Chapter XIV: Part 14

Cross-examined by Mr. James: The black wash was not to be drunk [a laugh]. The application was made to Palmer at the Warwick Spring meeting in 1855. Cook was at Newmarket. I lived in the same house with him there. He was at nearly all the race meetings last year. His appetite was very good, and that surprised me. The cayenne nut is made up for a trick and mixed with other gingerbread nuts. Cook got one of those. I have tasted them. Some of them are stronger than others.

JEREMIAH SMITH, by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I am an attorney at Rugeley. I am acquainted with the prisoner, and was acquainted with Cook. I saw Cook at the Talbot Arms on Friday, the 16th of November. He was in his bedroom. I saw him about ten o’clock. I was present at his breakfast. A small tray was put on the bed. He took tea for breakfast, and had a wineglass of brandy in it. I dined with him at Palmer’s house. I am not quite positive that I had seen him between breakfast and dinner. We had a rump-steak for dinner. We had some champagne at dinner. We drank port-wine after dinner. He had three bottles altogether, and Cook took his share. Cook, myself, and Palmer dined together. We left the house about six in the evening. Cook and I left the house together. We went to my house, and afterwards to the Albion Hotel, which is next door. We had a glass of cold brandy-and-water. Cook left me there. He said he felt cold, and warmed himself at the fire. He said he had borrowed a book, and would go home and read it in bed. That was between seven and eight o’clock, but I can’t say exactly. In the afternoon, after dinner, we were talking about racing. I asked Cook for money--for £50. He gave me £5. When he was taking the note out of his pocket-case, I said “Mr. Cook, you can pay me all.” He said, “No; there is only £41 10s. due to you.” He said that he had given Palmer money, and would pay me the remainder when he returned from Tattersall’s on the Monday. On the night following (Saturday night) he was not well, and I slept in his room. It was late when I went; I should think about eleven or twelve o’clock. I had been at a concert during the early part of the night on which Cook was unwell. He had got some toast-and-water, and was washing his mouth. He was sick. There was a night chair in the room before the fire. I saw him sitting there. He tried to vomit, but whether he did so or not I cannot say, for I did not get out of bed. I went to sleep about two o’clock. I slept until Palmer and Bamford came into the room in the morning. I lay still in bed, and heard a conversation between the doctor and Cook. Bamford said, “Well, Mr. Cook, how are you this morning?” Cook said, “I am rather better this morning. I slept from about two or three o’clock, after the house had become quiet.” Bamford said, “I’ll send you some medicine.” I don’t recollect any further conversation. I know Mrs. Palmer, prisoner’s mother. She sent a message to me on Monday, and I went to her and saw her. In consequence of what had passed, I went to look for the prisoner to see if he had arrived. That was about nine o’clock. I saw Palmer at ten minutes past ten. He came from the direction of Stafford, in a car. He said to me, “Have you seen Cook to-day?” I said, “No; I have been to Lichfield on business;” on which Palmer said he had better go and see how he was before he went to his mother’s. Palmer and I went up to Cook’s room together. Cook said, “You are late, doctor, to-night. I did not expect you to look in. I have taken the medicine which you gave me.” We did not stay more than two or three minutes, and I think Cook asked me why I did not call earlier. I said I had been detained on business. Cook said Bamford had sent him some pills, which he had taken; and he intimated that he would not have taken them if Palmer had come earlier. Cook told Palmer, that he had been up talking with Saunders, and Palmer said, “You ought not to have done so.” Palmer and I left the room together, and we went straight to his mother’s.

The distance of Mr. Palmer’s house from the Talbot Arms is about four or five hundred yards. We were there about half an hour. We both left together and went to Palmer’s house. I entered with him. I asked him to let me have a glass of grog, but did not get it. I then went home. After dining with Palmer on Friday, I invited Cook and Palmer to dine with me on the next day, Saturday. Cook sent me a message, stating that he was not well and could not leave his room. I ordered a boiled leg of mutton for dinner, and sent part of the broth from the Albion by the charwoman--I think her name was Rowley. Previous to Cook’s death I borrowed £200 for Cook, and negotiated a loan with Pratt for him for £500. The £200 transaction was in May. I borrowed £100 of Mrs. Palmer, and £100 of William Palmer, making together the £200 to which I have referred. I knew that Palmer and Cook were jointly interested in one horse, and that they were in the habit of betting for each other. When Cook’s horse was going to run, Palmer “put on” for him; and when Palmer’s ran, Cook “put on” for him. I have seen Thirlby, Palmer’s assistant, dress Cook’s throat with caustic. I think this was before the races at Shrewsbury. I have some signatures of Cook’s which I know to be in his handwriting. The two notes with instructions to negotiate the loan of £500, I saw Cook sign. [The notes were put in.] One of them is signed “J. P. Cook,” the other “J. Parsons Cook.” I knew from Cook that he was served with a writ. I do not remember that I received any instruction to appear for him.

The letters put in were read by Mr. Straight, the Clerk of the Arraigns. The first was without date, and signed “J. Parsons Cook,” Monday. The following is a copy of the letter:--

“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 an extra two guineas, for
the ---- discounter had issued a writ against me. I am very much
disgusted at it.”

The letter was sent to me, but its envelope was destroyed. The next letter bore the date 25th June, 1855; it was also without address, but witness stated that it had been sent to him, and he had destroyed the envelope. The following is a copy of the letter:--

“Dear Jerry,--I should like to have the bill renewed for two
months. Can it be done? Let me know by return. I have scratched
Polestar for the Nottinghamshire and Wolverhampton Stakes. I shall
be down on Friday or Saturday. Fred. tells me Arabis will win the
Northumberland Stakes.”

The memorandum put in and read was signed J. P. Cook, and the following is a copy:--

“Polestar three years, Sirius two years; by way of mortgage to
secure £200 advanced upon a bill of exchange for £200, dated 29th
August, 1855, payable about three months after date.”

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am the person who took Mr. Myatt to Stafford Gaol. I have known Palmer long and intimately, and have been employed a good deal as attorney for him and his family. I cannot recollect that he applied to me in December, 1854, to attest a proposal for insurance on the life of Walter Palmer for £13,000 in the Solicitors’ and General Assurance Office. I will not swear that I was not applied to on the subject. I do not recollect that an application was made to me to attest a proposal for £13,000 in the Prince of Wales on Walter Palmer’s life, in January, 1855. I know that Walter Palmer had been a bankrupt, but not that he was an uncertificated bankrupt. His bankruptcy took place at least six years ago. He had been in no business since that period to the time of his death. I knew that Walter had an allowance from his mother, and he had also money at various times from his brother William. In the years 1854 and 1855, I lived at Rugeley, sometimes at Palmer’s house, and sometimes at his mother’s. There was no improper intimacy between myself and Palmer’s mother. I slept at her house frequently, perhaps two or three times a week, having my own place of abode at Rugeley.

How long did this habit continue of sleeping two or three times a week at Mrs. Palmer’s house?--Several years.

Had you your own lodgings and chambers at Rugeley?--Yes.

Your own bedroom?--Yes.

How far were your lodgings from Mrs. Palmer’s house?--Nearly a quarter of a mile.

Will you be so good as to explain why, having your own place of abode, and your own bed-room so near to Mrs. Palmer’s, you were still in the habit of sleeping two or three times a week for several years at the house of Mrs. Palmer?--Yes; sometimes there were members of Mrs. Palmer’s family present.

Who were they?--There was Mr. Joseph Palmer, who resides at Liverpool; Mr. Walter Palmer, too; and sometimes William Palmer.

When you went to see the members of Palmer’s family, was it too late when you separated to return to your own lodgings?--We used to stop very late drinking gin and water, smoking, and sometimes afterwards playing at cards.

Then you did not go to your own lodgings?--No.

And this continued several years two or three times a week?--Yes.

Did you ever stay at Mrs. Palmer’s house all night when there were no members of the family visiting?--Yes, frequently.

How often?--As many as two or three times a week.

When there were none of Mrs. Palmer’s sons there?--Yes.

And when the mother was?--Yes.

How often did that happen?--I cannot say. Sometimes two or three times a week.

When there was no one else in the house but the lady?--There were the mother, daughter, and servants.

You might have gone to your own home, then, for there was no one to drink brandy-and-water with, or to smoke with?--I might have done so, but I did not.

Do you mean, then, to swear solemnly that no improper intimacy subsisted between you and Palmer’s mother?--I do [sensation].

Now I will turn to another subject. Do you remember being applied to by Palmer to attest a proposal for an insurance of £10,000 on the life of Walter Palmer in the Universal Life Office?--I do not remember; if you have any document which will show it I shall be able to recollect, perhaps.

Now, do you remember getting a five pound note for attesting the signature of Walter Palmer’s assignment of his policy to his brother?--I do not.

Is that your signature [handing a document to witness]?--It is very similar to it.

Is it not yours?--I do not know [sensation].

Upon your oath, sir, is not that your signature?--Witness hesitating--

Examine the document, and then tell me, on your oath, whether that is not your signature [witness examined the document].

Now you have perused it, tell me, is not that your signature?--Witness (hesitating): I have some doubts whether this is my handwriting [sensation].

Have you read the whole of the document?--I have not.

Then do so. [Witness again perused the whole of the paper.] Now, was that document prepared in your office?--It was not.

Have you ever seen it before?--It is very much like my handwriting.

That is not what I asked you. Upon your oath, have you ever seen that document before?--Witness (with hesitation): It is very much like my handwriting [sensation].

I will have an answer to my question. Upon your oath, sir, is not that your handwriting?--I think it is not in my handwriting. I think it is a very clever imitation of it [sensation].

Will you swear it is not your handwriting?--I will swear it is not my handwriting [renewed sensation].

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Will your lordship please to take a note of that answer?

Mr. Baron ALDERSON: Did you ever make such an attestation as that in your hand?--I do not remember.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Now is that the signature of Walter Palmer (handing a paper to witness)?--I believe it to be.

Is that the signature of Pratt?--I do not know.

Did you not receive that paper from Pratt?--I believe I did not. I think William Palmer gave it me.

Well, did he give it you?--I don’t recollect.

I repeat my question. Did William Palmer give you that document?--Most likely he did.

Did he, I ask again?--It was not signed at the time.

But did he give it you? I will have an answer.--I have no doubt he did.

Well, then, if that document bears the signature of Walter Palmer, and was given to you by William Palmer, cannot you tell whether it bears your own signature or not?--Mr. Attorney--

Don’t “Mr. Attorney” me--answer my question. Upon your oath, is not that your handwriting?--I believe it not to be.

Will you swear it is not?--I believe it not to be. [Great sensation.]

Now, did you apply to the Midland Counties Insurance Office to be appointed agent to the company at Rugeley?--I did.

When was it?--I should like to fetch my documents and papers; I should then be able to answer you accurately.

Oh, never mind the papers. Was it in October, 1855?--I think it was.

Did you send up a proposal for an insurance of £10,000 on the life of Bates?--I did.

Did William Palmer ask you to make that proposal?--Bates and Palmer came together to my office, with a prospectus, and asked me if I knew whether there was an agent for the Midland Counties Office in Rugeley. I told him I never heard of one. He asked me afterwards if I would write to get the appointment, because Bates wanted to raise some money.

Did you send to the Midland Counties Office to get the appointment of agent, in order that you might be enabled to effect this insurance on Bates’s life?--I did.

Did you make the application in order to get the insurance effected?--I did.

Upon the life of Bates for £10,000?--I did. [Sensation.] Bates was at that time superintending William Palmer’s stud and stables. I do not know at what salary. I afterwards went to the widow of Walter Palmer to get her to give up her claim on the policy of her husband. She was then at Liverpool. William Palmer gave me a letter for Pratt to take to her to sign. Mrs. Palmer said she would like to see her solicitor about it. I brought the document back with me because she did not sign it. I had no instructions to leave it.

Did she give any reason for not signing it?

Mr. Sergeant SHEE objected to the question.

Lord CAMPBELL decided that it could not be put.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Do you know whether Walter Palmer received anything on executing the assignment of his policy to William Palmer?--I believe he ultimately had something.

Did he not get a bill for £200?--I believe he did, and he also got a house furnished for him.

Was that bill paid?--I do not remember.

Is that document in your handwriting? [document handed in]--It is.

Now, having seen that document with your signature, I ask you whether you were applied to to effect an insurance on the life of Walter Palmer?--I do not recollect.

Not recollect! when your signature is staring you in the face?--No, I do not.

You are an attorney, and accustomed to business transactions?--I am.

Now I ask you again, were you applied to on the subject?--I may have been; it is from my memory I am speaking, and I wish, therefore, to speak as accurately as possible [laughter].

I don’t ask you as to your memory in the abstract, but your memory now that is refreshed by that document. Is that your signature?--Witness (hesitating) I have no doubt it may be.

Look at that document and see whether you were not applied to to effect the insurance I have named?--That is my signature.

I ask you, have you any doubt that in the month of January, 1855, you were called upon to attest another proposal for £13,000 on the life of Walter Palmer?--Witness (with hesitation): I may have signed that paper in blank.

Did you sign this proposal in blank?--I might have done.

But did you, I ask again?--I cannot swear I did or did not. I have some doubt whether I did not sign several of these proposals in blank [sensation].

Upon your oath, do you not know that William Palmer applied to you to effect an insurance for £13,000 on the life of his brother?--I do not remember.

Why this is a very large sum, surely you must remember such a transaction as this?--I may have been applied to on the subject.

Were you applied to to attest another proposal for an insurance with the Universal Life Office?--I cannot say that I was.

Will you swear that when Walter Palmer executed the deed of assignment of his policy to William Palmer, that you were not present? Now, be careful, for you will certainly hear of this on some future day if you are not careful.--I cannot say that I was.

Upon your oath, did you not attest the deed of assignment of Walter to his brother of his interest in a policy of insurance for £13,000?--I cannot say. I believe the signature “Jeremiah Smith” is very much like my handwriting.

I repeat the question?--I cannot say.

Why, did you not receive a cheque for £5 for attesting it?--I think I did receive a cheque for £5.

Did you not see William Palmer write this upon the counterfoil of his cheque-book [cheque-book handed to witness]?--Witness, with hesitation: I cannot positively swear that I did.

Did you not, sir, see him write it?--That is William Palmer’s handwriting [referring to the cheque-book].

Did you not know that you got a five pound cheque for attesting that signature?--I may have got a cheque for £5, but I may not have got it for attesting the signature of the document.

You say you got £200 for Cook--£100 from Mrs. Palmer and £100 from William Palmer?--Yes, and he gave £10 for the recommendation.

To whom?--To William Palmer.

Do you not know that the £200 bill was given for the purpose of enabling William Palmer to make up a sum of £500?--I believe it was not, for Cook received absolutely from me £200.

Did he not have the money from you in order to take up to London to pay Pratt?--No, he took it with him, I think, to Shrewsbury, to the races.

Who was the bill drawn in favour of?--I think William Palmer.

What became of the bill?--I do not know.

Witness: I was not present at the inquest on Cook. I can’t say who saw me when I went to the Talbot Arms and went into Cook’s room. One of the servants gave me a candle--either Bond, Mills, or Lavinia Barnes.

Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I have known Mrs. Palmer twenty years. I knew her before her husband’s death. I should say she is sixty years of age. William Palmer is not her eldest son. Joseph is the eldest. He resides at Liverpool. He is forty-five or forty-six years of age. I think George is the next son. He lives at Rugeley. He was frequently at his mother’s house. There is another son, a clergyman of the Church of England. He resided with his mother until within the last two years, except when he was at college. There is a daughter. She lives with her mother. There are three servants. Mrs. Palmer’s family does not visit much in the neighbourhood of Rugeley. Her house is a large one. I slept in a room nearest the Old Church.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any pretence for saying you have ever been charged with any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer?--Witness: I hope not.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any pretence for saying so?--Witness: There ought not to be.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any truth in the statement or suggestion that you have had any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer?--Witness: They might have said so, but there is no reason.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Is there any truth in the statement?--Witness: I should say not.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: When did it come to your knowledge that there was a proposal for Walter’s life?--Witness: I never heard of it until the inquest.

The Court then adjourned for about twenty minutes, when the proceedings were resumed.

W. JOSEPH SAUNDERS was then called up on his subpœna, but did not appear.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should be extremely sorry to commence his reply if there was any chance of witness making his appearance.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE said he should now ask for the production of a letter written by Cook to Palmer on Jan. 4, 1855.

The letter, of which the following is a copy, was then put in and read:--

“Lutterworth, Jan. 4, 1855.

“My dear Sir,--I sent up to London on Tuesday to back St. Hubert
for £50, and my commission has returned 10s. 1d. I have, therefore,
booked 250 to 25 against him, to gain money. There is a small
balance of £18 due to you, which I forgot to give you the other
day. Tell Will to debit me with it on account of your share of
training Pyrrhine. I will also write to him to do so, as there will
be a balance due from him to me.

Yours faithfully,

“J. PARSONS COOK.”

“W. Palmer, Esq.”

Mr. Serjeant SHEE submitted that he was entitled to reply on a part of evidence. The course taken by the Attorney-General on getting at the contents of the cheque, the contents of an assignment of the policy on Walter Palmer’s life, and the contents of the proposals to various offices for the insurance, he submitted entitled him to a reply on those points.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: We are of opinion that you have no right to reply.

Mr. BARON ALDERSON: That is quite clear.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had been taken somewhat by surprise yesterday by the evidence of Dr. Richardson, with respect to angina pectoris. Dr. Richardson adverted to several books and authorities. He had now those books in his possession, and was desirous of putting some questions arising out of that part of the evidence.

The Court decided against the application.

The case for the defence here concluded.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S REPLY.

The Attorney-General, at ten minutes before three, commenced his reply, speaking occasionally in so low a tone that the conclusion of many of his sentences was inaudible. He said: May it please your lordships and gentlemen of the jury, the case for the prosecution and the case for the defence are now before you, and it now becomes my duty to address to you such observations upon the whole of the evidence as suggest themselves to my mind. I feel that I have a moral, solemn, and important duty to perform. I wish I could have answered the appeal made to me the other day by my learned friend (Serjeant Shee), and say that I am satisfied with the case which he submitted to you for 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 prisoner. I approach the consideration of the case in, I hope, what I may term a spirit of fairness and moderation. My business is to convince you, if I can, by facts and legitimate arguments, of the prisoner’s guilt; and if I cannot establish it to your satisfaction, no man will rejoice more than I shall in a verdict of acquittal. Gentlemen, in the mass of evidence which has been 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 the evidence, then comes the important--if possible, the still more important--question, whether the prisoner at the bar was the author of the death? I will proceed with the consideration of the subject in the order which I have mentioned. Did John Parsons Cook die by poison? I assert and contend 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, Cook was at last killed by strychnine. The first question to be considered is--what was the immediate and proximate cause of his death. The witnesses for the prosecution have told you, one and all, that, in their judgment, he died of tetanus, which signifies a convulsive spasmodic action of the muscles of the body. Can there be any doubt that their opinion is correct? Of course it does not follow that, because he died of tetanus, it must be the tetanus of strychnia. That is a matter for after consideration. But, inasmuch as strychnine produces death by tetanus, we must see, in the first place, whether it admits of doubt that he did die of tetanus. I have listened with great attention to every form in which that disease has been brought under your consideration--whether by the positive evidence of witnesses, or whether by reference to the works of scientific writers; and I assert deliberately that no case, either in the human subject or in the animal, has been brought under your notice in which the symptoms of tetanus have been so marked as in this case.

From the moment the paroxysms came on of which the unhappy man died, the symptoms were of the most marked and of the most striking character. Every muscle, says the witness, the medical man who was present at the time--every muscle of his body was convulsed--he expressed the most intense dread of suffocation--he entreats them to lift him up lest he should be suffocated--and every muscle of his body, from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet, was so stricken--the flexibility of the trunk and the limbs was gone--and you could only have raised him up as you would have raised a corpse. In order that he might escape from the dread of suffocation, they turned him over, and then, in the midst of that fearful paroxysm, one mighty spasm seemed to have seized his heart, to have pressed from it the life blood, and the result was--death. And when he died, his body exhibited the most marked symptoms of this fearful disease. He was convulsed from head to foot. You could have rested him on his head and heels--his hands were clasped with a grasp that it required force to overcome, and his feet assumed an arched appearance. Then, if it was a case of tetanus--into which fact I will not waste your time by inquiry--the question arises, was it a case of tetanus produced by strychnia? I will confine myself for a moment to the exhibition of the symptoms as described by the witnesses. Tetanus may proceed from natural causes as well as from the administration of poisons, and while the symptoms last they are the same. But in the course of the symptoms, and before the disease reaches its consummation in the death of the patient, the distinction between the two is marked by characteristics which enable any one conversant with the subject to distinguish between them. We have been told on the highest authority that the distinctions are these--natural tetanus is a disease not of minutes, not of hours, but of days. It takes--say several other witnesses--from three to four days; and will extend to a period of even three weeks before the patient dies. Upon that point we have the most abundant and conclusive evidence of Dr. Curling; we have the evidence of Dr. Brodie; we have the evidence of Dr. Daniel, a gentleman who has seen something like twenty-five or thirty cases; we have the evidence of a gentleman who has practised twenty-five years in India, where these cases, arising from cold, are infinitely more frequent; and he gives exactly the same description of the course which this disease invariably takes. Idiopathic or traumatic tetanus is therefore out of the question, upon the evidence which has been given. But traumatic tetanus is out of the question for a very different reason. Traumatic tetanus is brought on by the lesion of some part of the body. But what is there in this case to show that there was anything like lesion at all. We have had several gentlemen called, who have come here with an evident determination to misconceive and misrepresent every fact. We have called before you an eminent physician, who had Cook under his care.

It seems that, in the spring of the year 1855, Cook, having found certain small spots manifest themselves in one or two parts of his body, and having something of an ulcerated tongue and a sore throat, conceived that he was labouring under symptoms of a particular character. He addressed himself to Dr. Savage, who found that the course of medicine he had been pursuing was an erroneous one. He enjoined the discontinuance of mercury. His injunction was obeyed, and the result was that the patient was suffering neither from disease nor wrong treatment. But lest there should be any possibility of mistake, Dr. Savage says that long before the summer advanced every unsatisfactory symptom had entirely gone; there was nothing wrong about him, except that affection of the throat, to which thousands of people are subject. In other respects, the man was better than he had been, and might be said to be convalescent. On the very day that he leaves London to go into the country, a fortnight before the races, his stepfather, who accompanied him to the station, congratulated him upon his healthy and vigorous appearance, and, the young man, conscious of a restored state of health, struck his breast, and said “He was well, very well.” Then he goes to Shrewsbury, and shortly afterwards arose those matters to which I am about to call your attention. I want to know in what part of the evidence there is the slightest pretence for saying that this man had an affection which might bring on traumatic tetanus? It is said that he had exhibited his tongue to witnesses, and applied for a mercurial wash, but it is clear that, although he had at one time adopted that course, he had, under the recommendation of Dr. Savage, got rid of it, and there is no pretence for saying he was suffering under any syphilitic affection of any kind. That fact has been negatived by a man of the highest authority and eminence. It is a pretence for which there was not a shadow of a foundation, and I should shrink from my duty if I did not denounce it as a pretence unworthy of your attention. There was nothing about the man which would warrant, for a single moment, the supposition that there was anything of that character in any part of his body when the tetanus set in. One or two cases of traumatic tetanus have been adduced in the evidence which has been brought forward for the defence. One is the case of a man in the London Hospital, who was brought into that institution one evening, and died the same night. But what are the facts? The facts are, that before he had been brought in he had had a paroxysm early in the morning--that he was suffering from ulcers of the most aggravated description. The symptoms had run their course rapidly, it is true, but the case was not one of minutes, but of hours. Another case has been brought forward in which a toe was amputated, but there we have disease existing some time before death. But then it is suggested that this may be a case of idiopathic tetanus proceeding from--what? They say that 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 the diseased condition of throat; and putting all these things together, they say that if the man took cold he might get idiopathic tetanus.

We are here launched into a sea of speculations and possibilities. Dr. Nunneley, who comes here for the purpose of inducing you to believe there was something like idiopathic tetanus, goes through supposed infirmities, and talks about his excitability, his delicacy of chest, his affection of the throat, and he says these things would predispose to idiopathic tetanus if he took colds. But what evidence is there that he did take cold? Not the slightest in the world. There is not the smallest pretence that he ever complained of a cold, or was treated for a cold. I cannot help saying that it seems to me that it is a scandal upon a learned, and distinguished, and liberal profession, that men should come forward to put forth such speculations upon these perverted facts, and draw from them sophistical and unwarrantable conclusions, with a view to deceive you. I have the greatest respect for science. No man can have more. But I cannot repress my indignation and abhorrence when I see it perverted and prostituted for the purposes of a particular case in a court of justice. Dr. Nunneley talked to you about certain excitements being the occasion of idiopathic tetanus. You remember the sorts of excitement of which he spoke. They are unworthy of your notice. They were topics discreditable to be put forward by a witness as worthy of your consideration. But, suppose for a single moment that excitement at the time could produce any such effect, where is the excitement manifested by Cook as leading to the supposed disease? They say that the man, when he won his money at Shrewsbury, was for a moment excited. And well he might be. His fortunes depended upon the result of the race, and I will not deny that he was overpowered with emotions of joy. But those emotions subsided, and we have no further trace of them from that time to the moment of his death. The man passed the rest of the day with his friends in ordinary conversation and enjoyment. No trace of emotion was found. He is taken ill. He goes to Rugeley. He is taken ill there again. But is there the slightest symptom of excitement about him, or of depression? Not the least. When he is ill, like most people, he is low spirited. As soon as he gets a little better, he is cheerful and happy. He invites his friends and converses with them. On the night of his death his conversation is cheerful. He is mirthful and happy, little thinking, poor fellow, of the fate that was depending over him. He is cheerful, and talks of the future, but not in language of excitement.

What pretence is there for this idle story about excitement? None whatever. But even if there were excitement or depression--if these things were capable of producing idiopathic tetanus, 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 us? They brought forward a Mary Watson, who, with a gentleman, came all the way from some place in Scotland to tell us that a girl had been ill all day, that she is taken worse at night, that she gets well in a short time, and goes about her business. That is a case which they brought here to be compared with the death agony of this man. These are the sort of cases with which they attempt to meet such a case as is spoken to here. Gentlemen, I venture, upon the evidence which has been brought before you, to assert boldly, that the cases of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus are marked by clear and distinct characteristics distinguishing them from the tetanus of strychnine; and I say that the tetanus which accompanied Cook’s death is not referable to either of these forms of tetanus. You have, upon this point, the evidence of men of the highest competency and most unquestionable integrity, and upon their evidence, I am satisfied, you can come to no other conclusion than that this was not a case of either idiopathic or traumatic tetanus. But, then, 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 Dr. Nunneley having gone through the beadroll of the supposed infirmities of Cook, says, “Oh, this may have been a case of general convulsions--I have known general convulsions assuming a tetanic character!” I said to him, “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?” He says, “No, I never heard of such a case, not one; but in some book or other, I am told, there is some such case reported,” and he cites, for that purpose, as an authority for general convulsions being accompanied with tetanic symptoms, Dr. Copland.

Now, Dr. Copland, I apprehend, would stand higher as an authority than the man who quotes him. Dr. Copland might have been called, but was not called, notwithstanding the challenge which I threw out, because it is, unfortunately, easier for the case to gather together from the east and from the west practitioners of more or less celebrity, than to bring to bear on the subject the light of science as treasured in the books of the eminent practitioners whom you have seen. But, I say, as regards general convulsions, the distinction is plain. If they destroy the patient, they destroy consciousness. But here, unquestionably, at the very last moment, until Cook’s heart ceased to beat, his consciousness remained. But then comes another supposed condition from which death in this form is said to have resulted, and that is the cause intended to be set up by a very eminent practitioner, Dr. Partridge. It seems that in the _post-mortem_ examination of Cook, when the spinal marrow was investigated, some granules were found, and it is said these may have occasioned tetanic convulsions similar to those found in Cook. He is called to prove that this was a case of what is called arachnitis, arising from granules. I asked him the symptoms which he would find in such a case. I called his attention to what it had evidently not been called before--namely, the symptoms in Cook’s case; and I asked him, in simple terms, whether, looking at these symptoms, he would pledge his reputation, in the face of the medical world, and in the face of this court, that this was a case of arachnitis. He would not do so, and the case of arachnitis went. Then we have a gentleman who comes all the way from Scotland to inform us, as the next proposition, that Cook’s was a case of epileptic convulsions, with tetanic complications. Well, I asked him the question, “Did you ever know of epilepsy, with or without tetanic complications, in which consciousness was not destroyed before the patient died?” His reply was, “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 this was epilepsy?--It may have been epilepsy, because I don’t know what else it was.” “But you must admit that epilepsy is characterised generally by loss of consciousness; what difference would the tetanic complications have made?” That he was unable to explain. I remind you of this species of evidence, in which the witnesses have resorted to the most speculative reasoning, and put forward the barest possibilities without the shadow of foundation. But this I undertake to assert, that there is not a single case to which they have spoken from their experience, or as the result of their own knowledge, on which there were the formidable and decisive symptoms of marked tetanus which existed in this case.

Having gone through these three sets of diseases--general convulsions, arachnitis, epilepsy proper, and epilepsy with tetanic complications, I supposed we had pretty nearly exhausted the whole of these scientific theories. But we are destined to have another, and that assumed the formidable name of angina pectoris. It must have struck you when my learned friend opened his case, that he never ventured to assert the nature of the disease to which they refer the death of Cook; and it strikes me as most remarkable that no less than four distinct and separate theories are set up by the witnesses who have been called--general convulsions, arachnitis, epilepsy with tetanic complications, and lastly, angina pectoris. My learned friend had this advantage in not stating to you what his medical witnesses would set up, because I admit that one after another they took me by surprise. The gentleman who was called yesterday, and who talked of angina pectoris, would not have escaped so easily if I had been in possession of the books to which he referred, for I should have been able to expose the ignorance, the presumption, of the assertions he dared to make. I say ignorance and presumption, and what is worse, an intention to deceive. I assert it in the face of the whole medical profession, and I am sure I can prove it. These medical witnesses, one and all, differ in the views they take on the subject; but there is a remarkable coincidence between the views of some of them and the views of those who have been examined on the other side. Dr. Partridge, Dr. Robinson, and Dr. Letheby, the most eminent of the witnesses whom my learned friend has called, agreed with the statements of Dr. Brodie and other witnesses, that in the whole of their experience, and in the whole range of their learning and observations, they know of no known disease to which the symptoms in Cook’s case can be referred. When such men as these agree upon any point, it is impossible to exaggerate its importance. If it be the fact that there is no known disease which can account for such symptoms as those in Cook’s case, and that they are referable to poison alone, can you have any doubt that that poison was strychnia? The symptoms, at all events, from the time the paroxysms set in, are precisely the same. Distinctions are sought to be made by the sophistry of the witnesses for the defence between some of the antecedent symptoms and some of the others. I think I shall show you that these distinctions are imaginary and that there is no foundation for them. I think I may say that the witnesses called for the defence admit this, that, from the time the paroxysms set in, of which Cook died, until the time of his death, the symptoms are precisely similar to that of tetanus by strychnine. But then they say--and this is worthy of most particular attention--there are points of difference which have led them to the conclusion that these symptoms could not have resulted from strychnine.

In the first place, they say that the period which elapsed between the supposed administration of the poison and the first appearance of the symptoms is longer than they have observed in the animals on which they have experimented. The first observation which arises is this: that there is a known difference between animal and human life, in the power with which certain specific things act upon their organisation. It may well be that poison administered to a rabbit will produce its effect in a given time. It by no means follows that it will produce the same effect in the same time on an animal of a different description. Still less does it follow that it will exercise its baneful influence in the same time on a human subject. The whole of the evidence on both sides leads 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 influence will produce effects different in degree, different in duration, different in power. But, again, it is perfectly notorious that the rapidity with which the poison begins to work depends mainly upon the mode of its administration. If it is administered in a fluid state, it acts with greater rapidity. If it is given in a solid state, its effects come on more slowly. If it is given in an indurated substance, it will act with still greater tardiness. Then what was the period at which this poison began to act after its administration, assuming it to have been poison? It seems, from Mr. Jones’s statement, that the pills were administered somewhere about eleven o’clock. They were not administered on his first arrival, for the patient, as if with an intuitive sense of the death that awaited him, strongly resisted the attempts to make him take them; and no doubt these remonstrances, and the endeavours to overcome them, occupied some period of time. The pills were at last given. Assuming, which I only do for the sake of argument, that the pills contained strychnine, how soon did they begin to operate? Mr. Jones says he went down to supper, and came back again 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 had not been in bed ten minutes before a warning came that another of the paroxysms was to take place. The maid servant puts it still earlier, and it appears that so early as ten minutes before twelve the first alarm was given, which would make the interval little more than a quarter of an hour. When these witnesses tell us that it would take an hour and a half, or two hours, we see here another of those exaggerated determinations to see the facts only in the way that will be the most favourable to the prisoner. I find in some of the experiments that have been made that the duration of time, before the poison begins to work, has been little, if anything, less than an hour.

In the case of the girl at Glasgow, it was stated that it was three-quarters of an hour before the pills began to work. There may have been some reason for the pills not taking effect within a certain period after their administration. It would be easy to mix them up with substances difficult of solution, or which might retard their action. I cannot bring myself to believe that, if in all other respects you are perfectly satisfied that the symptoms, the consequences, the effects were analogous, and similar in all respects to those produced by strychnine, it is not because the pills have been taken only a quarter of an hour that you will say strychnine was not administered in this case. But they say the premonitory symptoms were wanting, and they say that in the case of animals, the animal at first manifests some uneasiness, shrinks, and draws itself into itself as it were, and avoids moving; that certain involuntary twitchings about the head come on--and they say there were no premonitory symptoms in Cook’s case. I utterly deny the proposition, I say there were premonitory symptoms of the most marked character. He is lying in his bed; he suddenly starts up in an agony of alarm. What made him do that? Was there nothing premonitory--nothing that warned him the paroxysm was coming on? He jumps up, says “Go and fetch Palmer--fetch me help--I am going to be ill as I was last night.” What was that but a knowledge that the symptoms of the previous night were returning, and a warning of what he might expect unless some relief were obtained? He sits up and prays to have his neck rubbed. What was the feeling about his neck but a premonitory symptom, which was to precede the paroxysms which were to supervene? He begs to have his neck rubbed, and that gives him some comfort. But here they say this could not have been tetanus from strychnia, because animals cannot bear to be touched, for a touch brings on a paroxysm--not only a touch, but a breath of air, a sound, a word, a movement of any one near will bring on a return of the paroxysm.

Now in two cases of death from strychnine we have shown that the patient has endured the rubbing of his limbs, and received satisfaction from that rubbing. We produced a third case. In Mrs. Smyth’s case, when her legs were distorted, she prayed and entreated that she might have them straightened. The lady at Leeds, in the case which Dr. Nunneley himself attended, implored her husband, between the spasms, to rub her legs and arms in order to overcome the rigidity. That case was within his own knowledge; and yet in spite of it, although he detected strychnine in the body of the unhappy woman, he dares to say that Cook’s having tolerated the rubbing between the paroxysms is a proof that he had not taken strychnia. But there is a third case--the case of Clutterbuck. He had taken an overdose of strychnia, and suffered from the re-appearance of tetanus, and his only comfort was to have his legs rubbed. And, therefore, I say that the continued endeavour to persuade a jury that the fact of Cook’s having had his neck rubbed proves that this is not tetanus by strychnia, shows nothing but the dishonesty and insincerity of the witnesses who have so dared to pervert the facts. But they go further, and say that Cook was able to swallow. So he was before the paroxysms came on; but nobody has ever pretended that he could swallow afterwards. He swallowed the pills, and, what is very curious, and illustrates part of the theory, is this--that it was the act of swallowing the pills, a sort of movement in raising his head, which brought on the violent paroxysm in which he died. So far from militating against the supposition that this was a case of strychnine, the fact strongly confirms it. Then they call our attention to the appearances after death, and they say there are circumstances to be found which militate against this being a case of strychnine. 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 strychnia. Dr. Nunneley says, “I have always found the limbs of animals become flaccid before death, and have not found them become rigid after death.” Now, I can hardly believe that statement.