Chapter XV: Part 15

The very next witness who got into the box told us that he had made two experiments upon cats, and killed them both, and he described them as indurated and contracted when he found them some hours after death. And yet the presence of rigidity in the body immediately after death is put forth by Dr. Nunneley as one of his reasons for saying this is not a death by strychnia, although Dr. Taylor told us that, in the case of one of the cats, the rigidity of the body was so great that he could hold it out by the leg in a horizontal position. Notwithstanding that evidence, Dr. Nunneley has the audacity to say that he does not believe this is a case of strychnine, because there was rigidity of the limbs, because the feet were distorted, and the hands clinched, and the muscles rigid. This 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 particular hypotheses of the party advancing them. The next thing that is said is that the heart was empty, and that in the animals operated upon by Dr. Nunneley and Dr. Letheby, the heart was full. I don’t think that applies to all cases. But it is a remarkable fact connected with the history of the poison that you never can rely upon the precise form of its symptoms and appearances. There are only certain great, leading, marked, characteristic features. We have here the main, marked, leading, characteristic features; and we have what is more, collateral incidents, similar to the cases in which the administration and the fact of death have been proved beyond all possibility of dispute. Why, in two cases which have been mentioned--that of Mrs. Smyth and the Glasgow girl--the heart was congested and empty. 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 the poison. But no one can tell in what order these muscles may be affected, or where the poisonous influence will put forth. When it arrests the play of the lungs and the breathing of the atmospheric air, the result will be that the heart is full; but if some spasm siezes on the heart, the heart will be empty. You have never any perfect certainty as to the mode in which the symptoms will exhibit themselves. But this is brought forward as a conclusive fact against death by strychnine, and yet these men who make this statement under the sanction of scientific authority, have heard both cases spoken to by the gentlemen who examined the bodies. Then with regard to congestion of the brain, and other vessels, the same observation applies. Instead of being killed by action on the respiratory muscles of the heart, death is the result of a long series of paroxysms, and you expect to find the brain and other vessels congested by that series of convulsive spasms. As death takes place from one or other of these causes, so will the appearances be. There is every reason to believe that the symptoms in this case were symptoms of tetanus in the strongest and most aggravated form. Looking at the symptoms which attended this unhappy man, setting aside the theory of convulsions of epilepsy, of arachnitis, and angina pectoris, and excluding idiopathic and traumatic tetanus--what remains? The tetanus of strychnine, and the tetanus of strychnine alone. And I pray your attention to the cases in which there was no question as to strychnine having been administered in which the symptoms were so similar--the symptoms so analogous--that I think you cannot hesitate to come to the conclusion that this death was death by strychnine.

Several witnesses of the highest eminence, both on the part of the Crown and for the defence, agree that in the whole range of their experience, observation, and knowledge, they have known of no natural disease to which these remarkable symptoms can be attributed. That being so, and there being a known poison, which will produce them, how strong, how cogent, how irresistible is the conclusion that it is that poison, and that poison alone, to which they are to be attributed. On the other hand, the case is not without its difficulties. Strychnia was not found in this body, and we have it no doubt upon strong evidence, that in a great variety of experiments upon the bodies of animals, killed by strychnia, strychnia has been detected by tests which science placed at the disposal of scientific men. If strychnia had been found, of course there would have been no difficulty in the case, and we should have had none of the ingenious theories which medical gentlemen have been called here to propound. The question for your consideration is, whether the absence of its detection leads conclusively to the view that this death was not caused by the administration of strychnia. Now, in the first place, under what circumstances was the examination made by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees. They told us that the stomach of the man was brought to them for analysation under the most unfavourable circumstances. They state that the contents of the stomach had been lost, and therefore they had no opportunity of experimenting upon them. It is true that they who put the portions of the body into the jar make statements somewhat different. But there appears to have been by accident some spilling of the contents, and there is the most undeniable evidence of considerable bungling in the way in which the stomach had been cut and placed in the jar. It was cut, says Dr. Taylor, from end to end, and it was tied up at both ends. It had been turned among the intestines, and placed amongst a mass of feculent matter, and was in the most unsatisfactory condition for analysation. It is very true that Dr. Nunneley, Mr. Herapath, and Dr. Sotheby say that whatever impurities there may have been, if strychnia had been in the stomach they would have found strychnia there. I should have had every confidence in the testimony of Mr. Herapath if he had not confessed a fact which had come to my knowledge, that he had asserted that this was a case of poisoning, but that they did not go the right way to find it out. I reverence the man who, from a sense of justice and love of truth, will come forward in favour of any man for the purpose of stating what he believes to be true; but I abhor the trafficked testimony which I regret to see men of science sometimes advance. But, assuming all they say to be true, as to the case of detecting strychnine, is it certain that it can be found in all cases? Dr. Taylor says no; and it would be a most mischievous and dangerous proposition to assert that it is necessarily so, for it enables many a guilty man to escape, who, by administering the smallest quantity necessary to destroy life, might prevent its detection in the stomach.

What have these gentlemen done? They have given large doses in the experiments they have made for the purposes of this case, in which they have been retained--I use the word “retained,” for it is the proper word--in all these cases, I say, they have given doses large enough to be detected. But the gentlemen who made the experiments in Cook’s case failed in detecting strychnine in two cases out of four in which they had administered it to animals. The conclusion I draw is that there is no positive mode of detection. But this case does not rest here. Alas, I wish it did! I must now draw your attention to one part of the case which has not been met or attempted to be disputed in the slightest degree by my learned friend. My learned friend said that he would contest the case for the prosecution step by step. Alas! we are now upon ground upon which my friend has not even ventured a word in explanation. Was the prisoner at the bar possessed of the poison of strychnia? This is a matter with which it behoved my learned friend to deal, and to exhaust all the means in his power in order to meet this part of the case. The prisoner obtained possession of strychnia on the Monday night. It is true that the evidence of the man who sold the strychnia to Palmer, as I stated at the outset of these proceedings, and I repeat it now, must be received with care and attention. Now Newton said that on the night when Palmer came back from London, he came to him and obtained three grains of that poison, the symptoms and effects of which are precisely similar to those which are stated to have occurred in the case of this poor man. With respect to the evidence of Newton, my learned friend has done no more than repeat the warning which I gave you at the commencement of the case. You have heard the reason assigned by the witness why he did not state the fact of his having sold strychnine to the prisoner on the previous evening, before the coroner, and you will judge of the value of the explanation which he gave. Upon the other hand, there is the consideration, what conceivable motive could this young man have had for now coming forward and deposing to the fact of his having sold this poison to the prisoner, except a sense of truth. My learned friend has very justly and very properly asked for your most attentive consideration to the question of the motives involved in this part of the evidence, before you can come to the conclusion of the prisoner having taken away, with malice and forethought, the life of another.

Hideous though may be the crime of taking away life by poison, it is probably not so horrible to contemplate as the motive of a judicial murder effected by a false witness against a man’s life. Can you suppose that this young man Newton could have the shadow of any such motive in coming forward in a court like this to take away the life of the prisoner at the bar, as, alas! his evidence must do, if you believe him. If you believe the witness that, on the Monday night, for no other conceivable and assignable purpose except the deed of darkness to be committed that night, the prisoner at the bar obtained from him the fatal means and instrument whereby Cook was to be destroyed, it is impossible that you can come to any other conclusion than that the prisoner is guilty of the foul deed with which he stands charged at the bar. My learned friend says that Newton did not speak truth, because, first, he did not make this statement before the coroner; and, secondly, because Newton laid the time of Palmer’s arrival at nine o’clock, whereas he did not arrive until ten o’clock. Now Newton only stated that it was about nine o’clock, and every one knows how easy it is to make a slight mistake as to the hour when there is nothing particular to fix the event on the memory. My learned friend has sought to meet this part of the case. He has produced a witness, all I can say of whom is, that for the sake of the prisoner at the bar, I trust you will not allow him to be affected by anything which that most disreputable witness, Jeremiah Smith, has stated. Now Dr. Bamford said that Palmer told him he had himself seen Cook between nine and ten o’clock, while Smith said that they did not leave the car until past ten o’clock. With respect to the evidence of Smith that he saw Palmer alight from the car, go from thence to the house of Palmer’s mother, I ask you not to believe one single word of it, because I do not myself believe a single word of his evidence. Certainly such a miserable spectacle as that witness in the box, I have never seen surpassed in a court of justice. He is a member of the legal profession, and I blush that such a member is to found upon the rolls. There was not one who heard his evidence who was not satisfied that the man came here to tell a falsehood--not one who was not convinced that he was mixed up in many of the villanies which, if not perpetrated, were, at all events, contemplated, and that he came here to save the life of his companion and friend, and the son of the woman with whom he had that intimacy the nature of which he sought in vain to disguise. I cannot but think that, looking to the whole of this part of the case, you must believe the evidence of Newton, and if you do so believe it, then that evidence is conclusive of the case. But the case does not stop there, because we have the most indisputable evidence that on the following day Palmer purchased more strychnine at the shop of Mr. Hawkins.

You remember the circumstance connected with that purchase, Palmer’s first asking for some prussic acid, and then ordering some strychnine to be put up for him, Newton coming in, and the prisoner calling him out of the shop to speak to him of the most unimportant matters. Why did the prisoner take Newton out of the shop? Evidently because he wished to avoid exciting suspicions which would very naturally be raised in the mind of Newton, from the fact of the prisoner having purchased strychnia on two occasions, and who would very naturally inquire for what purpose it was that the prisoner wanted nine grains of strychnine. Why did the prisoner go to Hawkins’s shop to purchase the poison? The reason was clear. If he had gone to Thirlby’s, who was his former assistant, he would naturally have asked Palmer for whom the strychnine was intended. Why the prisoner should have gone on two successive days and purchased the poison is one of those mysteries attending this case which I cannot explain. At all events, it is quite clear that he did so. But if there is some difficulty in this part of the case, there is, on the other hand, a still greater difficulty arising from the use to which this poison was to be put. If it was for the purpose of professional use, for the benefit of some patient, where is the patient, and why was he not produced? My learned friend passed over this part of the case in mysterious but significant silence. Account for that six grains of strychnia. Throw a doubt, if you please, on the purchase of the strychnine on the Monday night, but on Tuesday it is unquestionably true that six grains were purchased. If these six grains were required for the use of any patients, why were they not produced, and if for any other purpose why was it not explained?

Has there been the slightest shadow of attempt to show the use to which the poison was applied? Alas! no. Something was said at the outset about dogs which were troublesome in the paddock to the prisoner’s mares and foals, but that was proved to have been in September. And if there had been any recurrence of this annoyance why was it not proved in evidence? If it were used for the purpose of destroying dogs some one must have assisted him in the act. Why were they not called? But not only were these persons not called, they were not even named. I ask you what conclusion you can draw from these circumstances, except this one, that the death of Cook took place with all the symptoms of poison by strychnia--death in all the convulsions and throes which that deadly poison produces in the frame of man.

It is said by my learned friend that Palmer might easily have purchased strychnine at London, and that he would not have purchased it in Rugeley on two occasions, if he had intended to have used it for a criminal purpose. I admit the fact, and feel the full force of the observation; and if he could have shown any proper use to which the poison was applied, the assertion would have been one well worthy of your consideration. But, how do the facts stand with respect to Palmer’s visit to London? He might, it is true, have purchased strychnine there. But, then, on the occasion of his visit he had a great deal to do; he had to catch the train; he had pecuniary difficulties to settle and arrange; and even then it would have required the certificate of one other person in order to have obtained the strychnine, as he was not known in London as a medical practitioner. But what avail all these suppositions, when we have, on the other hand, the strong and unmistakeable evidence that the prisoner did actually purchase the strychnine at Rugeley? Well, then, it has been said that the fact of the prisoner having called in two medical men, was strong presumptive evidence to negate his guilt. It is true that he called in Dr. Bamford, and wrote to Dr. Jones to come and see Cook. Now, as medical men, it is true, that they would be very likely to know the symptoms of death by strychnine. But there is a point in this part of the case which deserves notice. If these symptoms exhibited were not those resulting from strychnia, but were referable to that multiform variety of diseases to which the witnesses have referred, there is no reason why the prisoner should have any credit for sending for these medical gentlemen. It is quite true that he called on old Dr. Bamford. I speak of that gentleman in no terms of disrespect, but still I think I do him no injustice when I say that the vigour of his intellect and the powers of his mind have been impaired, as all human powers are liable to be, by the advance of age. I do not think he was a person likely to make any very shrewd observation as to the cause of the death of Cook; and the best proof of this is to be found in what he did and what he wrote on the subject.

As regards Mr. Jones, these observations do not apply, for he was a man in the possession of the full powers of mind. The prisoner selected Jones, and the result proved how wise he was in making that selection. The death of Cook occurred in the presence of Jones, with all those painful symptoms you have heard described, and yet Jones suspected nothing, and if the prisoner had succeeded in introducing Cook’s body into that “strong oak coffin” which he had made for him, the body would have been consigned to the grave, and nobody would have known anything of these proceedings, while the presence of Jones and Dr. Bamford would have been used to prevent any suspicion. On the other hand, it is not at all improbable that the prisoner might have thought that the best mode of disarming all suspicions would be to take care that some medical men should be called in, and should be present at the time of death. There is nothing to show that the prisoner entertained the most distant notion that Jones would have to sleep in the same room as Cook, and if this had not been the case, they would have found in the morning that Cook had gone through his mortal struggle, and had died there alone and unfriended. Cook would have been found dead next morning, and the old man would have said he died of apoplexy, and the young man that he died of epilepsy; and had any suspicion been awakened, it would have been urged in reply, as it has been by my learned friend, that two medical men were called in by the prisoner previous to his death. But the case does not end here. We have had a great many witnesses who have told us a great deal about strychnia, but none that have said a word about antimony.

On the Wednesday night, at Shrewsbury, when Cook drank a glass of brandy and water, he said that there was something in it which burned his throat, and was afterwards seized with vomiting, which lasted for several hours. On that same night, Mrs. Brooks saw the prisoner shaking something in a glass. It is a remarkable fact, that when Cook drank that brandy and water, he was taken ill a few minutes after. There were, it is true, other persons taken ill at Shrewsbury about the same time; but still you will have to bear in mind that scene of the shaking up of the fluid in the glass in the passage, the fact that Cook was somewhat in liquor, and that in that state he ought not to have been told by the prisoner that he would not drink any more unless he finished his glass. Pass on, however, to Rugeley. You still find that Cook was under the influence of the same symptoms as those which he suffered at Shrewsbury. You have the fact of the prisoner sending him over toast and water and broth, and that no sooner had the poor man taken these things than he is seized with incessant vomitings of the most painful character. Then, too, there was the broth, said to have been sent by Smith from the Albion, which was sent, however, not to the Talbot Inn, but to the prisoner’s kitchen. This broth was taken over to the Talbot by the prisoner himself, and as soon as it was touched by Cook, vomitings followed. There is, too, the fact that the servant at the Talbot, after taking two spoonfuls of the broth, was ill for several hours, and vomited something like twenty times. Then, again, on the Monday, when the prisoner was absent, Cook was found to be better; but upon the Tuesday, when he returned to Rugeley, the vomitings again returned. Now, the important fact is, that antimony was found in the tissues of the poor man’s body, and in his blood; and the presence of the antimony in the blood shows that it must have been taken within the last forty-eight hours before death. The small quantity found does not afford, however, the slightest criterion of the whole quantity administered. A part of the quantity given would be thrown up in the vomiting.

Something has been said about Cook having taken the antimony in “James’s powder,” but not a tittle of evidence has been given that he ever took any of these powders, while the presence of the antimony in the blood proved that it had been administered within, forty-eight hours of death. I believe that you will feel that you have a right to conclude from all the evidence that has been brought before you upon this point, that antimony had been administered to Cook in a mode and in quantities which showed that it could have been given for no legitimate object; and further, that it must have been administered by the prisoner. And from these facts you will see how great is the probability that he must, in that case, have acted with the view of carrying out a fatal resolution previously formed; for it is well known that antimony has often been given in amounts capable of destroying life. But let us take into consideration the conduct of the prisoner in the afterstages of the case, and let us look at what took place on the day of Cook’s death. On the preceding night he had suffered from what was indisputably a most severe attack. Dr. Bamford sees Palmer on the Tuesday morning, and not a word is said to him about that attack. The prisoner manifests an anxiety that he should not see the deceased; he states that Cook is quiet, and is dosing, and that he does not wish to have him disturbed. That might be. But on the other hand it must be remembered that if Dr. Bamford had seen Cook in the morning, Cook would in all probability have made known to him his frightful suffering of the night before, as they must then have formed the subject which was, of all others, the most present to his memory. Dr. Bamford, however, did not see the deceased until seven o’clock on the Tuesday evening, when he was much better. Palmer had then talked of his having suffered from a bilious affection; and it is a remarkable fact that he had more than once represented the illness of Cook as one arising from a bilious attack, both to Dr. Bamford and Dr. Jones, although the patient had exhibited none of the symptoms which ordinarily accompany a bilious constitution. The moment Dr. Jones saw him he made the observation that his “tongue was not that of a bilious patient,” and the answer he got from Palmer was, “Oh, you should have seen him before.” Seen him when before? There was not the slightest ground for supposing that he had been suffering from any bilious complaint, either at Shrewsbury or since his arrival at Rugeley. But not one word did Palmer say to Dr. Jones about the fit of Cook on the night before. Well, the three medical men consulted together, by the bedside of the patient, and then Cook turned round and said, “Mind, I will have no more pills and medicine, to-night,” remembering, as he no doubt did at the time, his illness of the preceding night. No observation was made even then by Palmer as to what had been the nature of Cook’s attack on the night before; but the medical men having withdrawn into the adjoining room or lobby, Palmer immediately proposed that Cook should again take the same pills he had taken on the previous night; but he desired Jones not to say anything to him about what they contained, lest he might object to take them.

It was then arranged that the pills should be made up, and Palmer proposed that they should be compounded by Dr. Bamford, although it was then early in the evening, and he might easily have prepared them on his own premises. He accompanied Dr. Bamford to the surgery of the latter; and after the pills had been made up there, he asked Dr. Bamford to write the address on them, and the address was so written. An interval occurred of an hour or two, during which the prisoner had abundant opportunities of going to his surgery, and doing what he pleased in the way of changing the pills. He returned to the hotel, and before he gave the pills to Cook he took care to call the attention of Jones, who was present at the time, to the remarkable handwriting of an old gentleman like Dr. Bamford, by whom the direction of the medicine had been written. What necessity was there for that? Might it not have been part of a preconceived design to save himself from any subsequent suspicion, by his being able to state that the pills had been prepared by Dr. Bamford? and might it not have been done for the purpose of disarming any immediate suspicion on the part of Dr. Jones himself? Have we not every reason to suppose that it may have been effectual in accomplishing the latter result? Any one of these circumstances could not have been of so decisive a character as to lead you to the conviction of the prisoner’s guilt; but I ask you to consider them as a series of events following one another in close succession; and I then leave it to you to draw from them the conclusion to which you may find they must legitimately lead. I will now pass over for a moment the remainder of the history of the Tuesday night, and I will take you to the circumstances which immediately followed Cook’s death. On the Thursday, Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of the deceased, went over to Rugeley, on receiving intelligence of the sad event. He applied to Palmer for information upon the subject of Cook’s affairs; and in the course of the communications which passed between them, Stevens said, “rich or poor, the poor fellow should be buried.” Palmer then observed that he would undertake to bury him himself, but Mr. Stevens declined, in a decisive manner, to avail himself of that offer. I admit that there may be nothing suspicious in the proposal of Palmer to bury his friend, if it should be taken by itself, but there is this somewhat remarkable circumstance in this part of the case, that when Mr. Stevens had said that he could not have the funeral for a few days, Palmer observed that “the body ought to be put into a coffin immediately;” and when, after an absence of about half an hour, he returned, and was asked by Mr. Stevens for the name of an undertaker to whom he should give directions about the funeral, the prisoner stated, much to the surprise of the gentleman whom he was addressing, that “he had himself ordered a shell and a strong oak coffin.” Why should he have so hurriedly interfered in the business of another man, unless he had made up his mind that the body should be consigned to its last resting place, and removed from the sight of man with the utmost possible rapidity?

You have heard the conversation which took place between Mr. Stevens and the prisoner on the Saturday at the different railway stations at which they met. It appears that at that time Mr. Stevens had made up his mind that a _post-mortem_ examination of the body of the deceased should take place, in consequence of circumstances which had engendered a suspicion in his mind that the death of his step-son had not been the result of natural disease. He had noticed the strange attitude of the deceased--his clinched hands, and the unusual appearance of his face--and being a man of natural shrewdness and sagacity, he felt a lurking suspicion which he could not unravel, that there must have been foul play in the case. He made known to the prisoner his intention of having the body opened before it was consigned to the grave. It is true that the prisoner did not flinch from that trying ordeal, and that he met with firmness the trying gaze of Mr. Stevens, when the report of the _post-mortem_ examination was first mentioned. But finding that there was to be a _post-mortem_ examination, he was anxious to know who was to perform it. Mr. Stevens would not inform him, but merely stated that it was to take place on the Monday. Then we have on the Sunday that remarkable conversation between the prisoner and Newton, which has been for some time known to the Crown. It is true that Newton did not mention the conversation in the course of his examination before the coroner; but the reason for his silence upon the subject on that occasion may be easily proved. He was called at the inquest solely for the purpose of corroborating the evidence of Roberts with respect to Palmer’s appearance in Dr. Hawkins’s shop on the Tuesday morning; and to that point his evidence before the coroner was confined. He has since deposed that during a conversation with Palmer on the Sunday, the latter suddenly asked him, “What quantity of strychnine would you give if you wanted to kill a dog?” The reply was, “From half-a-grain to a grain.” The prisoner then asked, “Would you expect to find any traces of it in the stomach after death;” Newton answered, “No;” and, on his doing so, he observed the prisoner make a movement conveying an intimation of his delight.

I had at one time thought that my learned friend engaged for the defence would have attempted to show that the prisoner had purchased the strychnia at the commencement of the week for the purpose of destroying dogs; but no evidence whatever has been adduced to establish such a point; and we had no evidence of any kind to show how that strychnia was applied. But my learned friend has contended that the prisoner had no motive for taking away the life of his friend, Cook. Now if I convince you upon unimpeachable evidence that the death of Cook had bean caused by strychnine, and that that strychnine could only have been administered by the prisoner, then the question of motive must become a mere secondary consideration. It is often difficult to dive into the breast of man, and to ascertain with any certainty the reasons which directed him to any particular course of action; and the inscrutable character of any particular motive ought not to destroy the force of a well-authenticated fact. But motive is unquestionably an important element in a case over which any doubt as to the facts can by any possibility rest. I believe I can perfectly satisfy your minds that in this case the prisoner had a motive, and a very obvious motive, for taking away the life of Cook. He was at the time reduced to a condition of the direst embarrassment. It appears that in the month of November last he owed on bills not less than £19,000, of which £12,500 worth was in the hands of Pratt; and out of that latter sum £5,500 was pressing for immediate payment. By the death of Cook he was enabled to obtain possession of £1,020, due to the latter in the shape of bets; he was enabled to obtain possession of the money which Cook must have had about him on his arrival at Rugeley, and which, according to one of the witnesses, must have amounted to £700 or £800; and he attempted to obtain possession of the £350 which the Messrs. Weatherby were to have received as the amount of the stakes of the Shrewsbury Handicap. The order forwarded by Palmer to the Messrs. Weatherby for the £350, and purporting to bear the signature of Cook, had been sent back by them to the prisoner; and if that signature was not a forgery, why had it not been produced on the part of the defendant?

My learned friend says that Cook was the best friend of the prisoner, and that Cook was the only person to whom he could look for assistance in his embarrassments. But Cook had no means of assisting him, unless he were to appropriate to his use the money which he had won at Shrewsbury, which was all the property he then possessed; and can any one believe that the deceased would have parted with that money, and would have left himself wholly without any resources for the approaching winter? My learned friend contends that the fact that Palmer had written the letter on the Friday night, in which he asked Fisher to pay £200 to Pratt, on account of a transaction in which both he and Palmer were interested, while £300 more were to be sent upon that night--my learned friend contends that that fact shows that the prisoner and the deceased perfectly understood one another at the time, and goes far to prove the innocence of his client. To my mind, however, that very circumstance affords a very strong argument in favour of the case for the Crown. The only transaction with Pratt, in which Palmer and Cook were both interested, was that relating to the bill for £500, and in which Cook had assigned his horse as a collateral security. It is very easy to see that he must have felt particularly anxious that that claim should at once be settled, and that his horses should come into his own undisputed possession, one of these horses being a very valuable one, namely, Polestar, which had just won the Shrewsbury race. He accordingly, I have no doubt, gave Palmer £300 to be sent up to London on account of that bill; but that sum was never applied by the prisoner to the purpose for which it had been placed in his hands. There is not the slightest foundation for the statement that Cook had entered into an arrangement with Palmer for the purpose of defrauding Fisher of the £200 he had advanced; for there was nothing in his character which could show that he was capable of so infamous an act, and it could not possibly have been his interest that it should take place. I will not ask you to direct your attention to the request addressed by the prisoner to Cheshire, the postmaster, that he should bear his witness to the genuineness of Cook’s signature to the order on the Messrs. Weatherby for the sum of £350. That request was made forty-eight hours after Cook’s death; and if the signature was not a forgery, why was that extraordinary demand made of Cheshire, and why had not the document been since produced? It is impossible to forget that if Cheshire had testified to the genuineness of that document, the prisoner would have been enabled to exercise over him the most fatal control, and that he might then have compelled him to sign another paper, transferring, as the prisoner had sought to do in the course of one of his conversations with Mr. Stevens, to the deceased the liability for £4,000 or £5,000 due on bills to Pratt, and outstanding in his own name.

All these facts show irrefragably, as I contend, that the death of Cook had, in the opinion of the prisoner, become most desirable for his own relief. There is another part of his conduct as tending to throw light on this matter, and that is with reference to Cook’s betting book. On the night when Cook died--ere the breath had hardly parted from that poor man’s body--the prisoner was found there, rummaging his pockets, and searching for his papers. When, subsequently, Stevens asked for the betting book, the prisoner said, “Oh, it’s of no use, for a dead man’s bets are void.” True it is that a dead man’s bets are void, but not when they are paid during his life. Who received the bets? The prisoner at the bar. Who was answerable for them? The prisoner at the bar. Who had an interest in concealing the amount of those debts? The prisoner at the bar. If Stevens had seen that book, he would have seen that Cook was entitled to a sum of £1,020; he would have seen that Fisher was his agent, and from him that Herring, and not Fisher, had calculated his bets. But there is still more yet to be accounted for. When Stevens determined upon having a _post-mortem_ examination, what was the conduct of the prisoner at the bar? [The learned Attorney-General then proceeded to refer to the arrival of Dr. Harland in the town of Rugeley for the purpose of making the examination, his conversation with Palmer, when the latter said that Cook had died of epileptic fits, and that traces of old disease would be found in the head and heart, none of which were, however, found on the examination of the body; the removal of the jar containing the stomach and intestines of Cook, the slits cut in the covering probably for the purpose of introducing something into the jar, which would neutralise the poison if it were present, the restlessness and uneasiness of the prisoner while the examination was going on, his remonstrating with Dr. Bamford for letting the jars be sent away, and his attempt to bribe the post-boy to upset the chaise and break the jar.]

The conduct of Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Cook, in resolving to prosecute this inquiry, was such as the gravity and importance of the case proved ought to have protected him from the charge of insolent curiosity brought against him by my learned friend. The hon. and learned gentleman then concluded as follows:--It is for you to say, under these circumstances, whether or not the death of the deceased was caused by the prisoner at the bar. You have indeed had introduced into this case one other element which I cannot help thinking might well have been omitted. You have heard from my learned friend an unusual, I think I may even say an unprecedented, expression of the innocence of his client. I can only say on that point that I believe my learned friend might have abstained from any such statement. What would he think of me, if, imitating his example, I should at this moment declare to you, on my honour, as he did, what is the internal conviction which has followed from my conscientious consideration of this case? My learned friend has, with a full display of his great ability, also adopted another course, which, although sometimes resorted to by members of our profession, involves in my mind a species of insult to the good sense and the good feeling of the jury; he has endeavoured to intimidate you by evoking your own conscientious scruples for the purpose of preventing you from adopting the only honest mode of discharging the great duty you are called upon to perform. My learned friend told you that if your verdict in this case should be Guilty, the innocence of the prisoner will one day or other be made manifest, and you would never cease to regret the verdict you had given. If my learned friend was sincere in that--and I know that he was, for there is no man who is more alive than he is to the claims of truth and honour--but if he said what he believed, all I can state in answer is, that I can only attribute the conviction he has expressed to that strong bias which his mind easily, perhaps, received in directing all his energies to the defence of a man charged with this frightful crime. But I still think he would have done well to have abstained from any assurance of the innocence of the prisoner at the bar. I go further, and say that I think he ought, in justice and in consideration to you, to have abstained from telling you that the voice of the country would not sanction the verdict which you might give. I say nothing of the inconsistency which is involved in such a statement, coming from one who but a short time before complained in eloquent terms of the universal torrent of passion, and of prejudice by which, he said, his client was borne down.

In answer to my learned friend, I have only this to say to you. Pay
no regard to the voice of the country, whether it be for
condemnation or for acquittal; pay no regard to anything but to the
internal voice of your own consciences; trust to the sense of that
duty to God and man, which you are about to discharge upon this
occasion, seeking no reward except the comforting assurance that
when you shall look back at the events of this trial you have
discharged, to the best of your ability, and to the utmost of your
power, the duty you have been called upon to fulfil. If, on a
review of the whole case, comparing the evidence on one side and on
the other, and weighing it in the even scales of justice, you can
come to the conclusion of the innocence, or even entertain that
fair and reasonable doubt of guilt, of which the accused is
entitled to the benefit, in God’s name give to him that benefit.
But if, on the other hand, all the facts and all the evidence lead
your minds with satisfaction to yourselves to the conclusion of his
guilt, then--but then only--I ask for a verdict of Guilty at your
hands. For the protection of the good, for the repression of the
wicked, I then 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 be satisfied. (The hon.
and learned gentleman concluded his address shortly after half-past
six o’clock, after having occupied the breathless attention of
every one who had heard him during a period of three hours and
three quarters).

Lord Campbell then addressed the jury as follows:--the cause of public justice imperatively requires that the court should now adjourn. I shall feel it my duty, in this important case, to bring before you the whole of the evidence on the one side and on the other, accompanying the reading of it with such remarks as I may think it proper to make. It is impossible to enter on that duty at this hour, and I am, therefore, under the painful necessity of ordering that you be again kept sequestered from your families and friends during another Sabbath.

The court then adjourned at twenty-five minutes to seven o’clock until ten o’clock on Monday.

We may here observe that the prisoner listened with deep attention to the whole of the address of the Attorney-General, and even with, an air of considerable anxiety, although he still preserved his usual perfect self-possession.

ELEVENTH DAY, MAY 26.

The proceedings in this protracted case were resumed this morning at the Old Bailey. The public interest which it has excited from the first appears in no degree to have abated, and the Court was again densely crowded. The prisoner was placed at the bar punctually at 10 o’clock, and we were unable to trace any change in his appearance or demeanour, although he naturally listened with marked attention, in which one might occasionally detect a shade of anxiety, to the summing up of the Lord Chief Justice. Still it must be admitted that he looked as little concerned as any one in Court.

Several persons of distinction were present during portions of the day, and among them we noticed Mr. Gladstone, M.P., General Fox, Mr. Milnes Gaskell, M.P., Mr. C. Forster, M.P., Mr. Oliveira, M.P., Lord G. Lennox, M.P., the Recorder, the Common Serjeant, Alderman Sir R. W. Garden, the Sheriffs, and other gentlemen officially connected with the administration of justice in the city.

SUMMING-UP OF THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.

Silence having been proclaimed,

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE (CAMPBELL) proceeded to sum up the case to the jury; but spoke in so low a tone that some part of his address was not audible in the reporters’ inconvenient box. He said,--Gentlemen of the Jury, we have at length arrived at that stage in this solemn and important case when it becomes the duty of the Judge to explain to you the nature of the charge brought against the prisoner, and the questions and considerations upon which your verdict ought to be given. Gentlemen, I must begin by conjuring you to banish from your minds all that you may have heard before the prisoner was placed in that dock. 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 to answer was 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 might take place at the Central Criminal Court; and 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 be held in this Court, so as to secure to the prisoner that he shall have a fair and impartial trial.

Gentlemen, I must not only warn you against being influenced by what you have before heard, but I must also warn you not to be influenced by anything but by the evidence which has been laid before you with respect to the particular charge for which the prisoner is now arraigned. It is necessary that I should so warn you in this case, because the evidence certainly implicates the prisoner in transactions of another description which are very discreditable. It appears that he has forged a great many bills of exchange, and that he had entered upon transactions which were not of a creditable nature. Those transactions, however, must be excluded from your consideration altogether. By the practice in foreign countries it is allowed to raise a probability of the prisoner having committed the crime with which he is charged by proving that he has committed other offences--by showing that he is an immoral man, and that he is not unlikely, therefore, to have committed the offence with which he is charged. That is not the case in this country. You must presume that a man is innocent until his guilt be established, and his guilt can only be established by evidence directly criminating him on the charge for which he is tried. Gentlemen, it gives me great satisfaction that this case has been so fully laid before you. Everything has been done that could have been accomplished for the purpose of assisting the jury in arriving at a right conclusion. The prosecution has been taken up by the Government, so that justice may be duly administered, the Attorney-General, who is the first law officer of the Crown, having conducted it in his capacity of a minister of justice. The prisoner also appears to have had ample means for conducting his defence; witnesses have very properly been brought from all parts of the kingdom to give you the benefit of their information; and he has had the advantage of having his case conducted by one of the most distinguished advocates of the English bar. Gentlemen, I must strongly recommend to you to attend to everything that fell from that advocate, so eloquently, so ably, and so impressively. You are to judge, however, of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner from the evidence, and not from the speeches of counsel, however able or eloquent those speeches may be. When a counsel tells you that he believes his client to be innocent, remember that that is analogous to the mere form by which a prisoner pleads “Not Guilty.” It goes for nothing more; and the most inconvenient consequences must follow from regarding it in any other light.

I will now say a few words in order to call to your minds what are the allegations in this case on 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 the poison of strychnia, and that his symptoms were the symptoms of poisoning by strychnia. Then it is alleged that the prisoner at the bar had a motive for making away with the deceased, that he had an opportunity of administering poison, that suspicion could fall upon no one else, and that a few days before the time when the poison is supposed to have been administered he had purchased strychnia at two different places. It is also alleged by the prosecution that his conduct during that transaction, and after it, was that of a guilty and not of an innocent man. The prisoner at the bar, on the other hand, puts forward these allegations--that he had no interest in procuring the death of John Parsons Cook, but, on the contrary, that it was his interest to keep him alive; that the death was not occasioned by strychnia, but by natural disease, and that the symptoms were those of natural disease, and were by no means consistent with, the supposition of death by strychnia. These are the allegations which are urged upon one side and the other, and it is for you to say, upon the evidence, which, of these allegations you believe to be founded on truth.

Gentlemen, you have a most anxious duty to perform. The life of the prisoner is at stake; if he be guilty, it is necessary that he should expiate his crime; if he be innocent, it is requisite that his innocence should be vindicated. If his guilt be proved to you on satisfactory evidence, it is your duty to society and to yourselves to convict him; but unless his guilt be fully sustained by the evidence, it is your duty to acquit him. You must bear in mind that in a case of this sort you cannot expect that witnesses should be called to state that they saw the deadly poison mixed up by the prisoner, and by him openly administered. Circumstantial evidence of the fact is all that can be expected; and if there be a series of circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt, a verdict of guilty may be satisfactorily pronounced. With respect to the motive, it is of great importance, in cases of this description, that you should consider whether there was any motive for committing the crime with which a prisoner is charged, for if there be no motive, there is an improbability of the offence having been committed. If, on the other hand, there be any motive which can be assigned for the commission of the deed, the adequacy of that motive becomes next a matter of the utmost importance.