Chapter IX: Part 9

When a long correspondence is read to a jury, who are without the same means of testing its importance as the judge or the counsel, they frequently do not attach that weight to it which it deserves. But I watched the correspondence which was read to you yesterday with an anxiety which no words can express, because I firmly believed that in it the innocence of the prisoner lay concealed; that it proved not only that the prisoner had no motive to kill Cook, but that Cook’s death was ruin to him. Allow me to call your attention to the relation in which these men stood to each other. They had been intimate as racing friends for two or three years; they had had many transactions together; they were jointly interested in at least one racehorse, Pyrrhine; they generally stayed at the same hotels; they were seen together upon almost all the race courses in the kingdom; they were known to be connected in adventures upon the same horses at the same races; and although, Cook being dead, the mouth of the prisoner being sealed, and transactions of this kind not being recorded in regular books, it is impossible to give you positive evidence as to their relations to one another, it is abundantly clear that they were very closely connected. In August, 1855, money was wanted either by Cook or Palmer, and Palmer applied to Pratt for it. He seems to have wanted £200, to make up a larger sum, having already £190 in Pratt’s hands; and he offered as security for the advance his friend Mr. Cook, whom he described as a gentleman of respectability and substance. We do not know the exact state of Cook’s affairs at that time. Such a fortune as he had might have been thrown down in a week with the life he was leading; but a young man who is reckless as to the mode in which he employs his money and has only £13,000 may for a year or two pass before the world for a man of considerable means. It is not every one who will go to Doctors’ Commons to ascertain the precise amount of the property he has inherited. Mr. Cook, of Lutterworth, kept his racehorses, lived expensively, was known to have inherited a fortune, and was altogether a person whose friendship was of considerable importance to a man like Palmer. Recollect that I am not now defending Palmer against the crime of forgery, nor am I defending him against the imputation of reckless improvidence in obtaining money at an enormous discount. But as early as May, 1855, Palmer and Cook were thus circumstanced. What was their position in November?

The evidence of PRATT, and the correspondence which he proved, can leave no doubt on our minds upon that subject. Among a mass of bills, amounting altogether to £11,500, there were two, of £2,000 each, due the last week in October, two others, amounting to £1,500, having become due some time before, but being held over from month to month upon payment by Palmer, who was liable for them, of what was called interest at the rate of 60 per cent. These three sums--£2,000, £2,000, and £1,500--were the embarrassments which were pressing upon him in the second week in November, and, be it observed, they were pressed upon him by a man who, although he would, doubtless, have been glad to get his principal, would also, upon anything like security, have been very well pleased to continue to receive interest. How can capital, if well secured, be better employed than in returning 40 or 60 per cent.? In this state of things Palmer, in answer to an urgent demand for money, came up to town on the 27th of October. Pratt then insisted that if Palmer could not pay one of the £2,000 bills which had just become due he should pay instalments, in addition to the enormous interest charged upon it, and it was agreed that £250 should be paid down, £250 upon the 31st of October, and a further sum of £300 as soon afterwards as possible, making a total payment on account of that bill of £800, to “quiet” Pratt or his client, and to induce him to let the bill stand over. On the ninth of November the £300 was paid, and then a letter was written, to which I beg your particular attention. On the thirteenth of November, the day that Polestar won the race, Pratt wrote to Palmer that the case (“Palmer v. the Prince of Wales Insurance Company”) had been laid before Sir F. Kelly, that in the opinion of several secretaries of insurance offices the company had not a leg to stand upon, and that the mere fact of the enormous premium would go a great way to get a verdict. The letter concluded--“I count most positively on seeing you on Saturday. Do, for both our sakes, try and make up the amount to £1,000, for without it I shall be unable to renew the £1,500 due on the ninth.” Pratt had threatened to issue a writ against Palmer’s mother. Palmer had almost gone upon his knees to beg him not to do so, and this letter really meant, “Unless you give me £200 more and make up £1,000, a writ shall be served upon your mother.” That letter is written on the thirteenth of November. Palmer gets it at Rugeley, whither he had gone from the racecourse on the day that Polestar won. What does he do? He instantly returns to Shrewsbury, gets there on Wednesday, sees Cook. They say he doses him. We will see how probable that is presently. Cook goes to bed in a state I will not describe, gets up next morning much more sensible than he went to bed, goes upon the racecourse, returns with Palmer to Rugeley on the Thursday, goes to bed, gets up next morning still uncomfortable, but able to go and dine with Palmer on that day (Friday). On that day, the sixteenth of November, Palmer writes to Pratt--

“I am obliged to come to Tattersall’s on Monday to the settling, so
that I shall not call and see you before Monday, but a friend of
mine will call and leave you £200 to-morrow, and I will give you
the remainder on Monday.”

The person who ordinarily settled Cook’s accounts was a person named Fisher, a wine-merchant in Shoe-lane, who was called first in this case; and on that very day (the day on which Cook dined with Palmer), Cook writes to him:--

“It is of great importance, both to Mr. Palmer and myself, that a
sum of £500 should be paid to a Mr. Pratt, of 5, Queen-street,
May-fair, to-morrow, without fail. £300 has been sent up to-night,
and, if you will be kind enough to pay the other £200 to-morrow, on
the receipt of this, you will greatly oblige me, and I will give it
to you on Monday at Tattersall’s.”

There is a postscript, which I will read, but upon which I will at present make no observation--“I am much better.” What is the fair inference from these letters? I submit that the inference is, that at that date Cook was making himself very useful to Palmer. Pratt was pressing for an additional sum of £200. Palmer communicated his difficulty to Cook, who at once wrote to his agent to pay the £200. More than this,--the £300 referred to in the letter as having been paid “to-night” [The Attorney-General.--“The other day”] means one of these things--it either means the £300 which had been sent up on the 9th of November (and if it did, then Cook knew all about it--probably had an interest in Palmer’s transactions with Pratt); or it was a false representation, put forward merely for the purpose of putting a good face upon the matter to Fisher; or it means that on that day £300 had somehow or other come to their hands, and had been by Cook made applicable to the convenience of Palmer. Whichever way you take it it proves to demonstration that Palmer and Cook were playing into each other’s hands with respect to that heavy encumbrance upon Palmer, and that Palmer could rely upon Cook as his fast friend in any such difficulties. Although, when we take the sum total of £11,500, his difficulties sound large, yet the difficulty of the day was nothing like that, because, in the reckless spendthrift way in which they were living, putting on bills from month to month, and paying an enormous interest per annum, the actual outlay upon the day of putting on was not considerable. I submit that this letter shows that on the day on which it is said that Palmer was poisoning Cook, the 16th of November, Cook was acting towards him in a most friendly manner, was acquainted with his circumstances, and willing to relieve his embarrassments, and actually did devote a portion of his earnings to Palmer’s purposes. I will, however, make this plainer. Part of the case of my learned friend is that Palmer, leaving Cook ill in bed at Rugeley, ran up to town on the Monday, and intending to despatch Cook that night, obtained possession of his Shrewsbury winnings by telling Herring, who was not Cook’s usual agent, that he was authorized by Cook to settle his Shrewsbury transactions at Tattersall’s. On the Monday, as on the Tuesday, Cook, though generally indisposed, was during the greater part of the day quite well. He got up and saw his trainer and two jockeys. The theory of the case for the prosecution is that he was quite well, because Palmer was not there to dose him. You will see how grossly and contemptibly absurd that is presently. Being well on Monday and Tuesday, do not you think that, had not Cook known that Palmer did not intend to go to his regular agent, Fisher, he would have been very much surprised that he on Tuesday morning received no letter from that gentleman, informing him of the settlement of his transactions? And could Palmer, as a man of business, have relied upon an absence of such surprise and alarm on the part of Cook?

We have the evidence of Fisher, that he, at Cook’s request, contained in the letter of the 17th November, advanced the £200, which he would, had he settled Cook’s affairs, have been entitled to deduct from the money he would have received at Tattersall’s on the Monday. He did not settle those affairs, and the money has never been paid. That explains the whole transaction. Cook and Palmer understood each other perfectly well. It was the interest of both of them that Palmer should be relieved from the pressure of Pratt. Accordingly, Cook said, “This settlement shall not go through Fisher’s hands. We have got him to pay the £200 to Pratt, but it shall not be repaid to him on Monday. I will let Palmer go to London and settle the whole thing through Herring.” That was done, and accordingly Fisher has never been paid. There is a letter to which I will particularly call your attention. It is one sent by Palmer to Pratt on the 19th November, 1855:--“You will place the £50 which I have just paid you and the £450 you will receive by Mr. Herring--together £500--and the £200 you received on Saturday” [That is the £200 which Fisher paid to Pratt at the express request of Cook,] “towards payment of my mother’s acceptance for £2,000 due on the 25th of October, making paid to this day the sum of £1,300.” Taking that letter with the one which Cook wrote to Fisher on Friday, the 16th, can you doubt that on that day Cook was a most convenient friend to Palmer, who could not by possibility do without him? It does not end there. Cook died at 1 o’clock on the morning of Wednesday the 21st of November. If we want to know what influence that death had upon Palmer, we must take it from the letters. On the 22d of November--and I am sure you will make some allowance for a day having elapsed from the death of Cook--Palmer writes to Pratt, “Ever since I saw you I have been fully engaged with Cook and not able to leave home.” Unless he murdered Cook, that is the truest sentence that ever was penned. He watched the bedside of his friend. He was with him night and day. He attended him as a brother. He called his friends around him. He did all that the most affectionate solicitude could do for a friend, unless he was plotting his death.

“Ever since I saw you I have been fully engaged with Cook, and not
able to leave home. I am sorry to say, after all, he died this day.
So you had better write to Saunders; but, mind you, I must have
Polestar, if it can be so arranged; and, should any one call upon
you to know what money or moneys Cook ever had from you, don’t
answer the question till I have seen you.”

“I will send you the £75 to-morrow, and as soon as I have been to
Manchester you shall hear about other moneys. I sat up two full
nights with Cook, and am very much tired out.”

And did he not? Was it not true? It may not be true that he sat up the whole of the nights, but he was ready to be called if Cook should be ill. Elizabeth Mills says, that after the first serious paroxysm on the Monday night she left Palmer in the arm-chair, sleeping by the side of the man whom the prosecution say he had attempted to murder. No; murderers do not sleep by their victims. What was Pratt’s answer to Palmer’s letter? I will read it, that you may see what quick ruin Cook’s death brought upon Palmer. That answer, dated November 22, is as follows:--

“I have your note, and am greatly disappointed at the non-receipt
of the money as promised, and at the vague assurances as to any
money. I can understand, ’tis true, that your being detained by the
illness of your friend has been the cause of not sending up the
larger amount, but the smaller sum you ought to have sent. If
anything unpleasant occurs you must thank yourself.”

“The death of Mr. Cook will now compel you to look about as to the
payment of the bill for £500, on the 2d December.”

“I have written to Saunders, informing him of my claim, and
requesting to know by return what claim he has for keep and
training. I send down copy of bill of sale to Crubble to see it
enforced.”

So that the first effect of Cook’s death was, in the opinion of Pratt, who knew all about it, to saddle Palmer with the sum of £500. Now I will undertake to satisfy you that the transactions out of which that bill for £500 arose were transactions for Cook’s benefit, and in which Palmer lent his name to accommodate Cook, upon whose death he became primarily and alone responsible for the bill. Let me state the view which my learned friend (the Attorney-General) takes of that transaction, because I intend to meet his case foot by foot, and I shall, I hope convince him that, if he had had the option, he would never have taken up this case--the Crown would never have appeared in it. The universal feeling in the country was, however, such as to render it impossible that the case should not be tried, after the verdict of wilful murder had been obtained upon the evidence of Dr. Taylor; and the Crown felt that it would be neglecting its solemn duty to protect every one of the Queen’s subjects, if it did not take care that a man against whom there was so much prejudice--a man leading the life which Palmer has led, disgraced, as it is said, by forgeries to a large amount, and a gambler by profession--should have a fair trial. There was no way of securing that, as my learned friend at once saw, no possibility of the prisoner’s being saved, except by giving to the counsel who defended him all the information which my learned friend himself possessed. The view which my learned friend takes of the £500 transaction, the theory on which he thinks it probable that Palmer plotted the death of Cook, is this:--

“Pratt still declining to advance the money, Palmer proposed an
assignment by Cook of two race horses, one called Polestar, which
won the Shrewsbury Races, and another called Sirius. That
assignment was afterwards executed by Cook in favour of Pratt, and
Cook, therefore, was clearly entitled to the money which was raised
upon that security, which realised £375 in cash, and a wine warrant
for £65. Palmer contrived, however, that the money and the wine
warrant should be sent to him, and not to Cook. Mr. Pratt sent down
his check to Palmer in the country on a stamp, as the act of
parliament required, and he availed himself of the opportunity now
afforded by law of striking out the word ‘bearer’ and writing
‘order,’ the effect of which was to necessitate the endorsement of
Cook on the back of the cheque. It was not intended by Palmer that
those proceeds should fall into Cook’s hands, and accordingly he
forged the name of John Parsons Cook on the back of that cheque.
Cook never received the money, and you will see that, within ten
days from that period when he came to his end, the bill in respect
of that transaction, which was at three months, would have fallen
due, when it must have become apparent that Palmer received the
money, and that, in order to obtain it, he had forged the
endorsement of Cook.”

That is the view which the prosecution take of the case, and I think I shall be able to satisfy you that it cannot possibly be the correct one. We know from Pratt exactly what took place. Palmer wrote to him saying,--

“I have undertaken to get the enclosed bill cashed for Mr. Cook.
You had the £200 bill of his. He is a very good and responsible
man. Will you do it? I will put my name to the bill.”

So that it was represented to Pratt as a transaction for the accommodation of Cook. Pratt’s answer to that is:--

“If Mr. Cook chooses to give me security, I have no objection; but
he must execute a bill of sale on his two horses, Polestar and
Sirius; more, he must execute a power of attorney, and his
signature to both must be witnessed by some solicitor in the
country, so that I may be quite sure that it is a really valid
security. If Cook will do that I will give him £375 in money, and a
wine warrant for £65; which, charging £10 for expenses, and £50 for
discount, will make £500.”

There can be no doubt that Cook attached great value to Sirius and Polestar, which mare was, probably, then booked for the engagements in which she won so much money at Shrewsbury; and it is to the last degree improbable that he would have executed this bill of sale, with a power of attorney to enable the mortgagee or assignee to enforce it at once effectually, and yet have received no money. Would he, if such had been the case, have remained quiet to the day of his death, and never have written to Pratt to say that although he had sent him the required documents he had never received the money? Cook was as much in want of money as Palmer was, and would he thus have thrown away his money? Is it credible that if Palmer had misappropriated the cheque he could for three months have kept Cook in ignorance of the transaction? Is it not probable that Cook’s name was written on the cheque with his full knowledge and consent? It is not suggested that there was any attempt to imitate his handwriting. Is it not more probable that Cook, who, I will prove to you from the letter, wanted ready money, and who would probably be put to inconvenience by receiving only a cheque, which he would not get cashed for a day or two, took the ready money--£315, which Pratt sent at the same time to Palmer--and that Palmer took the cheque? On the 6th of September Palmer wrote to Pratt:--

“I received the cheque for the £100, and will thank you to let me
have the £315 by return of post, if possible; if not, send it me
(certain) by Monday night’s post to the Post-office, Doncaster. I
now return you Cook’s papers signed &c., and he wants the money on
Saturday, if he can have it; but I have not promised it for
Saturday. I told him he should have it on Tuesday morning at
Doncaster; so please enclose it with mine, in cash, in a registered
letter, and he must pay for it being registered. Do not let it be
later than Monday night’s post to Doncaster.”

So that Palmer asked that it should be sent like his own, Cook, according to the letter, wanting it in cash. Pratt replied to Palmer, acknowledging the receipt of the documents, and promising that he would send him his money to Doncaster on the Monday, and would endeavour to let Cook have his at the same time. On the 9th of September Palmer wrote to Pratt:--

“You must send me, for Mr. Cook, by Monday night’s post (to the
Post-office, Doncaster,) £385 instead of £375, and the wine
warrant, so that I can hand it to him with the £375, and that will
be allowing you £50 for the discount, &c. I shall then get £10, and
I expect I shall have to take the wine, and give him the money; but
I shall not do so if you do not send £385, and be good enough to
enclose my £315 with it, in cash, in a registered letter, and
direct it to me to the Post-office, Doncaster.”

In these letters there is an intimation that Cook wanted the money on the Saturday. He was inconvenienced by only getting a cheque upon London, which he could not immediately change; and, therefore, Palmer gave him the money and took the cheque. It is remarkable that, when we look to the banking account of Palmer at Rugeley, we find that the £375 is paid in by somebody to his account, but that the £315 is not paid in to his account at all. The bill was accepted for Cook’s accommodation, Cook gave security for it, and he never, during the three months which elapsed before his death, complained to Pratt that he had not received the money for it. I submit that the fair version of the transaction is that which is given in a letter from Palmer--that Palmer let Cook have the cash, and himself took the cheque, having Cook’s authority to put his name at the back of it. How else can you account for the silence of Cook, and for the fact that the £375 is paid into the Rugeley Bank, but there is no trace of the £315? This being so, the result of Cook’s death was to make Palmer liable for the £500 bill, on the back of which he had put his name. Therefore, I submit to you, that on the second motive suggested by my learned friend (the Attorney-General), the case has entirely failed. In addition to this, however, we find from these letters the difficulties which the death of Cook brought upon Palmer. We find the disappointment of Pratt that he could send no more money, the bill for £500, the danger of losing Polestar, which Palmer very much wanted to have, and which Pratt would, unless paid the £500, bring to the hammer in order to realise his security; and we find that inquiries were at once apprehended from Cook’s friends as to the moneys which Pratt had paid to Cook, and the probable value which the latter had received for the endorsements and acceptances which he had given. There is another, although not so strong a reason, why it is improbable that Palmer should have desired the death of Cook. Mr. Weatherby has told us to day that, although it frequently happens that the moneys won at a race are sent up by the clerk of the course in a week after the race, yet that does not always happen. On Tuesday, November the 20th, on the night of which day he died, Cook, who was then perfectly sensible, perfectly comfortable and happy, and enjoying the society of his friend Mr. Jones, gave to Palmer a cheque for £350 upon Weatherby’s. If Palmer killed Cook, and it happened that Fraill had not sent up the money so as to be there by Wednesday morning, Weatherby’s would not pay the cheque, nor would they have cashed it if they had received information that Cook had died during the night. It actually happened that the cheque when presented was not paid, because Fraill did not send up the money. Was it probable that Palmer, having got from Cook a cheque for £380, would have run the risk of losing his money by destroying him the same night?

It is suggested that he obtained this cheque fraudulently, and then, lest Cook should detect the fraud, destroyed him. That was not likely to answer his purpose. He might be certain that directly the breath was out of Cook’s body, Jones would go to Mr. Stevens; that Stevens and Bradford, Cook’s brother-in-law, would go down to Rugeley; that the death being sudden there would most likely be a _post-mortem_ examination; and that, instead of settling for the £500 bill and the £350 cheque with Cook, he would have to settle with hard men of business, men who cared nothing for him, who would probably look upon him as a “leg” upon the turf, and would regard neither his feelings nor his interests, but would let him go to ruin any way he might, not stirring a finger to save him. Is it probable that a shrewd intelligent man of business would make such a choice as that. More than this, we know that at that very time Herring held one bill for £500, and three for £200 each, to which there were the names of both Palmer and Cook, and for all of which, either in the whole or in part, Cook must, unless he rushed to his own ruin, provide. If Palmer put Cook to death, he immediately became solely liable, not only for these bills, but for that, as security, for which the bill of sale was executed on Sirius and Polestar, which would not be so easily renewed as those for the large sums on which the enormous usury was paid. That bill would very likely soon find its way to his mother, and that it should do so would not suit Palmer, for his mother is a respectable and serious person, who, although she loved her son, did not like and gave no encouragement to his gambling; nor did that excellent and most honourable man who stands by him--his brother, who was estranged from him for a length of time, until this calamity came upon him, simply because he disapproved the gambling by which he lived. Cook being dead, there was, therefore, no one to save Palmer from ruin, for in all this voluminous evidence there is not the smallest trace that there was any one else in the world who would lend Palmer his name or would assist him to obtain money. If it be, as it is stated, a fact that he forged the name of his mother, is not that conclusive evidence that he had no other resource but the goodnature--the easiness, perhaps the folly of Cook? Is it then credible that under such circumstances he would have desired to bring upon himself not merely the creditors and executors of Cook, but their solicitors--men who, in the discharge of their duty to their clients, can have no sympathy for any one, and with whom no arrangement is possible? I have, therefore, I hope, shown you that Palmer had an interest in the life of Cook. But, more than that, was it safe for him that Cook should die? Palmer was a man who had a shrewd knowledge of the world and a knowledge of his profession, and, among other things, of chemistry. My learned friends have put in a book which was found in his house, and among other notes one in which there is this, “Strychnia kills by causing tetanic fixing of the respiratory muscles.” In the same book there are many other notes.

Lord CAMPBELL: The Attorney-General stated that he did not place much reliance upon that note.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: My learned friend did not press this note, but he thought it was evidence which ought to be before you (the jury). I use it to satisfy you that Palmer had studied his profession sufficiently to know, and knew perfectly well, that if strychnine were administered it would in all probability kill the victim in horrible convulsions, in a very short time, and in a way so striking as to be the talk of a small neighbourhood like Rugeley for a month or more--time enough to alarm everybody and provoke inquiry into the circumstances of the death, which must certainly, in all probability, end in the detection of guilt. If that is so, was he at that time so circumstanced as to render it safe for him to run the risk of such suspicions? His brother, Walter Palmer, had died in the month of August; and, unless his mother forgave him, or recognized the acceptance, his only hope of extraction from his difficulties lay in getting from the Prince of Wales office the money due to him as assignee of the policy on his brother’s life. That his chance of getting that money was good is shown by the fact that he refused the offer of the office to return the premium, and that it was upon it that Pratt had obtained the discounts, and had resolved, under the direction of Palmer, to put it in suit. It was really the only unpledged property which he had, and how he was situated with regard to it appears from the letters and from the evidence. The Insurance company, annoyed at being called upon to pay so large a sum, were determined to do all they could to resist it. They accordingly sent Inspector Field and his man to Stafford to make inquiries. They could not do this without talking, and this had been going on for some time. [To show that this had been the case the learned Serjeant read the deposition of the witness Deane, who was examined yesterday.] So that just before the death of Cook, Palmer knew himself to be the subject of what he appeared from his actions to consider a most unfounded and unwarrantable suspicion. He put the policy into the hands of an attorney to enforce payment of the sum due upon it. The office met the claim by insinuations and inquiries which were of a nature to destroy his character and to bring upon his head the suspicion of a murder. The pressure by Pratt upon Palmer to meet the £2,000 bills did not commence until the office disputed the payment of that policy. All went as smooth as possible as long as Pratt held what he believed to be a good security, but when they began to dispute that, Pratt writes to Palmer and tells him that the state of things is changed. After saying that nothing can be done towards compelling the office to pay until the 24th, he says in his letter of the 2d of October:--

“This, you will observe, quite alters arrangements, and I therefore
must request that you make preparations for meeting the two bills
due at the end of this month.... In any event, bear in mind that
you must be prepared to cover your mother’s acceptances for the
£4,000, due at the end of the month.”

There was the pinch. The office would not pay, and bills for £4,000 were coming due. If anything occurred to increase the suspicions of the office--which was very very unwilling to pay--all chance of the £13,000 was lost. That £13,000 is sure to be paid unless that man (pointing to the prisoner) is convicted of murder. As sure as he is saved, and saved I believe he will be, that £13,000 will be paid. There is no defence--no pretence of a defence. The premium taken was an enormous one, and that £13,000 is good for him and will pay all his creditors. This correspondence of which my learned friend must have taken a view different from any which I can take, but which I am sure he would have put in, whatever had been his view of it--this correspondence saves the prisoner if there is common sense in man. Here is another letter from Pratt to Palmer, dated October the sixth:--

“I have your note, acknowledging receipt by your mother of the
£2,000 acceptance, due on the 2nd October. Why not let her
acknowledge it herself? You must really not fail to come up at
once, if it be for the purpose of arranging for the payment of the
two bills at the end of the month. Remember I can make no terms for
their renewal, and they must be paid. I will of course hold the
policy for so much as it is worth, but in the present position of
the affair, no one except your mother, who is liable upon the
bills, can look upon it as a security. [That was because Simpson
and Field were down there making inquiries.] Do not neglect
attending to this, for under a recent act bills of exchange are now
recovered in a few days. You know and can appreciate my conduct in
avoiding all trouble and annoyance to your mother; but to that
there is a limit. I cannot by any representation be a party to
inducing any body to believe that security exists where there is
doubt upon the point. P. S. I cast no doubt upon the capability of
the office to pay, but in the nature of things, with so large an
amount in question, it is not to be surprised at, if, they think
they have grounds of objection, they should temporize by delay.”

Does not this show that on the sixth of October suspicions were hanging over Palmer’s head, which would come down with irresistible momentum and crush him if there were a suspicion of another violent and sudden death? Do you think that a man who had written in his manual what were the effects of strychnine would risk such a scene as that poison would develope in the presence of the dearest and best friend of Cook--a man whom he could not influence--and a medical man, who loved Cook so well as to sleep in the same room with him, that he might be ready to attend him in case he needed assistance? Is that common sense? Are you going to enforce such a theory as that which Dr. A. Taylor propounded as to the effects which strychnine produces upon rabbits? Impossible--perfectly impossible! I will prove the position in which Palmer stood still more clearly. On the 10th of October Pratt, in a letter addressed to him, says:--

“I may add that I hear they (the insurance company) have been
making inquiries in every direction.” To be sure, they had. Field
the detective officer had been at Stafford, where he could make
inquiries as well as at Rugeley.

“But on what they ground their dissatisfaction is as yet a mystery.
In any event no step can be taken to compel payment until after the
4th of December.”

It is plain that suspicions were then rife, or that attempts were made to excite suspicions against him with regard to the death of Walter Palmer. On the 18th of October Pratt enclosed to Palmer a letter from the solicitor of the company, stating that the directors had determined upon declining to pay the amount claimed; but that, although the facts disclosed in the course of their inquiries would have warranted their retention of the premiums which had been paid, they were prepared to refund them to any one who might be shown to be legally entitled to them. Palmer determined that the money should be paid; and a case was laid before Sir Fitzroy Kelly. If anything happened to Cook by foul play he had no more chance of receiving this £13,000 than of obtaining £130,000. From all this I infer, not only that Palmer had no interest in Cook’s death, but that he had a direct pecuniary interest in his living. I think it is impossible that I should be so much mistaken as that a considerable portion of what I have advanced should not be worthy of your attention, and I therefore submit to you, to the Court, and to my learned friend, that the case as to this supposed motive for the crime has failed. We now proceed to the facts of the case, and in considering them it will be necessary to group them without entire reference to dates. I will first inquire whether the symptoms with which Cook was attacked and the appearances presented by his body after death were consistent with the theory of his having died by strychnia poison, and inconsistent with that of his having died from some other natural cause. It is under this head that I shall discuss, I hope not unduly, the medical evidence in this case, and present to you such observations as occur to me on the witnesses who have been called to support the view which the Crown takes of the effect of that medical testimony. Cook died at one o’clock in the morning of Wednesday, November 21, in the presence of Jones. It was no sooner light than Jones posted to town and saw his stepfather, Mr. Stevens. Mr. Stevens went down to Rugeley and was introduced to Palmer. Palmer went with him to the Talbot Arms, and uncovered the corpse--a bold thing to do if he had murdered him. The body was so little emaciated or affected by disease that Stevens wondered he could be dead; but he observed some little rigidity about the muscles. Stevens’s suspicions were roused; he asked Palmer to dinner, questioned him about the betting-book, got angry that it was not produced, dissembled with Palmer, cross-examined him, went up to town, met him at Euston-square, again at Wolverton, at Rugby, and at Rugeley. At last he gave him to understand that he suspected him and intended to probe the whole matter to the bottom. He resolved to have a _post-mortem_ examination, and that examination took place.

The appearances presented by the body after death were such as might have been anticipated by those who were acquainted with his course of life, his general health, his pursuits, and, not to say anything hard of him, his vices, and the drinking, racing company which he kept. His father had died at thirty years of age, his mother about the same age, a few years after her second marriage; his sister was dead; and he himself was affected with a pulmonary disorder. Cook had been suffering for a long time from a sore throat, and bore about him all the signs and indications of having led a licentious life. Indeed, he appears to have been about as dissipated a young man as can be well imagined. I do not mean to say that he was utterly depraved, or that he was lost to all sense of honour and propriety; but it does not admit of doubt that his manner of living was wild, riotous, and extravagant. His complaints indicated his excesses, and he was avowedly addicted to pursuits the reverse of commendable. When his body was opened there was evidence of a soreness of the tongue. I do not go to the length of saying that there was anything to lead to the inference that there was an actual sore at the time of death, but there were follicles and symptoms, if not of a recent, certainly of a not very remote ulcer. The inside of the mouth had been ulcerated, and the skin taken off on both sides. There is abundant evidence to show that Cook was himself of opinion that these symptoms were syphilitic. He could scarcely be persuaded to obey the instructions of Dr. Savage, the respectable and very competent physician whom he consulted, and, though it is admitted that he was not “fool enough to go to quack doctors,” it is very certain that he was weak enough to follow the counsels of every medical man who would venture to give him advice when coincided with his own opinion that mercury was the best thing for his complaint. The spots which are the fatal characteristics of his dreadful malady had already made their appearance on his body, and he was haunted by the apprehension that some day, as he was running about the race-course, his face would be suddenly covered over with copper blotches, which would leave no doubt on the minds of those who saw them as to the true nature of his disease. Many a man similarly affected has retrieved his position, redeemed his character and become a virtuous member of society.

Far be it from me, then, to say one word that would press with undue severity on the memory of the dead; but no false delicacy shall deter me from the discharge of my duty, and I make these remarks not in an unkind or censorious spirit, but for the sake of truth, and because the state of Cook’s health is a most important element in this inquiry. It is certain that it was his own opinion that he was suffering from virulent syphilis, and in this opinion the medical men who originally attended him did not hesitate to concur. That he did not correct his habits is evident from the fact, that within a recent period of his death he had again become diseased. When his body was opened on the second examination, there were found between the delicate membrane which the spinal marrow covers, and is called the arachnoid, and embedded to some extent in the next covering, not so delicate, termed the _dogma mater_, granules about one inch in extent; and I will satisfy you, upon the evidence of witnesses whose authority will not be questioned, that if the body had been opened in the dead-house of any hospital in this metropolis, those granules would have been regarded as symptoms affording conclusive explanation of the cause of death. Such, then, was the condition of Cook’s health--a condition but partially and imperfectly revealed by the first _post-mortem_ examination. That examination was not conducted with the same minuteness and precision that circumstances rendered necessary on a subsequent occasion, and the syphilitic disease was neither ascertained nor suspected. The stomach was taken out, and you have heard the suggestion, which, were it not that the Court has ruled it to be of no significance, I should have been prepared to disprove that Palmer attempted to interfere with the operation by shoving against the medical man engaged in it. The inference sought to be deduced was, that some of the stomach escaped from the jar: but we have the evidence of Dr. Devonshire himself that such was not the fact. None of it did escape, and it was sent up in its entirety to London, there to be analysed by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees. Those gentlemen examined it with the knowledge that, owing to the report of Palmer having purchased a fatal drug from Mr. Roberts on the day of the death, there was a suspicion of foul play. Mr. Stevens talked of the fact to Dr. Taylor; and, with the consciousness of it on his mind, that gentleman wrote a letter, attributing the death to antimony. [Dr. Taylor intimated dissent.]

Well, if the letter is not to be so understood, it is at all events susceptible of this interpretation--that the death may have been caused by antimony. Dr. Taylor attends the coroner’s inquest, which, in all probability, is held in consequence of his own letter. He hears the evidence of Jones, Roberts, and Mills, and it is but natural to presume that these are the witnesses whose testimony has the greatest influence on his opinion. He forms his judgment on the evidence of chambermaids, waitresses, and housekeepers, and contrary to the opinion of the medical man who attended Cook in his last illness (for be it remembered he had no encouragement from Mr. Jones, the surgeon, of Lutterworth, a man of age and character to form a sound decision on the case); he comes boldly and at once to the conclusion that his original notion about antimony having been the cause of death was a mistake, and then he has the incredible imprudence--an imprudence which has necessitated this trial, or at all events rendered it necessary that it should take place in this form and place--to declare upon his oath to the coroner’s jury that he believes that the pills given to Cook on Monday and Tuesday contained strychnine, and that Cook was consequently poisoned. That evidence of his is carried on the wings of the press into every house in the United Kingdom. It becomes known throughout the length and breadth of the land that Dr. Taylor, a man who has devoted his life to science, a man of the highest personal character, and who stands well with his medical friends, has declared--not as a conjectural opinion, mark you, nor as a reserved opinion delivered in a private room to a few men whose discretion might be relied on--but, that in the public room of a public inn, in a little village, where everything that occurs is known, he has declared upon his solemn oath that it is his belief that Cook died because pills containing strychnine were administered to him on the nights of Monday and Tuesday. He had himself failed to discover the faintest traces of strychnine, yet, at the coroner’s inquest he had the hardihood to declare his conviction that the pills contained strychnine, and that Cook died of them. His evidence is neither consistent with itself nor with the opinion of Mr. Jones. He takes upon him to pronounce positively, in the face of the world, that Cook’s disease was nothing else than tetanus, and tetanus, too, of the kind that can be produced by poison only, and that poison strychnine.

Such was Dr. Taylor’s testimony; and on such testimony the coroner’s jury returned their verdict. But, merciful heaven! in what position are we placed for the safety of our own lives and those of our families, if, on evidence such as this, men are to be put on their trial for foul murder as often as a sudden death occurs in any household! If science is to be allowed to come and dogmatise in our courts--and not science that is successful in its operations or exact in its nature, but science that is baffled by its own tests, and bears upon its forehead the motto, “A little learning is a dangerous thing”--if, I say, science such as this is to be suffered to dogmatise in our courts, and to utter judgments which its own processes fail to vindicate, life is no longer secure, and there is thrown upon judges and jurymen a weight of responsibility too grievous for human nature to endure. If Dr. Taylor had detected the poison by his own tests, he, with his long experience in toxicological studies, would have been an excellent witness for the Crown; but he has not found the poison, and not having seen the patient, and knowing nothing of his death-bed symptoms beyond what he gathered from the evidence of an ignorant servant girl, and of Mr. Jones, whose testimony does not show that he agrees with him in opinion, Dr. Taylor thinks himself justified in declaring upon his oath in a public court that the pills contained strychnine, and that Cook was poisoned. If verdicts are to be moulded on testimony such as this, what medical practitioner is safe? On what ground does Dr. Taylor vindicate his opinion? He does not appear to have ever seen one solitary case of strychnine in the human subject, yet, with the full knowledge that the consequences of his assertion might be disastrous to the prisoner at the bar, he has the audacity to assert that the pills, which for anything he knows to the contrary were the same that Dr. Bamford prepared, contained strychnine, and that Cook was poisoned by it. I have quoted the sentiment, “a little learning is a dangerous thing,” and assuredly to no science is that maxim so applicable as to the medical. Of all God’s works there is no other which so eloquently attests our entire dependence on Him, and our own nothingness, as that mortal coil in which we live, and breathe, and have our being. We are struck with amazement as we contemplate it. We feel, we see, we hear; yet the instant we attempt to give a reason for these sensations our path is crossed by the mystery of creation, and all we know is that God created man--that he is our Omnipotent Maker and we the work of His hands. Yet we fancy that we can penetrate all mysteries, and there are no bounds to our arrogance. There has been much talk in this inquiry of the two kinds of tetanus--idiopathic and traumatic. Dr. Todd, urged by the Court to explain the former, described it as “constitutional.” Perhaps “self-generating” would have done as well, but let that pass. But how is our knowledge advanced by translating “idiopathic” as constitutional? It is easy to give an English translation of that Greek compound, but the thing is to explain what the translation means. What is the meaning of the phrase “constitutional tetanus?”

Lord CAMPBELL: Tetanus not occasioned by external injury.