diff options
31 files changed, 17 insertions, 31628 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8a1fb7e --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #52264 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52264) diff --git a/old/52264-0.txt b/old/52264-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 64a5d20..0000000 --- a/old/52264-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,15749 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Trial of William Palmer. - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: Trial of William Palmer - -Editor: George H. Knott - -Release Date: June 9, 2016 [EBook #52264] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER *** - - - - -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.] - - - - - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Trial of William Palmer. - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER *** - -***** This file should be named 52264-0.txt or 52264-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/2/2/6/52264/ - -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) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/52264-0.zip b/old/52264-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 85ab542..0000000 --- a/old/52264-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h.zip b/old/52264-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 4c980de..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/52264-h.htm b/old/52264-h/52264-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 074a76c..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/52264-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,15879 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" -"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> - -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en"> - <head> <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> -<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> -<title> - The Project Gutenberg eBook of Trial of William Palmer, edited by George H. Knott. -</title> -<style type="text/css"> - p {margin-top:.2em;text-align:justify;margin-bottom:.2em;text-indent:4%;} - -.c {text-align:center;text-indent:0%;} - -.cb {text-align:center;text-indent:0%;font-weight:bold;} - -.ditto {margin-right:1em;} - -.eng {font-family: "Old English Text MT",fantasy,sans-serif; -text-decoration:underline;text-align:center;text-indent:0%;font-weight:bold; -font-size:110%;} - -.hang {text-indent:-4%;margin-left:4%;} - -.nind {text-indent:0%;} - -.nonvis {display:inline;} - @media print, handheld - {.nonvis - {display: none;} - } - -.coverc {color:#AC4F46;} - -.r {text-align:right;margin-right: 5%;} - -.rt {text-align:right;} - -small {font-size: 70%;} - -big {font-size: 130%;} - - h1 {margin-top:5%;text-align:center;clear:both;} - - h2 {margin-top:4%;margin-bottom:2%;text-align:center;clear:both; - font-size:120%;} - - h3 {margin:4% auto 2% auto;text-align:center;clear:both;} - - hr {width:20%;margin:2em auto 2em auto;clear:both;color:black;} - - hr.full {width: 60%;margin:2% auto 2% auto;border-top:1px solid black; -padding:.1em;border-bottom:1px solid black;border-left:none;border-right:none;} - - table {margin-top:2%;margin-bottom:2%;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;border:none;} - - body{margin-left:4%;margin-right:6%;background:#ffffff;color:black;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;font-size:medium;} - -a:link {background-color:#ffffff;color:blue;text-decoration:none;} - - link {background-color:#ffffff;color:blue;text-decoration:none;} - -a:visited {background-color:#ffffff;color:purple;text-decoration:none;} - -a:hover {background-color:#ffffff;color:#FF0000;text-decoration:underline;} - -.smcap {font-variant:small-caps;font-size:100%;} - - img {border:none;} - -.blockquot {margin-top:2%;margin-bottom:2%;} - -.caption {font-weight:bold;font-size:75%;} - -.figcenter {margin-top:3%;margin-bottom:3%;clear:both; -margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;text-align:center;text-indent:0%;} - @media print, handheld - {.figcenter - {page-break-before: avoid;page-break-after: avoid;} - } - -.footnote {width:95%;margin:auto 3% 1% auto;font-size:0.9em;position:relative;} - -.label {position:relative;left:-.5em;top:0;text-align:left;font-size:.8em;} - -.fnanchor {vertical-align:30%;font-size:.8em;} - -.pagenum {font-style:normal;position:absolute; -left:95%;font-size:55%;text-align:right;color:gray; -background-color:#ffffff;font-variant:normal;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none;text-indent:0em;} -@media print, handheld -{.pagenum - {display: none;} - } - -.sidenote {width:8%;padding-bottom:.5em;padding-top:.5em;padding-left:.5em;text-align:center; -padding-right:.5em;margin-left:1em;float:right;clear:right;margin-top:1em; -font-size:smaller;color:black;background:#eeeeee;border:dashed 1px;} - @media print, handheld { - .sidenote {float: left; clear: none; font-weight: bold; } - } -</style> - </head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Trial of William Palmer. - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: Trial of William Palmer - -Editor: George H. Knott - -Release Date: June 9, 2016 [EBook #52264] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER *** - - - - -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) - - - - - - -</pre> - -<hr class="full" /> - -<p class="figcenter"> -<img src="images/cover.jpg" width="305" height="500" alt="Image unavailable: cover" /> -</p> - -<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="" -style="border: 2px black solid;margin: 2% auto 2% auto;max-width:50%; -padding:1%;"> -<tr><td> - -<p class="c"><a href="#CONTENTS"><span class="smcap">Contents</span>.</a></p> -<p class="c"><a href="#LIST_OF_ILLUSTRATIONS"><span class="smcap">List of Illustrations</span></a><br /> <span class="nonvis">(In certain versions of this etext [in certain browsers] -clicking directly on the image, -will bring up a larger version.)</span></p> - -<p class="c">(etext transcriber's note)</p></td></tr> -</table> - -<p class="eng"><i>Notable English Trials</i></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_i" id="page_i"></a>{i}</span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_ii" id="page_ii"></a>{ii}</span></p> - -<p> </p> -<p class="cb">William Palmer</p> -<p> </p> -<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="" -style="font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;margin:auto auto;max-width:15em;"> -<tr><td class="c">NOTABLE ENGLISH TRIALS.</td></tr> -<tr><td class="hang"><b>The Stauntons.</b> Edited by J. B. Atlay, M.A., Barrister-at-Law.</td></tr> -<tr><td class="hang"><b>Franz Muller.</b> Edited by H. B. Irving, M.A.(Oxon).</td></tr> -<tr><td class="hang"><b>Lord Lovat.</b> Edited by David N. Mackay, Solicitor.</td></tr> -<tr><td class="hang"><b>William Palmer.</b> Edited by Geo. H. Knott, Barrister-at-Law.</td></tr> -<tr><td class="hang"><b>The Annesley Case.</b> Edited by Andrew Lang.</td></tr> -<tr><td class="hang"><b>Dr. Lamson.</b> Edited by H. L. Adam.</td></tr> -<tr><td class="hang"><b>Mrs. Maybrick.</b> Edited by H. B. Irving, M.A.(Oxon).</td></tr> -</table> - -<p><a name="front" id="front"></a></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<a href="images/ill_002_lg.jpg"> -<br /> -<img src="images/ill_002_sml.jpg" width="369" height="450" alt="Image unavailable: William Palmer. - -(From a Drawing by Joseph Simpson.)" /></a> -<br /> -<span class="caption">William Palmer. - -(From a Drawing by Joseph Simpson.)</span> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_iii" id="page_iii"></a>{iii}</span></p> - -<h1>Trial of<br /> - -<span class="coverc">William Palmer</span></h1> - -<p class="cb"><small>EDITED BY</small><br /> -<br /> -George H. Knott<br /> -<br /> -<small>Barrister-at-Law</small><br /> -<br /><br /> -<img src="images/colophon.png" -width="70" -height="65" -alt="[image of the colophon unavailable.]" - /><br /><br /> -<br /> -<small>EDINBURGH AND LONDON</small><br /> -<span class="coverc">WILLIAM HODGE & COMPANY</span><br /> -<br /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_iv" id="page_iv"></a>{iv}</span> <br /> -<br /> -<small>PRINTED BY<br /> -WILLIAM HODGE AND COMPANY<br /> -GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH<br /> -1912</small></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_v" id="page_v"></a>{v}</span> </p> - -<p class="c"> -To<br /> -<br /> -<span class="smcap">Sir</span> HARRY BODKIN POLAND, K.C.,<br /> -<br /> -<small>WHO BEARS THE NAME, AND HAS CONTINUED THE REPUTATION,<br /> -OF ONE OF THE DISTINGUISHED COUNSEL IN THE TRIAL HEREIN<br /> -CONTAINED, AND WHO ALSO FOR MANY YEARS WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE<br /> -FIGURE IN THE COURT WHERE THAT TRIAL WAS HELD,<br /> -THIS BOOK IS, BY HIS KIND PERMISSION,<br /> -RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED<br /> -BY THE EDITOR.</small></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_vi" id="page_vi"></a>{vi}</span> </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_vii" id="page_vii"></a>{vii}</span> </p> - -<h2><a name="PREFACE" id="PREFACE"></a>PREFACE.</h2> - -<p class="nind"><span class="smcap">In</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_viii" id="page_viii"></a>{viii}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p class="r"> -G. H. K.<br /> -</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_ix" id="page_ix"></a>{ix}</span> </p> - -<h2><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS"></a>CONTENTS.</h2> - -<table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" summary=""> - -<tr><td valign="top"> </td><td class="rt"><small>PAGE</small></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Introduction,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_001">1</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Table of Dates,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_018">18</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">List of Counsel,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_021">21</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">The Trial—</td></tr> - -<tr><th colspan="2" class="c"><span class="smcap">First Day—Wednesday, 14th May, 1856.</span></th></tr> - -<tr><td colspan="2" class="c"><i>Evidence for the Prosecution.</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Ishmael Fisher,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_023">23</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Thomas Jones,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_026">26</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">George Reid,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_026">26</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">William Scafe Gibson,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_026">26</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Elizabeth Mills,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_027">27</a></td></tr> - -<tr><th colspan="2" class="c"><span class="smcap">Second Day—Thursday, 15th May, 1856.</span></th></tr> - -<tr><td colspan="2" class="c"><i>Evidence for the Prosecution (continued).</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Elizabeth Mills (cross-examined)</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_033">33</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">James Gardner,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_037">37</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Anne Brooks,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_037">37</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Lavinia Barnes,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_039">39</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Anne Rowley,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_042">42</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Charles Hawley,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_042">42</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Sarah Bond,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_042">42</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">William Henry Jones,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_044">44</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Elizabeth Mills (recalled),</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_049">49</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Henry Savage,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_049">49</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Charles Newton,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_049">49</a></td></tr> - -<tr><th colspan="2" class="c"><span class="smcap">Third Day—Friday, 16th May, 1856.</span></th></tr> - -<tr><td colspan="2" class="c"><i>Evidence for the Prosecution (continued).</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Charles Joseph Roberts,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_052">52</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">William Vernon Stevens,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_052">52</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Dr. John Thomas Harland,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_055">55</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Charles John Devonshire,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_058">58</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">John Myatt,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_059">59</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Samuel Cheshire,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_059">59</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Samuel Cheshire (recalled),</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_060">60</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Captain John Haines Hatton,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_061">61</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Samuel Cheshire (recalled),</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_061">61</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">George Herring,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_061">61</a></td></tr> - -<tr><th colspan="2" class="c"><span class="smcap">Fourth Day—Saturday, 17th May, 1856.</span></th></tr> - -<tr><td colspan="2" class="c"><i>Evidence for the Prosecution (continued).</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">George Bate,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_063">63</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Thomas Blizzard Curling,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_063">63</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Robert Todd,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_064">64</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Sir Benjamin Brodie,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_067">67</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Henry Daniel,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_068">68</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Samuel Solly,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_069">69</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Dr. Robert Corbett,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_070">70</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Dr. Watson,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_070">70</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Mary Kelly,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_070">70</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Caroline Hickson,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_070">70</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Francis Taylor,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_071">71</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Jane Witham,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_071">71</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">George Morley,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_072">72</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Edward Duke Moore,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_074">74</a></td></tr> - -<tr><th colspan="2" class="c"><span class="smcap">Fifth Day—Monday, 19th May, 1856.</span></th></tr> - -<tr><td colspan="2" class="c"><i>Evidence for the Prosecution (continued).</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Dr. Alfred Taylor,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_075">75</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Dr. George Owen Rees,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_083">83</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Professor Robert Christison,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_084">84</a></td></tr> - -<tr><th colspan="2" class="c"><span class="smcap">Sixth Day—Tuesday, 20th May, 1856.</span></th></tr> - -<tr><td colspan="2" class="c"><i>Evidence for the Prosecution (concluded).</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Dr. John Jackson,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_x" id="page_x"></a>{x}</span></td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_089">89</a></td></tr> - -<tr><th colspan="2" class="c"><span class="smcap">Seventh Day—Wednesday, 21st May, 1856.</span></th></tr> - -<tr><td colspan="2" class="c"><i>Speech for the Defence.</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Serjeant Shee,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_091">91</a></td></tr> - -<tr><th colspan="2" class="c"><span class="smcap">Eighth Day—Thursday, 22nd May, 1856.</span></th></tr> - -<tr><td colspan="2" class="c"><i>Evidence for the Defence.</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Thomas Nunneley,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_161">161</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">William Herepath,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_174">174</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Julian Edward Disbrowe Rogers,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_176">176</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Dr. Henry Letheby,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_176">176</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Robert Edward Gay,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_181">181</a></td></tr> - -<tr><th colspan="2" class="c"><span class="smcap">Ninth Day—Friday, 23rd May, 1856.</span></th></tr> - -<tr><td colspan="2" class="c"><i>Evidence for the Defence (continued).</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">John Brown Ross,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_183">183</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Dr. Francis Wrightson,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_184">184</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Richard Partridge,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_186">186</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">John Gay,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_189">189</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Dr. William M‘Donnell,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_192">192</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Dr. John Nathan Bainbridge,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_200">200</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Edward Austin Steady,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_201">201</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Dr. George Robinson,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_202">202</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Dr. Benjamin Ward Richardson,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_204">204</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Dr. Wrightson (recalled),</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_207">207</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Catherine Watson,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_207">207</a></td></tr> - -<tr><th colspan="2" class="c"><span class="smcap">Tenth Day—Saturday, 24th May, 1856.</span></th></tr> - -<tr><td colspan="2" class="c"><i>Evidence for the Defence (continued).</i></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Oliver Pemberton,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_208">208</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Henry Matthews,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_208">208</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Joseph Foster,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_208">208</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">George Myatt,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_209">209</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">John Sargent,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_210">210</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Jeremiah Smith,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_211">211</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">The Attorney-General’s Address to the Jury,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_214">214</a></td></tr> - -<tr><th colspan="2" class="c"><span class="smcap">Eleventh Day—Monday, 26th May, 1856.</span></th></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">The Lord Chief-Justice’s Charge to the Jury,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_266">266</a></td></tr> - -<tr><th colspan="2" class="c"><span class="smcap">Twelfth Day—Tuesday, 27th May, 1856.</span></th></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">The Lord Chief-Justice’s Charge to the Jury (continued),</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_275">275</a></td></tr> -<tr><td valign="top">Verdict and Sentence,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_285">285</a></td></tr> - -<tr><th colspan="2" class="c">APPENDICES.</th></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top"> I. Letter from Thomas Palmer, brother of William Palmer,<br /> - to the Lord Chief-Justice Campbell,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_289">289</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">II. Short Account of the Judges and Counsel engaged in the Case,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_316">316</a></td></tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_xi" id="page_xi"></a>{xi}</span></p> - -<h2><a name="LIST_OF_ILLUSTRATIONS" id="LIST_OF_ILLUSTRATIONS"></a>LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.</h2> - -<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary=""> - -<tr><td valign="top">William Palmer,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#front"><i>Frontispiece</i></a></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Mr. Serjeant Shee,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><a href="#page_091"><i>facing page</i> 91</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Note written by Palmer to his Counsel while in the dock at the Old Bailey,</td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><span class="ditto">”</span> <a href="#page_160">160</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Sir Alexander Cockburn, </td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><span class="ditto">”</span> <a href="#page_214">214</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Lord Chief-Justice Campbell, </td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><span class="ditto">”</span> <a href="#page_266">266</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Mr. Baron Alderson, </td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><span class="ditto">”</span> <a href="#page_316">316</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Letter from William Palmer to his wife, </td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><span class="ditto">”</span> <a href="#page_320">320</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td valign="top">Facsimile of page from the Diary of William Palmer, </td><td class="rt" valign="bottom"><span class="ditto">”</span> <a href="#page_324">324</a></td></tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_xii" id="page_xii"></a>{xii}</span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_001" id="page_001"></a>{1}</span></p> - -<h1>WILLIAM PALMER.</h1> - -<h2><a name="INTRODUCTION" id="INTRODUCTION"></a>INTRODUCTION.</h2> - -<p class="nind"><span class="smcap">Sir James Stephen</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_002" id="page_002"></a>{2}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>qua</i> 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_003" id="page_003"></a>{3}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_004" id="page_004"></a>{4}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_005" id="page_005"></a>{5}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>When the races were over Palmer and Cook returned together to Rugeley—a -curious fact, seeing that Cook had accused<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_006" id="page_006"></a>{6}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>During Saturday and Sunday Cook was attended by Mr. Bamford, a medical -man in Rugeley. As Mr. Bamford’s age<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_007" id="page_007"></a>{7}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_008" id="page_008"></a>{8}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>On Tuesday morning, the 20th, the day of his death, Cook was -comparatively comfortable after his violent attack.</p> - -<p>That same morning Palmer went to the shop of a druggist<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_009" id="page_009"></a>{9}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. Jones came on the Tuesday about three o’clock, and was with Cook -throughout till his death.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_010" id="page_010"></a>{10}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_011" id="page_011"></a>{11}</span> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The post-mortem, the chemical analysis, the coroner’s inquest, and the -trial followed. In the meantime Padwick had<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_012" id="page_012"></a>{12}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_013" id="page_013"></a>{13}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_014" id="page_014"></a>{14}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_015" id="page_015"></a>{15}</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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>I should not mind giving -£30 for the<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_016" id="page_016"></a>{16}</span> whole of them</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_017" id="page_017"></a>{17}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.”<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_018" id="page_018"></a>{18}</span></p> - -<h2>Leading Dates in the Palmer Trial.</h2> - -<table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" summary="" -style="margin:auto auto;max-width:50%;"> - -<tr valign="top"><td> 1855.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td class="c">August. </td><td> </td><td> 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.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td class="c">Nov. </td><td class="rt">6.</td><td> 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.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td><td class="rt">13. </td><td>(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.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td> <td class="rt">14. </td><td>(Wednesday night) Cook ill at the Raven, -Shrewsbury, where he and Palmer stayed. -Palmer is alleged to have dosed his drink.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td> <td class="rt">15.</td><td> Palmer’s horse, “Chicken,” beaten in his race, -and Palmer loses heavily.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td> </td><td> </td><td> -Cook and Palmer return to Rugeley, and Cook -puts up at the Talbot.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td> <td class="rt">16.</td><td> Cook dines with Palmer and Jeremiah Smith. -Cook apparently in usual health.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td> <td class="rt">17.</td><td> (Saturday) Cook ill in bed, with the same -symptoms as at Shrewsbury.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td> <td class="rt">18.</td><td> (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.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td> <td class="rt">19.</td><td> (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.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td> </td><td></td><td> -Cook is better all the Monday while Palmer is -away.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_019" id="page_019"></a>{19}</span></td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td class="c">Nov. </td><td class="rt">19.</td><td> 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.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td> </td><td></td><td> -About twelve o’clock Cook is taken ill with violent -spasms, and awakens household with violent -screaming. Palmer is sent for.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td> <td class="rt">20.</td> -<td>(Tuesday) Cook “comparatively comfortable” in -the morning.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td></td> <td></td> <td> -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.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td> </td><td></td><td> -Palmer requests Cheshire, the Rugeley postmaster, -to fill up cheque on Wetherby for Cook’s -stakes won at Shrewsbury.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td> </td><td></td> <td> -Mr. Jones, surgeon, of Lutterworth, Cook’s most -intimate friend, comes, at Palmer’s request, -to stay with Cook.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td> </td><td></td> <td> -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.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td><td class="rt">21.</td><td> (Wednesday) Wetherby declines to pay £350 -cheque, as the stakes were not received from -Shrewsbury.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td> </td><td></td><td> -Palmer writes to Pratt that he must have -“Polestar.”</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td> <td class="rt">22. </td><td>Palmer goes to London and pays Pratt £100; he -had no money at Shrewsbury, and lost on the -races.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td> <td class="rt">23.</td><td> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_020" id="page_020"></a>{20}</span></td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td class="c">Nov. </td><td class="rt">23.</td><td> 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.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td> <td class="rt">25.</td><td> (Sunday) Palmer applies to Dr. Bamford for death -certificate, which is given for apoplexy.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td></td><td></td><td>Sends for Newton, and has a conversation about -the effects of strychnia.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td> <td class="rt">26.</td><td> Post-mortem examination; Palmer is present, and -acts suspiciously.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td> </td><td></td><td>Mr. Stevens takes jars, with contents from the -body, to London for analysis to be made by -Professor Taylor.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td class="c">Dec. </td><td class="rt">5.</td><td> 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.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td> <td class="rt">8.</td><td> Palmer writes to the coroner as to Professor -Taylor’s letter.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td><span class="ditto">“</span></td><td class="rt">14. </td><td> Inquest, at which Professor Taylor gives evidence.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td> </td><td></td><td>Verdict of “wilful murder” returned.</td></tr> - -<tr valign="top"><td> </td><td></td><td>Palmer, who was in custody of Sheriff’s officer for -the bills, is arrested on the verdict and taken -to Stafford Gaol.</td></tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_021" id="page_021"></a>{21}</span></p> - -<h2><a name="THE_TRIAL" id="THE_TRIAL"></a>THE TRIAL.</h2> - -<p class="c"> -Within the Central Criminal Court,<br /> -Old Bailey, London.<br /> -<span class="smcap">Wednesday, 14th MAY, 1856.</span><br /> -The Court met at Ten o’clock.<br /> -</p> - -<table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" summary=""> -<tr><td class="c">———</td></tr> -<tr><td class="c"><i>Judges</i>—</td></tr> -<tr><td align="left">LORD CHIEF JUSTICE CAMPBELL.</td></tr> -<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Mr.</span> JUSTICE CRESSWELL.</td></tr> -<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Mr.</span> BARON ALDERSON.</td></tr> -<tr><td class="c">———</td></tr> -<tr><td class="c"><i>Counsel for the Crown</i>—</td></tr> -<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">The Attorney-General</span> (<i>Sir Alexander Cockburn</i>).</td></tr> -<tr><td align="left">Mr. <span class="smcap">Edward James, Q.C.</span></td></tr> -<tr><td align="left">Mr. <span class="smcap">Bodkin</span>.</td></tr> -<tr><td align="left">Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>.</td></tr> -<tr><td align="left">Mr. <span class="smcap">Huddleston</span>.</td></tr> -<tr><td class="c">———</td></tr> -<tr><td class="c"><i>Counsel for the Prisoner</i>—</td></tr> -<tr><td align="left">Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>.</td></tr> -<tr><td align="left">Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove, Q.C.</span></td></tr> -<tr><td align="left">Mr. <span class="smcap">Gray</span>.</td></tr> -<tr><td align="left">Mr. <span class="smcap">Kenealey</span>.</td></tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_022" id="page_022"></a>{22}</span> </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_023" id="page_023"></a>{23}</span> </p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p>On being called upon the prisoner pleaded not guilty.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p>The jury having been duly empanelled and sworn, the -Attorney-General opened the case for the Crown.<a name="FNanchor_A_1" id="FNanchor_A_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_A_1" class="fnanchor">[A]</a></p></div> - -<h3><a name="Evidence_for_the_Prosecution" id="Evidence_for_the_Prosecution"></a>Evidence for the Prosecution.</h3> - -<div class="sidenote">Ishmael Fisher</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Ishmael Fisher</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_024" id="page_024"></a>{24}</span> 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_025" id="page_025"></a>{25}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_A_1" id="Footnote_A_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_A_1"><span class="label">[A]</span></a> See Introduction, p. 2.</p></div> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p></div> - -<p>I received this on the 17th at No. 4 Victoria Street, London. I -considered that Palmer and Cook were for some time jointly<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_026" id="page_026"></a>{26}</span> connected -with racing transactions, but there is no proof of it. Cook was not more -elated after winning than people usually are.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">Thomas Jones</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Thomas Jones</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">George Reid</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">George Reid</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bodkin</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. S. Gibson</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">William Scafe Gibson</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Huddleston</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_027" id="page_027"></a>{27}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">E. Mills</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Mills</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_028" id="page_028"></a>{28}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_029" id="page_029"></a>{29}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_030" id="page_030"></a>{30}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">E. Mills</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_031" id="page_031"></a>{31}</span> -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_032" id="page_032"></a>{32}</span> 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.</p> - -<p class="c">The Court then adjourned.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_033" id="page_033"></a>{33}</span></p> - -<h3><a name="Second_Day_Thursday_15th_May_1856" id="Second_Day_Thursday_15th_May_1856"></a>Second Day, Thursday, 15th May, 1856.<br /><br /> -<small>The Court met at ten o’clock.</small></h3> - -<div class="sidenote">E. Mills</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Mills</span>, cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">E. Mills</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_034" id="page_034"></a>{34}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Were the symptoms of strychnine ever mentioned to you by any one?—No, -never.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>You went to bed in consequence of the vomiting?—Yes.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_035" id="page_035"></a>{35}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">E. Mills</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>You swear to it now?—Yes.</p> - -<p>You doubted it a moment ago?—If that was stated yesterday I do not -doubt it was correct.</p> - -<p>Is that your only reason for stating it to be correct?—I believe it to -be correct.</p> - -<p>Will you swear that it is correct?—Yes; it is no doubt correct if I -said so.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you say that before the coroner?—No.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">E. Mills</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_036" id="page_036"></a>{36}</span> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>What did he say about Mr. Stevens?—Mr. Stevens was with him. He called -Mr. Stevens by name.</p> - -<p>Why did you not tell us that before?—You did not ask me.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you say before the coroner, “He would throw his head back and raise -himself up again”?—Yes.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The first time that you were examined before the coroner was Dr. Taylor -present?—I believe he was.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">E. Mills</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_037" id="page_037"></a>{37}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—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.</p> - -<p>By Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">J. Gardner</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">James Gardner</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—A great many questions were put by -the jury after the examination of the professional men.</p> - -<p>By the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—The jury made very strong observations as to -the necessity for further questions.</p> - -<p>Objection to statement of these observations allowed.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">Anne Brooks</div> - -<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Anne Brooks</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_038" id="page_038"></a>{38}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Can you tell me in what way it affected persons?</p> - -<p>By the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p>By Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—They were affected by sickness and purging.</p> - -<p>You saw Palmer with the glass in his hand?—I did.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Anne Brooks</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_039" id="page_039"></a>{39}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Did he also say that while he was holding it to the light?—Yes, just in -this manner, quite carelessly.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">L. Barnes</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lavinia Barnes</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_040" id="page_040"></a>{40}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_041" id="page_041"></a>{41}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—Shortly after Cook refused to take -the broth, saying he was too sick, Palmer came over and said, “He must -have it.”</p> - -<p>Did he say why he must have it?—No.</p> - -<p>Did he say anything to the effect, “Why, he has eaten nothing for -several days”?—I cannot remember that he did.</p> - -<p>Did he ask whether anything had been eaten by him?—Not of me.</p> - -<p>You know, in fact, that Mr. Cook had had no substantial food?—He had -some coffee and cocoa, and something like that.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Are you sure it was before half-past nine o’clock?—No, I did not pay -particular attention to what the time was.</p> - -<p>Are you quite sure it was before ten o’clock?—Yes, I knew he had been -to London.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Do you persist that it must have been before ten o’clock that you saw -Palmer come in?—I think it was.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_042" id="page_042"></a>{42}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">L. Barnes</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you see the hand touch the glass?—I cannot remember that. I -remember some one was holding it for him.</p> - -<p>Might he not be holding it too?—He might.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">Anne Rowley</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Anne Rowley</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">C. Hawley</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Charles Hawley</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bodkin</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">Sarah Bond</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sarah Bond</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Huddleston</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_043" id="page_043"></a>{43}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Sarah Bond</div> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_044" id="page_044"></a>{44}</span> what relatives -the man had as he seemed so very ill, and I heard him telling Mr. Palmer -he thought he should die.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. H. Jones</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">William Henry Jones</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p class="r"> -November 18, 1855.<br /> -</p> - -<p>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.</p></div> - -<div class="sidenote">W. H. Jones</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_045" id="page_045"></a>{45}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_046" id="page_046"></a>{46}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_047" id="page_047"></a>{47}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. H. Jones</div> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—When did you observe that appearance—immediately -after death, or all the time?—Indeed, after throwing himself back, he -was immediately drawn back.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—I know that Mr. Cook had been under -treatment by Dr. Savage for some time.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. H. Jones</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_048" id="page_048"></a>{48}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>You said nothing about tetanus at the inquest?—Yes, I did; convulsions -and tetanus.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p class="c">[The deposition of the witness before the coroner was read.]</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Was that from a wound?—From a wound in the thumb. It ended in death.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. H. Jones</div> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_049" id="page_049"></a>{49}</span> decidedly, and for two months before -death he was clear of them, and the throat was well.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">E. Mills</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Mills</span> 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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">H. Savage</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Henry Savage</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">C. Newton</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Charles Newton</span>, examined—I am assistant to Mr. Salt,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_050" id="page_050"></a>{50}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">C. Newton</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_051" id="page_051"></a>{51}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p class="c">The Court then adjourned.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_052" id="page_052"></a>{52}</span></p> - -<h3><a name="Third_Day_Friday_16th_May_1856" id="Third_Day_Friday_16th_May_1856"></a>Third Day, Friday, 16th May, 1856.<br /><br /> -<small>The Court met at ten o’clock.</small></h3> - -<div class="sidenote">C. J. Roberts</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Charles Joseph Roberts</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. V. Stevens</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">William Vernon Stevens</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_053" id="page_053"></a>{53}</span> -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_054" id="page_054"></a>{54}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. V. Stevens</div> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_055" id="page_055"></a>{55}</span> 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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">J. T. Harland</div> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">John Thomas Harland</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bodkin</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_056" id="page_056"></a>{56}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">J. T. Harland</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_057" id="page_057"></a>{57}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Do you adhere to your opinion that the lungs were healthy?—Yes.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Was your examination of these appearances satisfactory to you without a -lens?—Yes.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">J. T. Harland</div> - -<p>Do not you think in the case of a man dying by convulsions,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_058" id="page_058"></a>{58}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">C. J. Devonshire</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Charles John Devonshire</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Huddleston</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_059" id="page_059"></a>{59}</span> 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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">John Myatt</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">John Myatt</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did he use the name “Stevens” before he used these words to you?—He -mentioned Mr. Stevens afterwards.</p> - -<p>You understood the word “them” to mean Mr. Stevens and his party?—Yes.</p> - -<p>Were the words used not to this effect, “I should not mind giving £10 to -break Mr. Stevens’ neck”?—I do not remember that.</p> - -<p>The “£10 to upset him”?—These were the words to the best of my -recollection.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">S. Cheshire</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Samuel Cheshire</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_060" id="page_060"></a>{60}</span> -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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—We know that it went out of his possession -afterwards, and therefore perhaps we ought to follow it.</p> - -<p>[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.]</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">S. Cheshire</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Samuel Cheshire</span>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—Was there anything written upon this quarto sheet of -paper?—There was.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>(Notice to produce this paper was given, but it was not produced.)</p> - -<div class="sidenote">S. Cheshire</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_061" id="page_061"></a>{61}</span> 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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">J. H. Hatton</div> - -<p>Captain <span class="smcap">John Haines Hatton</span>—I am chief constable of the police of -Staffordshire.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p></div> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">S. Cheshire</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Samuel Cheshire</span>, 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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">G. Herring</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">George Herring</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_062" id="page_062"></a>{62}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>(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.)</p> - -<p class="c">The Court then adjourned.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_063" id="page_063"></a>{63}</span></p> - -<h3><a name="Fourth_Day_Saturday_17th_May_1856" id="Fourth_Day_Saturday_17th_May_1856"></a>Fourth Day, Saturday, 17th May, 1856.<br /><br /> -<small>The Court met at ten o’clock.</small></h3> - -<div class="sidenote">George Bate</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">George Bate</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span> objected to this evidence, and his objection was -sustained.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">T. B. Curling</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Thomas Blizzard Curling</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_064" id="page_064"></a>{64}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">Robert Todd</div> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Robert Todd</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_065" id="page_065"></a>{65}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_066" id="page_066"></a>{66}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Robert Todd</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_067" id="page_067"></a>{67}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">Sir B. Brodie</div> - -<p>Sir <span class="smcap">Benjamin Brodie</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Sir B. Brodie</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_068" id="page_068"></a>{68}</span> with a fit of apoplexy. I never saw a case in which -the symptoms that I heard described arose from any disease.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—I remember one case of idiopathic -tetanus in our hospital, but I doubted its deserving the name of -tetanus.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">Henry Daniel</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Daniel</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Henry Daniel</div> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_069" id="page_069"></a>{69}</span> or an arm. In tetanic affections death is caused by exhaustion and -suffocation.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Samuel Solly</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Samuel Solly</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>That he uttered a piercing shriek, fell back, and died, did he -not?—Yes.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—I beg your pardon; there was an interval.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—No, no; five or six minutes.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—He died very quietly.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Samuel Solly</div> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_070" id="page_070"></a>{70}</span> of -tetanus. There is no progressive movement and no appearance about the -face or jaw of having tetanus.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">R. Corbett</div> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Robert Corbett</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">Dr. Watson</div> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Watson</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">Mary Kelly</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mary Kelly</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bodkin</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">C. Hickson</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Caroline Hickson</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_071" id="page_071"></a>{71}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">F. Taylor</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Francis Taylor</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">Jane Witham</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Jane Witham</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—In March last I was in attendance on -a lady who died. I remember her taking<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_072" id="page_072"></a>{72}</span> 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.</p> - -<p class="c"> -(This case was that of Dr. Dove’s wife.)<br /> -</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">G. Morley</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">George Morley</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Welsby</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_073" id="page_073"></a>{73}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">G. Morley</div> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_074" id="page_074"></a>{74}</span> after death from what they would, supposing death was -produced rapidly by one dose.</p> - -<p>Re-cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">E. D. Moore</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Edward Duke Moore</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Huddleston</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p class="c">The Court then adjourned.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_075" id="page_075"></a>{75}</span></p> - -<h3><a name="Fifth_Day_Monday_19th_May_1856" id="Fifth_Day_Monday_19th_May_1856"></a>Fifth Day, Monday, 19th May, 1856.</h3> - -<div class="sidenote">Alfred Taylor</div> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Alfred Taylor</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—Are you speaking of the human circulation?—Yes; the -circulation in the rabbit is quicker.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Alfred Taylor</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_076" id="page_076"></a>{76}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Alfred Taylor</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_077" id="page_077"></a>{77}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Alfred Taylor</div> - -<p>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;<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_078" id="page_078"></a>{78}</span> in the second case one -grain; in the other two cases one grain and half a grain.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Alfred Taylor</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_079" id="page_079"></a>{79}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_080" id="page_080"></a>{80}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Alfred Taylor</div> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>In all parts of the body you examined?—There was more in the parts of -the body examined, but we extracted that quantity.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>You wrote a letter, the whole of which I will read to you. It is in -reply to a letter received from Mr. Gardner—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>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 <i>Reg.</i> -v. <i>Wooler</i>, 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.</p></div> - -<p>Was that your opinion at the time?—It was. That was all we could infer -from the chemical analysis.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Alfred Taylor</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_081" id="page_081"></a>{81}</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>Lancet</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Alfred Taylor</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_082" id="page_082"></a>{82}</span> knowledge. I have not a case of a -person sitting up in bed and beating the bed.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>Lancet</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Alfred Taylor</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_083" id="page_083"></a>{83}</span> -death”?—Dr. Christison speaks from his own experience; I speak from my -own.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>In all forms of convulsion?—No; the great point is this, that in -tetanus it remains so; in other convulsions it comes and goes.</p> - -<p>Is it always so?—That is according to my knowledge.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">G. O. Rees</div> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">George Owen Rees</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_084" id="page_084"></a>{84}</span> 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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">R. Christison</div> - -<p>Professor <span class="smcap">Robert Christison</span>, examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_085" id="page_085"></a>{85}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">R. Christison</div> - -<p>Is there, in your opinion, any marked difference between what I may call -natural tetanus and the tetanus of strychnia?—I<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_086" id="page_086"></a>{86}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">R. Christison</div> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—From my own observation, I should say that -animals who die from strychnia die of suffocation<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_087" id="page_087"></a>{87}</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Where is it in your book?—It is under the head of nux vomica, at the -bottom of page 898.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>In the animals poisoned by strychnia that you examined was there blood -in the right cavity?—Yes, in both.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_088" id="page_088"></a>{88}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">R. Christison</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Then the strychnia would be discharged with them, would it -not?—Certainly, or gradually acted upon with the resinous substances.</p> - -<p>I suppose if the resinous substances prevented the poison acting -rapidly, it would prevent its absorption into the blood?—For a time.</p> - -<p>If so, the more likely to leave portions of it in the stomach or -intestines as the case may be?—The more likely.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p class="c">The Court then adjourned.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_089" id="page_089"></a>{89}</span></p> - -<h3><a name="Sixth_Day_Tuesday_20th_May_1856" id="Sixth_Day_Tuesday_20th_May_1856"></a>Sixth Day, Tuesday, 20th May, 1856.<br /><br /> -<small>The Court met at ten o’clock.</small></h3> - -<div class="sidenote">John Jackson</div> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">John Jackson</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_090" id="page_090"></a>{90}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">John Jackson</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p>[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.]</p> - -<p class="c">The Court then adjourned.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<a href="images/ill_004_lg.jpg"> -<br /><img src="images/ill_004_sml.jpg" width="375" height="450" alt="Image unavailable: Mr. Serjeant Shee." /></a> -<br /> -<span class="caption">Mr. Serjeant Shee.</span> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_091" id="page_091"></a>{91}</span></p> - -<h3><a name="Seventh_Day_Wednesday_21st_May_1856" id="Seventh_Day_Wednesday_21st_May_1856"></a>Seventh Day, Wednesday, 21st May, 1856.<br /><br /> -<small>The Court met at ten o’clock.</small></h3> - -<p>Speech for the Defence.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_092" id="page_092"></a>{92}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_093" id="page_093"></a>{93}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_094" id="page_094"></a>{94}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_095" id="page_095"></a>{95}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_096" id="page_096"></a>{96}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>Having said so much I will now apply myself to what, in my judgment, is -an equally important, if not more important,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_097" id="page_097"></a>{97}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_098" id="page_098"></a>{98}</span> 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 <i>vivâ voce</i> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_099" id="page_099"></a>{99}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_100" id="page_100"></a>{100}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_101" id="page_101"></a>{101}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_102" id="page_102"></a>{102}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_103" id="page_103"></a>{103}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_104" id="page_104"></a>{104}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_105" id="page_105"></a>{105}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_106" id="page_106"></a>{106}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_107" id="page_107"></a>{107}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_108" id="page_108"></a>{108}</span> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_109" id="page_109"></a>{109}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_110" id="page_110"></a>{110}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—I do not think there is any proof of that.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—You are quite right as to the £500.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_111" id="page_111"></a>{111}</span> -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_112" id="page_112"></a>{112}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_113" id="page_113"></a>{113}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_114" id="page_114"></a>{114}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—That is not in evidence; do you mean to prove -that?</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_115" id="page_115"></a>{115}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_116" id="page_116"></a>{116}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_117" id="page_117"></a>{117}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_118" id="page_118"></a>{118}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_119" id="page_119"></a>{119}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_120" id="page_120"></a>{120}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_121" id="page_121"></a>{121}</span> -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!</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_122" id="page_122"></a>{122}</span> 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.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—Without external injury.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_123" id="page_123"></a>{123}</span> 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!</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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—<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_124" id="page_124"></a>{124}</span>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.</p> - -<p class="c"> -The Court here adjourned for a short time.<br /> -</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—You may read any part of them, completing the sense of -the part which you read.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_125" id="page_125"></a>{125}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_126" id="page_126"></a>{126}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_127" id="page_127"></a>{127}</span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—He thought they would not hear him; he thought they had -gone to bed.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_128" id="page_128"></a>{128}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_129" id="page_129"></a>{129}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—You must not say that. You would not let me ask -him any questions about it.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_130" id="page_130"></a>{130}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_131" id="page_131"></a>{131}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_132" id="page_132"></a>{132}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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, <i>inter alia</i>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_133" id="page_133"></a>{133}</span> 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, <i>inter alia</i>, 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.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_134" id="page_134"></a>{134}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_135" id="page_135"></a>{135}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_136" id="page_136"></a>{136}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_137" id="page_137"></a>{137}</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_138" id="page_138"></a>{138}</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_139" id="page_139"></a>{139}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_140" id="page_140"></a>{140}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_141" id="page_141"></a>{141}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_142" id="page_142"></a>{142}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_143" id="page_143"></a>{143}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_144" id="page_144"></a>{144}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_145" id="page_145"></a>{145}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—No member of the Court, I think, has intimated any -opinion as to the other portions of the case; merely as to the pushing.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_146" id="page_146"></a>{146}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_147" id="page_147"></a>{147}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_148" id="page_148"></a>{148}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_149" id="page_149"></a>{149}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_150" id="page_150"></a>{150}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_151" id="page_151"></a>{151}</span> 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!</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_152" id="page_152"></a>{152}</span> 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.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>I believe that is the true version of the matter, and that<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_153" id="page_153"></a>{153}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_154" id="page_154"></a>{154}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_155" id="page_155"></a>{155}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_156" id="page_156"></a>{156}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_157" id="page_157"></a>{157}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_158" id="page_158"></a>{158}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_159" id="page_159"></a>{159}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Serjeant Shee</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_160" id="page_160"></a>{160}</span> -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—</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p class="c">The Court then adjourned.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<a href="images/ill_005_lg.jpg"> -<br /><img src="images/ill_005_sml.jpg" width="450" height="224" alt="Image unavailable: Note written by Palmer to his Counsel while in the dock -at the Old Bailey" /></a> -<br /> -<span class="caption">Note written by Palmer to his Counsel while in the dock -at the Old Bailey</span> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_161" id="page_161"></a>{161}</span></p> - -<h3><a name="Eighth_Day_22nd_May_1856" id="Eighth_Day_22nd_May_1856"></a>Eighth Day, 22nd May, 1856.<br /><br /> -<small>The Court met at ten o’clock.</small></h3> - -<h3><a name="Evidence_for_the_Defence" id="Evidence_for_the_Defence"></a>Evidence for the Defence.</h3> - -<div class="sidenote">T. Nunneley</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Thomas Nunneley</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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 <i>viva -voce</i> evidence of the witnesses given during the trial.</p> - -<p>Examination resumed—The previous state of health of Mr. Cook had some -effect on my judgment.</p> - -<p>State your own grounds in your own way for that opinion?—If I take the -evidence which has occurred in Court—</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—The evidence of the symptoms of John Parsons Cook as -stated by the witnesses?—Not merely the symptoms, but the general state -of health.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—Do you remember the accounts that were given of -what was said or supposed to be syphilitic sores?</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—But there was no such thing said.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Baron Alderson</span>—Supposing a person had syphilitic sores, what would -you say then? That is the proper way of putting it.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—We must take it that medical men are not to be -substituted for the jury.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">T. Nunneley</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Justice Creswell</span>—If I were to suggest a mode of meeting the thing -it would be this—let the gentleman describe<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_162" id="page_162"></a>{162}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—Have you met with any?—No, not during a fit.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_163" id="page_163"></a>{163}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">T. Nunneley</div> - -<p>But it is during a state of fit we are inquiring?—I have not.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">T. Nunneley</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_164" id="page_164"></a>{164}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>(The witness produced his report to the coroner on these two cases.)</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_165" id="page_165"></a>{165}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">T. Nunneley</div> - -<p>Examination resumed—What else?—In a condition that he considered -himself mad for two minutes, caused, he stated, through some noise in -the street.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 -<i>Journal de Pharmacie</i>, in which attempts were made to give emetics -without success.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">T. Nunneley</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_166" id="page_166"></a>{166}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—It is a question on which toxicologists have -entertained a different opinion?—I believe they have.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">T. Nunneley</div> - -<p>With regard to the symptoms you have described to us, can you tell me -whether the result of your observations is that<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_167" id="page_167"></a>{167}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>From a dose which in the same quantity has not produced the same effect -in other instances?—Yes.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_168" id="page_168"></a>{168}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">T. Nunneley</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>What effect would that have?—If there were blood in the heart it ought -to be there.</p> - -<p>That would not make the difference. The head was not opened there in the -first instance?—No; that is my explanation of it.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">T. Nunneley</div> - -<p>Do you attach any importance to the emphysema?—It is of two kinds. One -consists in a dilatation of the cells, the other<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_169" id="page_169"></a>{169}</span> in a rupture by which -the air, not being in the cells, passes amongst them.</p> - -<p>I suppose you say it was not from the rupture of the cells here?—That I -inferred from the description given.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>I am speaking of the appearance of the lungs after death?—I must put -the whole together.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>I am speaking of this emphysema?—It did not occur to me.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>You have no doubt he died of convulsions?—No.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Amongst others you mentioned excitement?—Yes, and depression of -spirits.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you find from the evidence that the brain was perfectly -healthy?—No, not perfectly healthy. Mr. Bamford said it was not.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_170" id="page_170"></a>{170}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">T. Nunneley</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Do you believe that this man died of apoplexy?—I do not. You must bear -in mind he had taken doses of morphia.</p> - -<p>Do you ascribe his death to morphia?—No, except that it would assist in -the convulsive attack, and it would affect the spinal marrow.</p> - -<p>Brought about by the morphia?—No.</p> - -<p>In your opinion was morphia right treatment or wrong?—I should think -not very good in the state of excitement he was in then.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The stomach was irritated, I will allow, but where is the evidence that -there was any excitement at Rugeley?—There is none.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>You do believe there were convulsions on the Sunday night, then?—No, I -do not.</p> - -<p>He died of convulsions?—Yes, but I say of the same character.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>On the Monday night?—I have stated to you that he was in that condition -which very often precedes convulsions.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_171" id="page_171"></a>{171}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">T. Nunneley</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Ending in death?—It may end in death.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Has your reading furnished you with any?—The general statement of all -writers is that such cases do occur.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>In epilepsy you have these tetanic symptoms?—Yes, but before death -consciousness is gone.</p> - -<p>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?</p> - -<p>I am speaking of the paroxysm of tetanus?—It is very like.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Give me any of them?</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—This is not tetanus, but, as far as they go, they -coincide with the symptoms of tetanus at the moment of death?—Yes.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Let me call your attention to strychnia tetanus. Would you call the -symptoms tetanic?—They are called so very properly.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_172" id="page_172"></a>{172}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">T. Nunneley</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>That is one of the reasons Sir Benjamin Brodie gave for distinguishing -the course?—In the case at Leeds it was the same.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Why not?—I have given the description. Because it differed from the -course of tetanus from strychnia in the particulars I have already -described.</p> - -<p>Repeat them once more?—The very sudden acquisition of the convulsions -after the first rousing of Mr. Jones; his power of talking.</p> - -<p>Did you not know that Mrs. Smyth begged to have water thrown upon her, -and talked throughout?—It did not occur to me.</p> - -<p>Are you judging of the one incidental case, and coming here with -conclusions founded on that?—I think it is an element, the time.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_173" id="page_173"></a>{173}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">T. Nunneley</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did she not ask to have her legs rubbed?—That was when the attack was -slight, not during the fatal attack.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Afterwards she could not bear it, because it caused a recurrence?—Yes.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>On what does it depend, the inability to swallow?—From the inability to -move the jaw.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_174" id="page_174"></a>{174}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">T. Nunneley</div> - -<p>Is it the last?—I do not deny that it may be.</p> - -<p>At what stage did it come on in the Leeds case?—Very early, more than -two hours before death.</p> - -<p>How long did the paroxysms continue before death took place?—Two hours -and a half.</p> - -<p>That was in a case in which very large doses of strychnia were -administered?—We supposed four or five times repeatedly.</p> - -<p>In the case of Leeds there were four animals killed afterwards from the -contents of the stomach?—There were.</p> - -<p>You state that you have succeeded in every case where you have tried in -your experiments in finding the strychnia?—Yes.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Now, you thought you found it, and he thought you did not?—Not that I -recollect.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>In his examination here?—Yes; if you refer to it, except in one case, -and that is the explanation I give of it.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. Herepath</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">William Herepath</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_175" id="page_175"></a>{175}</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. Herepath</div> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_176" id="page_176"></a>{176}</span> take the tenth part of a drop of the -water and demonstrate the presence of strychnia.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>So that you experimented on a thirty-second part of the liver?—Yes.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">J. E. D. Rogers</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Julian Edward Disbrowe Rogers</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gray</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—I have only made one experiment -with strychnia on this dog.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—Do you mean then or now?—I do not see that the time -would prevent it.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">H. Letheby</div> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Henry Letheby</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Kenealy</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_177" id="page_177"></a>{177}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">H. Letheby</div> - -<p>Supposing a person had taken strychnia eight or ten days<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_178" id="page_178"></a>{178}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>I have also studied the poison of antimony.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">H. Letheby</div> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_179" id="page_179"></a>{179}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Have they come on in regular order?—No, I think not. There are some -little variations.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">H. Letheby</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_180" id="page_180"></a>{180}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>With regard to the abrupt termination instead of the gradual -subsidence?—I have observed the gradual subsidence in man as well as in -animals.</p> - -<p>In the case of the man—what dose had he taken?—Nearly a grain and a -half.</p> - -<p>This is a strongish dose?—Yes.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>What do you ascribe Mr. Cook’s death to?—It is irreconcilable with -everything I am acquainted with.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—Is it reconcilable with any known disease which you -have ever seen or heard of?—No, my lord.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">H. Letheby</div> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_181" id="page_181"></a>{181}</span> spinal cord, unrecognisable except the examination -be made immediately after death, may produce symptoms like these.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">R. E. Gay</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Robert Edward Gay</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_182" id="page_182"></a>{182}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>After that was there some diminution in the severity of the -convulsions?—Very great diminution, but they still continued.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—And the repetition?—And the repetition.</p> - -<p class="c">The Court then adjourned.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_183" id="page_183"></a>{183}</span></p> - -<h3><a name="Ninth_Day_Friday_23rd_May_1856" id="Ninth_Day_Friday_23rd_May_1856"></a>Ninth Day, Friday, 23rd May, 1856.<br /><br /> -<small>The Court met at ten o’clock.</small></h3> - -<div class="sidenote">J. B. Ross</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">John Brown Ross</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_184" id="page_184"></a>{184}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">J. B. Ross</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Had he had any paroxysms before he came to the hospital?—I believe he -had, all the afternoon.</p> - -<p>That was not one continuous paroxysm?—No; there was a twitching of the -muscles of the legs and arms.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Were you here yesterday when a case was described of an injury in the -throat—a sore throat that caused tetanus?—I was.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Would any injury to any delicate nerves be a cause of -tetanus?—Decidedly.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">F. Wrightson</div> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Francis Wrightson</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Kenealy</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_185" id="page_185"></a>{185}</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—Suppose the whole of this poison -to be absorbed, where would you expect to find it?—In the blood.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Suppose the whole to be absorbed?—Then I should not detect it.</p> - -<p>Suppose the whole of it has been eliminated from the blood and passed -from the system?—Certainly not.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">F. Wrightson</div> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_186" id="page_186"></a>{186}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—I cannot allow this gentleman to leave the box without -expressing my high approbation of the manner in which he has given his -evidence.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">R. Partridge</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Richard Partridge</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_187" id="page_187"></a>{187}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Are you enabled to state from the recorded cases the course of the -symptoms of the disease?—No.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Suppose them to be very small and minute?—I should think there would be -less likelihood of their producing inflammation.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.]</p> - -<p>Does arachnitis not sometimes extend to a matter of months, even where -it extends to death?—It might go on for months.</p> - -<p>Does it not affect the patient by a series of convulsions at recurring -intervals?—That varies.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>What would be the concomitant symptoms; would it affect <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_188" id="page_188"></a>{188}</span>the rest of the -patient or affect the general health?—I cannot say.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">R. Partridge</div> - -<p>Do you believe that a man could have twenty-four hours of complete -repose?—No.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_189" id="page_189"></a>{189}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">R. Partridge</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—And the other symptoms of rigidity?—It is rather a -question of degree.</p> - -<p>They would be more violent if from poison?—No doubt.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>As to decomposition of the spine. Do you think it could remain for nine -weeks undecomposed?—I do not.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—I intended to put the question myself.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Witness</span>—I should think it not inconsistent.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">John Gay</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">John Gay</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gray</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_190" id="page_190"></a>{190}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_191" id="page_191"></a>{191}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">John Gay</div> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—The tongue seems to retain its powers?—Yes. The case -is recorded in the <i>Lancet</i>.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>But were there no spasms during the daytime?—I believe not.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Action set up in the spinal cord by irritation of the nerves in the -immediate site of the laceration or wound?—Quite so.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">John Gay</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_192" id="page_192"></a>{192}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>You have no doubt the state of the toe was the original cause of the -convulsions?—I have not.</p> - -<p>And that death took place by something or other distinct from the first -cause?—Yes.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gray</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—Or cause?—Or cause.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. M‘Donnell</div> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">William M‘Donnell</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Kenealy</span>—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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. M‘Donnell</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_193" id="page_193"></a>{193}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—Do you know what the cause of the disease was?—Yes. I -examined the patient carefully, and made inquiry as to the symptoms.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>What do you mean by a trace of it?—Evidence of its appearance.</p> - -<p>Does that mean an imponderable quantity?—It may.</p> - -<p>Do you mean by traces to convey the idea that you can discover the -smallest quantity?—That will kill.</p> - -<p>What is the smallest quantity you can discover?—The fifty-thousandth -part of a grain.</p> - -<p>Have you actually experimented so as to discover that quantity?—Yes.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. M‘Donnell</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_194" id="page_194"></a>{194}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. M‘Donnell</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_195" id="page_195"></a>{195}</span> hours. The cause of death was from convulsions, -epileptic convulsions with tetanic symptoms.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>You say any one of those causes?—Might cause it.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Have you any reason to think it did?—I have no reason to do so.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>In the other case, of Mr. Copeland?—It was a young child between three -and four months old.</p> - -<p>Was that the person of the name of Copeland?—Yes.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. M‘Donnell</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_196" id="page_196"></a>{196}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you try if you could detect it afterwards?—How could I try before I -killed the dog?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Have you ever seen a case of strychnia in the human subject?—No, I have -not.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>What does epilepsy proceed from?—Nobody can answer that question.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Can you find me any case in which consciousness has preceded death?—I -cannot recollect.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_197" id="page_197"></a>{197}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. M‘Donnell</div> - -<p>You have studied on purpose for these cases?—No; I am pretty well up in -most branches.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>You mean deliberately to state that you believe this to have been from -epilepsy?—I do state so.</p> - -<p>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——</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Do you find he was depressed?—When you find a man in bed sick, he must -be depressed.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>And you think he vomited in consequence?—He might.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_198" id="page_198"></a>{198}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. M‘Donnell</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>But there was no inflammation of the stomach, was there?—I have given -you my opinion.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>They say there was none?—I do not believe them.</p> - -<p>Sensual excitement is a cause of epilepsy with tetanic complications; is -that what you say?—Yes, it might be.</p> - -<p>Do you find a tittle of evidence of any such excitement?—I think -so—the syphilitic spots. There was no doubt about it.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Have you any instance a fortnight afterwards?—It is quite within the -range of possibility.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Will opium bring on convulsions?—Yes, but a different form of -convulsions from epilepsy.</p> - -<p>Because opium brings on convulsions, you assume in this case that -morphia accelerated the disease?—Drawing the inference, I should say it -might.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_199" id="page_199"></a>{199}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. M‘Donnell</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>In which disease does it cause excitement?—It depends on the -idiosyncrasy, on the habit of body, if I might use a common term.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">W. M‘Donnell</div> - -<p>Supposing there was no such cramp, and that he meant<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_200" id="page_200"></a>{200}</span> to tell the truth, -would you refer what he said to any nervous and mental excitement?—Yes, -decidedly.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—He said he did not believe them?—I did not. I did -not believe that inflammation could be absent and these spots present.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">J. N. Bainbridge</div> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">John Nathan Bainbridge</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">J. N. Bainbridge</div> - -<p>In fact, had not the man been subject to these fits for a<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_201" id="page_201"></a>{201}</span> long series -of years, and at last he died in one of them?—Yes, he had.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Did you ever know a case of death in epilepsy where consciousness was -not destroyed before death?—No, I do not know one.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—I think it is an assumption that Mr. Cook was -conscious between the last shriek and his death.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">E. A. Steady</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Edward Austin Steady</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gray</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">E. A. Steady</div> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—I do not know how long before I was called -in she had this quarrel. I learned that<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_202" id="page_202"></a>{202}</span> 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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">G. Robinson</div> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">George Robinson</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Kenealy</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—In all cases of epilepsy there -are violent convulsions. I cannot tell you how many I have seen assume a -tetanic character; perhaps twenty.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">G. Robinson</div> - -<p>Have you ever seen anything in epilepsy approaching to these<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_203" id="page_203"></a>{203}</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">G. Robinson</div> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_204" id="page_204"></a>{204}</span> are also common to other convulsions. The -symptoms are certainly consistent with death by strychnia.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>But in this case you admit some of the symptoms are inconsistent with -your experience of epilepsy?—Yes.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—Allow me to remind you he asked them to turn him -over.</p> - -<p>By Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">B. W. Richardson</div> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Benjamin Ward Richardson</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">B. W. Richardson</div> - -<p>Will you state what symptoms you particularly refer to?—I<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_205" id="page_205"></a>{205}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—This case accords with all the -descriptions of angina pectoris by the best authors—Latham, Watson, -Boyeau, Pratt, and Sir Everett Holme.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_206" id="page_206"></a>{206}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">B. W. Richardson</div> - -<p>But in this case you are speaking as if it ended in the first -paroxysm?—Yes.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Re-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>During the interval between the two attacks what is the condition of the -patient?—Perfectly healthy, to all appearance.</p> - -<p>Are the symptoms described in the evidence more like the symptoms of -angina pectoris or strychnia poison?—I should certainly say angina -pectoris.</p> - -<p>You had no reason to suspect poison of any kind in that case, either -before or now?—Not the slightest.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_207" id="page_207"></a>{207}</span></p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">Dr. Wrightson</div> - -<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Wrightson</span>, recalled, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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?—<i>Cæteris paribus</i> that would be so.</p> - -<p>By Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—Would you have a very good chance of finding it in -the kidneys and spleen and in the blood?—Yes.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">C. Watson</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Catherine Watson</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p class="c">The Court then adjourned.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_208" id="page_208"></a>{208}</span></p> - -<h3><a name="Tenth_Day_Saturday_24th_May_1856" id="Tenth_Day_Saturday_24th_May_1856"></a>Tenth Day, Saturday, 24th May, 1856.<br /><br /> -<small>The Court met at ten o’clock.</small></h3> - -<div class="sidenote">O. Pemberton</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Oliver Pemberton</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—My lord, this closes the medical testimony.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">H. Matthews</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Henry Matthews</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">Joseph Foster</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Joseph Foster</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Gray</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_209" id="page_209"></a>{209}</span></p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">George Myatt</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">George Myatt</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Grove</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">George Myatt</div> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_210" id="page_210"></a>{210}</span> 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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">John Sargent</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">John Sargent</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Cross-examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>—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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_211" id="page_211"></a>{211}</span></p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">J. Smith</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Jeremiah Smith</span>, examined by Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_212" id="page_212"></a>{212}</span> 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:—]</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p> - -<p class="r"> -<span class="smcap">John Parsons.</span><br /> -</p></div> - -<p>I destroyed the envelope in which that was contained. [Another letter -was read, dated 25th June, 1855—]</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p> - -<p class="r"> -<span class="smcap">J. P. Cook.</span><br /> -</p></div> - -<p>I saw that “J. P. Cook” written. [The following paper was read:—]</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.</p></div> - -<p>These were the instructions to prepare the mortgage.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">J. Smith</div> - -<p>Cross-examined by the <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_213" id="page_213"></a>{213}</span> 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.</p> - -<p><i>Proof closed.</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_214" id="page_214"></a>{214}</span></p> - -<h3><a name="Attorney-Generals_Address_to_Jury" id="Attorney-Generals_Address_to_Jury"></a>Attorney-General’s Address to Jury.</h3> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<a href="images/ill_006_lg.jpg"> -<br /><img src="images/ill_006_sml.jpg" width="345" height="450" alt="Image unavailable: Sir Alexander Cockburn." /></a> -<br /> -<span class="caption">Sir Alexander Cockburn.</span> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_215" id="page_215"></a>{215}</span></p> - -<p class="nind">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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_216" id="page_216"></a>{216}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_217" id="page_217"></a>{217}</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_218" id="page_218"></a>{218}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_219" id="page_219"></a>{219}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_220" id="page_220"></a>{220}</span>” “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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_221" id="page_221"></a>{221}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_222" id="page_222"></a>{222}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_223" id="page_223"></a>{223}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_224" id="page_224"></a>{224}</span> 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.”<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_225" id="page_225"></a>{225}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_226" id="page_226"></a>{226}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_227" id="page_227"></a>{227}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>Is it not then preposterous to contend that this was not a<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_228" id="page_228"></a>{228}</span> 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!</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_229" id="page_229"></a>{229}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—It was in the newspapers, he said.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_230" id="page_230"></a>{230}</span> -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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_231" id="page_231"></a>{231}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_232" id="page_232"></a>{232}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_233" id="page_233"></a>{233}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_234" id="page_234"></a>{234}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>It is a remarkable fact, which has not escaped your attention, I dare -say, that my learned friend did not open a single word<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_235" id="page_235"></a>{235}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_236" id="page_236"></a>{236}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_237" id="page_237"></a>{237}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_238" id="page_238"></a>{238}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_239" id="page_239"></a>{239}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_240" id="page_240"></a>{240}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_241" id="page_241"></a>{241}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_242" id="page_242"></a>{242}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_243" id="page_243"></a>{243}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_244" id="page_244"></a>{244}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_245" id="page_245"></a>{245}</span> 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_246" id="page_246"></a>{246}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_247" id="page_247"></a>{247}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_248" id="page_248"></a>{248}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_249" id="page_249"></a>{249}</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_250" id="page_250"></a>{250}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_251" id="page_251"></a>{251}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_252" id="page_252"></a>{252}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_253" id="page_253"></a>{253}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_254" id="page_254"></a>{254}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_255" id="page_255"></a>{255}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_256" id="page_256"></a>{256}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_257" id="page_257"></a>{257}</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_258" id="page_258"></a>{258}</span> -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?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_259" id="page_259"></a>{259}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_260" id="page_260"></a>{260}</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_261" id="page_261"></a>{261}</span> 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;<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_262" id="page_262"></a>{262}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_263" id="page_263"></a>{263}</span> 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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_264" id="page_264"></a>{264}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—Not unprecedented.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Attorney-General</div> - -<p>The <span class="smcap">Attorney-General</span>—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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_265" id="page_265"></a>{265}</span> 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.</p> - -<p class="c">The Court then adjourned.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_266" id="page_266"></a>{266}</span></p> - -<h3><a name="Eleventh_Day_Monday_26th_May_1856" id="Eleventh_Day_Monday_26th_May_1856"></a>Eleventh Day, Monday, 26th May, 1856.<br /><br /> -<small>The Court met at ten o’clock.</small></h3> - -<p>Charge to the Jury.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<a href="images/ill_007_lg.jpg"> -<br /><img src="images/ill_007_sml.jpg" width="359" height="450" alt="Image unavailable: Lord Chief-Justice Campbell." /></a> -<br /> -<span class="caption">Lord Chief-Justice Campbell.</span> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_267" id="page_267"></a>{267}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_268" id="page_268"></a>{268}</span> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_269" id="page_269"></a>{269}</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>[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.]</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_270" id="page_270"></a>{270}</span> 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.)</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_271" id="page_271"></a>{271}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>[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.]</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_272" id="page_272"></a>{272}</span> 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 <i>Lancet</i>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_273" id="page_273"></a>{273}</span> the passage in -this letter in the <i>Lancet</i>, 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 <i>Lancet</i>; -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—He said that the experiments with the two rabbits -were made after the inquest.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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 <i>Lancet</i> -and some indiscreet conversation which he had with the editor of the -<i>Illustrated Times</i>; 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_274" id="page_274"></a>{274}</span> 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.</p> - -<p class="c">The Court then adjourned.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_275" id="page_275"></a>{275}</span></p> - -<h3><a name="Twelfth_Day_Tuesday_27th_May_1856" id="Twelfth_Day_Tuesday_27th_May_1856"></a>Twelfth Day, Tuesday, 27th May, 1856.<br /><br /> -<small>The Court met at ten o’clock.</small></h3> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_276" id="page_276"></a>{276}</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—I think that is not so upon the evidence, my lord.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_277" id="page_277"></a>{277}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—I believe that is a mistake.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_278" id="page_278"></a>{278}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_279" id="page_279"></a>{279}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_280" id="page_280"></a>{280}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_281" id="page_281"></a>{281}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_282" id="page_282"></a>{282}</span> -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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—I think he said he would expect to find it in the -spleen, the liver, and the blood.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—Yes; “I should look for it elsewhere, in the spleen, the -liver, and the blood.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_283" id="page_283"></a>{283}</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—Your lordship stated to the jury that <i>the</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—Serjeant Shee, that is not <i>the</i> question that I have -submitted to the jury; it is <i>a</i> question. I told them that unless they -considered that the symptoms were consistent with death by strychnia -they ought to acquit the prisoner.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Serjeant Shee</span>—It is my duty, my lord, not to be deterred by any -expression of displeasure at my stating it; I am<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_284" id="page_284"></a>{284}</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span>—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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p>The jury retired, and, after an absence of an hour and eighteen minutes, -returned a verdict of guilty.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<div class="sidenote">Lord Campbell</div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Lord Campbell</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_285" id="page_285"></a>{285}</span> 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!</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_286" id="page_286"></a>{286}</span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_287" id="page_287"></a>{287}</span></p> - -<h2><a name="APPENDICES" id="APPENDICES"></a>APPENDICES.</h2> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_288" id="page_288"></a>{288}</span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_289" id="page_289"></a>{289}</span></p> - -<h3><a name="APPENDIX_I" id="APPENDIX_I"></a>APPENDIX I.</h3> - -<p class="c"><span class="smcap">Letter from Thomas Palmer, Brother of William Palmer, to the Lord -Chief-Justice Campbell.</span></p> - -<p>The following extract from the Diary of Lord Chief-Justice Campbell will -serve as introduction to the following letter:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p class="r"> -June 28.<br /> -</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i>guilty</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p></div> - -<p> </p> - -<p class="c">A LETTER TO THE LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE CAMPBELL.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_290" id="page_290"></a>{290}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_291" id="page_291"></a>{291}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_292" id="page_292"></a>{292}</span> -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;<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_293" id="page_293"></a>{293}</span> 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 <i>prima -facie</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_294" id="page_294"></a>{294}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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 <i>pendente lite</i>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_295" id="page_295"></a>{295}</span> 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 <i>prima facie</i> 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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_296" id="page_296"></a>{296}</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_297" id="page_297"></a>{297}</span>—“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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_298" id="page_298"></a>{298}</span> 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!”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_299" id="page_299"></a>{299}</span> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_300" id="page_300"></a>{300}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_301" id="page_301"></a>{301}</span> 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?”</p> - -<p>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!</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_302" id="page_302"></a>{302}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_303" id="page_303"></a>{303}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_304" id="page_304"></a>{304}</span> 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!</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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!</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_305" id="page_305"></a>{305}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_306" id="page_306"></a>{306}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_307" id="page_307"></a>{307}</span> 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!</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_308" id="page_308"></a>{308}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_309" id="page_309"></a>{309}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>My lord, if our present system of representation were anything<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_310" id="page_310"></a>{310}</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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?</p> - -<p>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—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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?</p> - -<p>“Lord Campbell—I have read all that I have taken down. Is it in -the cross-examination?</p> - -<p>“Mr. Serjeant Shee—No, in the examination in chief. ‘How was the -body lying?—On the back, straight down on the bed.’</p> - -<p>“Mr. James—Where do you read that from?<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_311" id="page_311"></a>{311}</span></p> - -<p>“Mr. Serjeant Shee—It is in two reports; one in the <i>Times</i> and -one from the shorthand writer’s notes.</p> - -<p>“Lord Campbell—Bamford says it was lying straight on the bed.</p> - -<p>“Mr. Serjeant Shee—I did not allude to Bamford’s examination. This -witness says so too.”</p></div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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)—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“Mr. Serjeant Shee—I think the witness said there were traces of -emphysema in the left lung?</p> - -<p>“Mr. Baron Alderson—Yes.”</p></div> - -<p>But not one word of comment did you make.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_312" id="page_312"></a>{312}</span></p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“Lord Campbell—The last account we have got is that it was in Mr. -Palmer’s possession.</p> - -<p>“Mr. Serjeant Shee—I do not think there is any proof of its ever -having been in Mr. Palmer’s possession.</p> - -<p>“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.)</p> - -<p>“Lord Campbell—I do not think we can receive this evidence” -(report, p. 41).</p></div> - -<p>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?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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).</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_313" id="page_313"></a>{313}</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>“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.)</p> - -<p>“Mr. Serjeant Shee—On which of the two would you rely, supposing -they differed—the chambermaid or the medical man?</p> - -<p>“Lord Campbell—That is hardly a proper question” (report, p. 120).</p></div> - -<div class="blockquot"><p>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!</p> - -<p>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?</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_314" id="page_314"></a>{314}</span> 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 <i>Times</i>, 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 <i>ad captandum</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_315" id="page_315"></a>{315}</span> 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 <i>Times</i> 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 <i>Times</i> has done. But however this may be, it is not to the -<i>Times</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p class="r"> -<span class="smcap">Thomas Palmer.</span><br /> -</p></div> - -<h3><a name="APPENDIX_II" id="APPENDIX_II"></a>APPENDIX II.<br /><br /> -<small><span class="smcap">Short Account of the Judges and Counsel engaged in the Case.</span></small></h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">John Campbell</span>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_316" id="page_316"></a>{316}</span> 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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Baron Alderson.</span> 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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Justice Cresswell.</span> 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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sir Alexander James Edmund Cockburn</span> 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,</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<a href="images/ill_008_lg.jpg"> -<br /><img src="images/ill_008_sml.jpg" width="365" height="450" alt="Image unavailable: Mr. Baron Alderson." /></a> -<br /> -<span class="caption">Mr. Baron Alderson.</span> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_317" id="page_317"></a>{317}</span></p> - -<p class="nind">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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p><span class="smcap">John Edwin James</span> 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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sir William Henry Bodkin.</span> 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_318" id="page_318"></a>{318}</span> and Kentish Sessions; he was -counsel to the Treasury at the Central Criminal Court in 1856, and was -<i>ex officio</i> 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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p><span class="smcap">William Newland Welsby</span> 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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sir John Walter Huddleston</span> (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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_319" id="page_319"></a>{319}</span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sir William Shee.</span> 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.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Sir William Robert Grove.</span> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_320" id="page_320"></a>{320}</span> 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.</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Edward Vaughan Hyde Kenealy</span> 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 <i>The Englishman</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p> </p> - -<p><span class="smcap">John Gray.</span> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_321" id="page_321"></a>{321}</span></p> - -<hr /> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<a href="images/ill_009_lg.png"> -<img src="images/ill_009_sml.png" width="282" height="450" alt="Image unavailable: Letter from William Palmer to his wife. - -(Reproduced from the original in the possession of Dr. Kurt Loewenfeld, -Bramhall, Cheshire.)" /></a> - -<a href="images/ill_010_lg.png"> -<img src="images/ill_010_sml.png" width="308" height="450" alt="Image unavailable: Letter from William Palmer to his wife. - -(Reproduced from the original in the possession of Dr. Kurt Loewenfeld, -Bramhall, Cheshire.)" /></a> - -<a href="images/ill_011_lg.png"> -<img src="images/ill_011_sml.png" width="276" height="450" alt="Image unavailable: Letter from William Palmer to his wife. - -(Reproduced from the original in the possession of Dr. Kurt Loewenfeld, -Bramhall, Cheshire.)" /></a> - -<br /> -<span class="caption">Letter from William Palmer to his wife. -<br /> -(Reproduced from the original in the possession of Dr. Kurt Loewenfeld, -Bramhall, Cheshire.)</span> -</div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_322" id="page_322"></a>{322}</span> </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_323" id="page_323"></a>{323}</span> </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_324" id="page_324"></a>{324}</span> </p> - -<div class="figcenter"> -<a href="images/ill_012_lg.png"> -<img src="images/ill_012_sml.png" width="274" height="450" alt="Image unavailable: Facsimile of page from the Diary of William Palmer." /></a> -<a href="images/ill_013_lg.png"> -<img src="images/ill_013_sml.png" width="289" height="450" alt="Image unavailable: Facsimile of page from the Diary of William Palmer." /></a> -<br /> -<span class="caption">Facsimile of page from the Diary of William Palmer.</span> -</div> - -<hr class="full" /> - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Trial of William Palmer. - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER *** - -***** This file should be named 52264-h.htm or 52264-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/2/2/6/52264/ - -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) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/colophon.png b/old/52264-h/images/colophon.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index ca7dd69..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/colophon.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/52264-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 18c0bb8..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_002_lg.jpg b/old/52264-h/images/ill_002_lg.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index de41438..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_002_lg.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_002_sml.jpg b/old/52264-h/images/ill_002_sml.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 3e4af95..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_002_sml.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_004_lg.jpg b/old/52264-h/images/ill_004_lg.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 59da77a..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_004_lg.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_004_sml.jpg b/old/52264-h/images/ill_004_sml.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 65662e6..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_004_sml.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_005_lg.jpg b/old/52264-h/images/ill_005_lg.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 32c4bb5..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_005_lg.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_005_sml.jpg b/old/52264-h/images/ill_005_sml.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 8d72863..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_005_sml.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_006_lg.jpg b/old/52264-h/images/ill_006_lg.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 94a5562..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_006_lg.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_006_sml.jpg b/old/52264-h/images/ill_006_sml.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 11ce34a..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_006_sml.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_007_lg.jpg b/old/52264-h/images/ill_007_lg.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 5001330..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_007_lg.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_007_sml.jpg b/old/52264-h/images/ill_007_sml.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 832dcc8..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_007_sml.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_008_lg.jpg b/old/52264-h/images/ill_008_lg.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 33c8309..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_008_lg.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_008_sml.jpg b/old/52264-h/images/ill_008_sml.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 0b33ed1..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_008_sml.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_009_lg.png b/old/52264-h/images/ill_009_lg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 31a2e9d..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_009_lg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_009_sml.png b/old/52264-h/images/ill_009_sml.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index c72fe03..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_009_sml.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_010_lg.png b/old/52264-h/images/ill_010_lg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 2573151..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_010_lg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_010_sml.png b/old/52264-h/images/ill_010_sml.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 6ba9dd1..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_010_sml.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_011_lg.png b/old/52264-h/images/ill_011_lg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 0aea6fe..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_011_lg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_011_sml.png b/old/52264-h/images/ill_011_sml.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 6ee3b05..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_011_sml.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_012_lg.png b/old/52264-h/images/ill_012_lg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 465c151..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_012_lg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_012_sml.png b/old/52264-h/images/ill_012_sml.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 4937c2c..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_012_sml.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_013_lg.png b/old/52264-h/images/ill_013_lg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 2851217..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_013_lg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52264-h/images/ill_013_sml.png b/old/52264-h/images/ill_013_sml.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index e18bcf5..0000000 --- a/old/52264-h/images/ill_013_sml.png +++ /dev/null |
