office until a few weeks of his death, in 1874, at
the age of eighty-three. At the time of the trial he was sixty-five, and
was the most distinguished of the practitioners in specialised criminal
business. In 1832 he had been appointed Recorder of Dover, after being
only six years at the bar. He acquired a large practice on the Home
Circuit and at the Middlesex, Westminster, and Kentish Sessions; he was
counsel to the Treasury at the Central Criminal Court in 1856, and was
_ex officio_ of the counsel for the Crown in prosecutions in that Court.
He retained this appointment until he was made a judge. As an expert on
the practice of the poor law and secretary of the Mendicity Society he
took great interest in poor law questions. In 1841 he had been returned
to Parliament as a Conservative member for Rochester, but lost his seat
at the election in 1847 for having supported Sir Robert Peel’s Corn Law
Bill. While he sat in Parliament he brought forward and passed an
important measure of reform as to the chargeability of irremovable poor,
which has become a permanent feature of our poor law system. Sir William
held several distinguished and important offices. He was President of
the Society of Arts, a Deputy-Lieutenant of Middlesex, and chairman of
the Metropolitan Assessment Sessions. By his marriage in 1812 to Sarah
Sophia, daughter of Peter Raymond Poland of Winchester Hall, Highgate,
he became connected with the family of the distinguished lawyer, Sir
Harry Bodkin Poland, whose own professional career has followed so
closely that of his uncle. Sir Harry Bodkin Poland succeeded him in his
Recordership of Dover and his office at the Central Criminal Court. This
family and legal connection alike suggested the dedication of this book
to Sir Harry Bodkin Poland. None of those who actually took part in the
trial are now living.

       *       *       *       *       *

WILLIAM NEWLAND WELSBY had been called to the bar in 1826, was made
Recorder of Chester in 1841, and eventually became the leader on the
North Wales Circuit. When Sir John Jervis, who became Lord Chief Justice
of the Common Pleas, was made Attorney-General in 1846, Welsby was
appointed by him junior counsel to the Treasury; in other words, junior
counsel with the Attorney-General in all his legal duties, thence known
in English legal professional slang as the Attorney-General’s “devil,” a
very important and lucrative post, which generally leads to a judgeship.
It was probably his experience of criminal law in this office, and his
general reputation for knowledge of criminal law, founded on his editing
numerous law books as well as on his practice at the bar, that led to
his being associated with the Attorney-General at the trial. He had
enormous industry, and besides editing a large number of legal books was
an editor of one of the most celebrated series of Reports, the seventeen
volumes of “Meeson and Welsby,” the product of their reports for years
in the Court of Exchequer in the earlier part of Welsby’s career. He
died eight years after the trial, at sixty-one, without having reached
the bench, broken down, it was believed, by his excessive labours.

       *       *       *       *       *

SIR JOHN WALTER HUDDLESTON (Mr. Baron Huddleston). A year after the
trial Mr. Huddleston was made a Q.C. From 1865 to 1875 he was
Judge-Advocate of the Fleet. In the latter year he became a judge of the
Common Pleas, and was afterwards transferred to the Court of Exchequer;
hence the name of Mr. Baron Huddleston, by which in later years he
continued to be known, even after the reconstitution of the Courts by
the Judicature Acts, when all the judges took the title of Justices of
the High Court. Huddleston was a remarkable man. His father was a
captain in the merchant service. He was educated at Trinity College,
Dublin, but did not take a degree, and he became usher in an English
school. He was called by Gray’s Inn in 1839, when he was twenty-four
years of age, so that he was forty-one at the time of the trial. He was
member of Parliament for Canterbury from 1865 to 1868, and for Norwich
in 1874 and until he was made a judge. He was a great advocate, but not
so great a judge. His reputation increased rather on the social than the
legal side. He had married in 1872 Lady Diana De Vere Beauclerk,
daughter of the ninth Duke of St. Albans, and he was accounted to be
ambitious most of all of social distinction. He was fitted for this, if
not by family connections, by his brilliance as a conversationalist, and
his gifts as a man of the world and his associations with the theatre
and the turf. His accomplishments included an extensive knowledge of
French literature and a facility of speaking in French which few
Englishmen have. He thus represented gracefully the English bar at the
funeral in 1868 of Berryer, the great French advocate, over whose grave
he made a speech in French. He died in 1890, aged seventy-five.


SIR WILLIAM SHEE. The leading counsel for Palmer, Mr. Serjeant Shee, was
in his fifty-second year; seven years afterwards he was appointed a
judge of the Queen’s Bench, the first Roman Catholic judge since the
Reformation. He was Irish, but educated at a French school in Somers
Town, London, subsequently at St. Cuthbert’s College, near Durham, where
his cousin, afterwards famous as Cardinal Wiseman, was, and then at
Edinburgh University. A student of Lincoln’s Inn when nineteen, he had
become a serjeant at law by 1840, and was one of the leading counsel in
London and on the Home Circuit. In 1852 he became member of Parliament
for Kilkenny, and represented it for five years. He had been prominent
as an advocate for Catholic Emancipation very early in his career, and
in Parliament he was a zealous promoter of measures connected with Irish
land tenancy, and dealing with the Church endowments, measures
precursory of later land legislation and the Disestablishment of the
Irish Church. He lost his seat for Kilkenny in 1857, and he never sat in
Parliament afterwards. In 1860, three years before he was made a judge,
he refused the Chief Justiceship of Madras. Four years after his
appointment, in 1868, he died of apoplexy at the age of sixty-three. It
is noticeable that though Serjeant Shee had been in most of the great
trials he had never defended in a murder trial until he defended Palmer.
We have referred to his declaration of belief in Palmer’s innocence; and
this was not the only point on which his speech was criticised at the
time. The leading legal Journal characterised it in terms which will
most likely be agreed with by the present-day reader, even more
decisively than by the reader of half a century ago, when the taste was
more for florid speaking than it is now. “The defence of Mr. Serjeant
Shee was clever, ingenious, and eloquent, but wanting in judgment and
taste. The peroration was a striking instance of this defect, for the
allusion to the family of the prisoner, and to his supposed affection
for his wife, grated sorely, and almost ludicrously, on the sense of
propriety in the face of the undisguised fact, known to all his
audience, that he was accused of murdering his wife, that he slept with
his maid servant on the very night she died, and that he had confessed
himself guilty of forgery upon his mother. Equally injudicious was the
philippic against the insurance offices. In worse taste still was his
solemn assertion to the jury that he was convinced by the evidence of
the prisoner’s innocence.”


SIR WILLIAM ROBERT GROVE. Palmer’s second counsel, Mr. Grove, Q.C., was
in one respect the most distinguished of all the persons who took part
in the trial. At the time he had a European reputation, but this was due
to his career as a scientific investigator, and not as a lawyer. Without
mentioning more, it is sufficient to say that he had published in 1846
the great book, “The Correlation of Physical Forces,” which placed him
in the front rank of European science. The book was translated into
French in the year of the trial. He had been called to the bar in 1835,
and was in 1856 forty-five; but he had ill-health, and he turned to
science rather than to practice. He was at his call a member of the
Royal Institution, and in 1844 he had become its vice-president. By 1853
his health had improved, and he was then a Q.C., having a practice
chiefly in patent and scientific cases; but he had also become a leader
on his Circuit. It was probably his scientific eminence that led to his
brief in the Palmer case. Grove was appointed a judge in 1871, retired
in 1887, and died in 1896 at eighty-five. He did not gain any special
distinction as a judge nor add to his scientific reputation after he
left the bench, though he published several scientific studies.

       *       *       *       *       *

EDWARD VAUGHAN HYDE KENEALY was the junior counsel for Palmer, and was
thirty-seven years old. He was a graduate of Trinity College, Dublin, in
1840, the year of his call to the Irish bar. In 1847 he was called to
the English bar by Gray’s Inn, and by 1850 he was a Doctor of Laws of
Trinity College, Dublin. He had published poems as translations from
many Eastern and European languages, and especially in 1850 a poem which
has been described as marked by genius, “Goethe, a new Pantomime.”
Between the year of the trial and 1868 he had risen rapidly, and in the
latter year he was made a Queen’s Counsel and a Bencher of his Inn. He
was the leading counsel for the prosecution in the great Overend and
Gurney case of 1869; and in 1873 came the most extraordinary period of
his career, when he became chief counsel for the Tichborne claimant. His
conduct of that person’s defence on the prosecution for perjury, and his
editing of the wild paper called _The Englishman_, and his scurrilous
attacks on the Chief Justice and others, led to his expulsion from the
Circuit, the deprival of his legal distinctions, and finally to his
disbarring. He was elected in 1875 as member for Stoke, solely as the
champion of the Tichborne claimant. He sat until 1880, but was defeated
then at the General Election, and in that year he died. He was an
accomplished and successful advocate, and a scholar of unusual learning,
but his gifts seemed of that order of genius which is allied to madness.
In 1860 he published a translation of a Celtic poem, and in 1864 a
volume of “Poems”; in 1878, “Prayers and Meditations,” “An Introduction
to the Apocalypse,” and “Fo, the Third Messenger of God.”

       *       *       *       *       *

JOHN GRAY. Mr. Gray was born at Aberdeen in 1807, and educated at
Gordon’s Hospital. First a solicitor in London, he was called to the bar
in 1838. After attaining the rank of Queen’s Counsel in 1863, seven
years after the Palmer trial, he was appointed solicitor to the Treasury
in 1870. It was while holding this office, in 1873, that he conducted
the prosecution of Arthur Orton; so that his career and Dr. Kenealy’s
touched in two points. He was the author of a number of valuable
contemporary legal text books. He died in 1875, owing, it was said, to
his labours in preparing and directing the Orton prosecution.

[Illustration: Letter from William Palmer to his wife.

(_Reproduced from the original in the possession of Dr. Kurt Loewenfeld,
Bramhall, Cheshire._)]

[Illustration: [19 to 21] November--19 MONDAY [323-42]--11th Month 1855

20 Tuesday [324-41]

21 Wednesday [325-40]

Facsimile of page from the Diary of William Palmer.]

[Illustration: 1855 11th Month--22 THURSDAY [326-39]--November [22 to
25]

--23 FRIDAY [327-38] O--

--24 SATURDAY [328-37]--

25 SUNDAY-25 aft Trin. [329-36]

Facsimile of page from the Diary of William Palmer.]