Chapter XVI: Part 16

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I can only say I think it would have been better if my learned friend had abstained from so strange a declaration. What would he think of me if, imitating his example, I at this moment stated to you, upon my “honour,” as he did, what is my internal conviction from a conscientious consideration of this case. The best reproof which I can administer to my learned friend is to abstain from imitating so dangerous an example. My learned friend in that address, of which we all admired the power and ability, also adopted a course sometimes resorted to by advocates, but which I cannot help thinking is more or less an insult to a jury, the endeavouring to intimidate them by the fear of their own consciences and the fear of the country’s opinion from discharging firmly and honestly the great and solemn duty which you have to perform upon this occasion. My learned friend told you if your verdict should be “Guilty,” one day or other the innocence of the prisoner would be made manifest, and you would never cease to repent the verdict you had given. If my learned friend was sincere in that--and I know he was--there is no man in whom the spirit of truth and honour is more keenly alive--he said what he believed; but all I can say in answer is, that it shows how when a man enters with a bias upon his mind upon the consideration of a subject he is led into error; and when my learned friend said that he had entered upon this case with an unbiassed and an unprejudiced mind, who could have failed to feel that never in anything could he have been more deceived than in thinking that? For who that has to give his best energies to a defence upon such a charge as this would not shrink in his own mind from the conclusion that he was to advocate the cause of one whom he believed to have been guilty of the foulest of all imaginable crimes? I say, therefore, I think my learned friend had better have abstained from making any observations which involved the assurance of his own conviction. I say, further, I think he ought, in justice and in consideration for you, to have abstained from reminding you or telling you that the voice of the country would not sanction the verdict which you were about to give. I say nothing of the inconsistency which is involved in such a statement, coming from one who but a short hour before had complained in eloquent terms of the universal torrent of passion and prejudice by which he said his client was oppressed and borne down. Why, gentlemen, in answer to my learned friend, I have only to say, pay no regard to the voice of the country, whether it be for condemnation or acquittal; pay no regard to anything but the internal voice of your own consciences, and the sense of that duty to God and man which you are to discharge upon this occasion. Seek no reward, except the comforting assurance when you shall look back to the events of this day, that you have discharged to the best of your ability and to the uttermost of your power the duty that it was yours to perform. If, upon a review of this whole case, comparing the evidence upon the one side and upon the other, and weighing it in the even scales of justice, you can come to a conclusion of the prisoner’s innocence, or even entertain that fair and reasonable amount of doubt of which the accused is entitled to the benefit, in God’s name acquit him. But if, on the other hand, all the facts and all the evidence lead your minds, with satisfaction to yourselves, to the conclusion of the prisoner’s guilt, then, but then only, I ask for a verdict of guilty at your hands. For the protection of the good, and for the repression of the wicked, I ask for that verdict, by which alone, as it seems to me, the safety of society can be secured, and the demands, the imperious demands, of public justice can alone be satisfied.

The Court then adjourned.

Eleventh Day, Monday, 26th May, 1856.

The Court met at ten o’clock.

Charge to the Jury.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

LORD CAMPBELL--Gentlemen of the jury, we have at length arrived at that stage of these solemn proceedings when it becomes my duty, as the chief judge presiding in this Court, to explain to you the nature of the charge brought against the prisoner, and those questions and considerations upon which your verdict ought to be found. And, gentlemen, I must begin by conjuring you to banish from your minds all that you have heard with reference to these proceedings before entering into that box. There is no doubt that a strong prejudice elsewhere did prevail against the prisoner at the bar, in the county of Stafford, where the offence for which he has now to answer is alleged to have been committed; that prejudice was so strong that the Court of Queen’s Bench made an order to remove the trial from that county. The prisoner, by his counsel, expressed a wish that the trial should take place in the Central Criminal Court. To enable that wish to be accomplished an Act has been passed by the Legislature authorising the Court of Queen’s Bench to direct the trial to take place in the Central Criminal Court, where it was believed and known that the trial would be fair and impartial. I must not only warn you, gentlemen, against being influenced by what you may have before heard, but I must likewise warn you--although I am sure it is an unnecessary caution, but one which it is my duty to offer--against being improperly influenced by the evidence that has been laid before you; because there has been evidence which certainly implicates the prisoner in transactions of a very discreditable nature. It appears that he had forged a great many bills of exchange, and that he had entered into transactions not of a reputable nature. These transactions, however, would have been excluded from your consideration altogether had it not been necessary to bring them forward to assist you in arriving at your verdict. By the law and practice of some countries it is allowed to raise a probability that the party accused has committed the offence which he has to answer, to show that he has committed other offences, with a view of showing that he is an immoral man, and not unlikely to commit other offences, whether of the same or of a different nature; but the law of England is different, and, presuming every man to be innocent until his guilt is established, it allows his guilt to be established only by evidence directly connected with the charge brought against him.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Gentlemen, it gives me great satisfaction to find that this case has been so fully laid before you. Everything has been done that could be accomplished for the purpose of assisting the jury in coming to a right conclusion. The prosecution has been taken up by the Government of the country, so that justice may be effectively administered. The Attorney-General, who is the first law officer of the Crown, has conducted the prosecution as the Minister of Public Justice. Again, I am much pleased to think that the prisoner appears to have had ample means to prepare for and conduct his defence. Witnesses very properly have been brought from all parts of the kingdom to assist in his defence; and he has had the advantage of having his case conducted by one of the most distinguished advocates at the English bar. Gentlemen, I most strongly recommend to you to attend to everything that fell so eloquently, so ably, and so impressively from that advocate, with the exception of his own private personal opinion. It is my duty to tell you that that ought to be no ingredient in your verdict. You are to try the prisoner upon the evidence before you, according as that evidence may be laid before you upon the one side and on the other, and by that alone, and not by any opinion of his advocate. I feel also bound to say that it would have been better if his advocate had abstained from some of the observations which he made in his address to you, in which he laid great stress upon his own conviction of the prisoner’s innocence of the crime imputed to him and of his apprehension that if you returned a verdict of guilty you one day would have to regret your verdict. The fact of the prisoner saying “Not guilty” is a mere form; it goes for nothing, and it may lead to the most disastrous consequences if that formal answer is to be dwelt upon with too much importance, as it may lead a jury to believe that a prisoner is not guilty because his advocate expresses his perfect conviction of his innocence. And, upon the other hand, if the advocate withholds an opinion, the jury may suppose that he is conscious of his client’s guilt, whereas it is the duty of the advocate to press his argument upon the jury, and not his opinion.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Gentlemen, I will now in a few words give you the allegations upon the one side and on the other. On the part of the prosecution it is alleged that the deceased, John Parsons Cook, was first tampered with by antimony, that he was then killed by strychnia, and that his symptoms were the symptoms of poison by strychnia. It is then alleged that the prisoner at the bar had a motive for making away with him; that he had an opportunity of administering the poison; that suspicion fell upon no one else; and that on two days, when the poison was supposed to have been administered, he actually purchased strychnia, the poison employed; and that, as they allege, his conduct before that transaction, before the deed, while it was going on, and afterwards, was that of a guilty, and not of an innocent, man. On the other side it is contended (and you are to say whether or not truly contended) that the prisoner at the bar was really the victim of prejudice; that he had no interest in the death of the deceased; and, on the contrary, that the death of the deceased was to his prejudice; further, that Cook did not die from poison by strychnia, but from natural disease; that his symptoms were those of natural disease, and not of poison by strychnia; and, further, it is contended that no part of the evidence which has been given shows anything which is at all consistent with the guilt of the prisoner. Gentlemen, it is for you to determine between the allegations on the one side and the other according to the evidence. A most anxious task is imposed upon you, knowing that the life of the prisoner is at stake; and, if you find him guilty, he must expiate his crime by an ignominious death. It is of the last importance that you should be convinced of his innocence or his guilt; and, if you are not convinced of his guilt, you will rescue him from the fate with which he is threatened. On the other hand, when you have heard the statements which were given in evidence--if you are satisfied of his guilt--it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty; for if the poisoner were to escape with impunity, there would be no safety for mankind, and society would fall to pieces. Gentlemen, the burthen of proving the guilt rests on the prosecution; and unless that is fully sustained, and you are not convinced upon the evidence that he is guilty, then it will be your duty to acquit the prisoner; but in a case of this kind you cannot expect that witnesses should be called to state that they saw the deadly poison administered by the prisoner or mixed up by the prisoner openly before them. Circumstantial evidence as to that is all that can be reasonably expected; and if there are a series of circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt, then, gentlemen, a verdict of guilty may satisfactorily be pronounced. With respect to the alleged motive, it is of great importance to see whether there was a motive for committing such a crime, or whether there was not, or whether there is an improbability of its having been committed so strong as not to be overpowered by positive evidence. But, gentlemen, if there be any motive which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you that the adequacy of that motive is of little importance. We know from the experience of criminal Courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from very slight motives, not merely from malice and revenge, but to gain a small pecuniary advantage and to drive off for a time pressing difficulties. It seems to me, gentlemen, you will have to consider well whether the symptoms of Cook’s death are consistent with a poisoning by strychnia. If they are not, if you believe that death arose from natural causes, the prisoner is at once entitled to a verdict of not guilty at your hands; but if those symptoms are consistent with a poisoning by strychnia, then you will have another and an important question to consider, whether the evidence which has been adduced is sufficient to convince you that it was a death by strychnia, and by strychnia which the prisoner administered. In cases of the sort the evidence has often been divided into medical and moral evidence, the medical being that of the scientific men, and the moral the circumstantial facts which are calculated to prove the truth of the charge against the party accused. Gentlemen, they cannot be finally separated in the minds of the jury, because it is by combination of the two species of evidence that their verdict ought to be found. In this case you will look at the medical evidence to see whether the deceased, in your opinion, did die by strychnia or by natural disease; and you will look at what is called the moral evidence, and consider whether that shows that the prisoner not only had the opportunity, but that he actually availed himself of that opportunity, to administer to the deceased the deadly poison of which he died.

Now, gentlemen, with these preliminary observations I will proceed to read over to you the evidence which has been given in this long trial; and I must implore you earnestly that, in any observations I may make upon its effect, you will be guided only by your own judgment. To assist you from time to time I may make observations, but you will not be in the slightest degree influenced by them unless so far as your own judgment concurs in them. The verdict must be yours, and in your hands the life of the prisoner must rest.

[His lordship then began with and took the jury through the story of Palmer’s financial transactions; next the evidence of Cook’s illness at Shrewsbury; and then that of Elizabeth Mills and Lavinia Barnes, and of Mr. Jones as to the illness at Rugeley; and passed to the evidence of Newton.]

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Now, gentlemen, comes a witness of the greatest importance, Charles Newton. (His lordship read a portion of Mr. Newton’s evidence.) I may notice to you that Roberts swears, and is, I think, not contradicted, that he had sold strychnia, among other drugs, to Palmer; and you are called upon to observe the demeanour of Palmer at that time, and the way in which he tried to prevent Newton from observing that he had been obtaining this drug at the shop of Mr. Hawkins. (His lordship then read a further portion of the evidence of Mr. Newton.) Then the deposition of Newton was read, and it had better be read again. (The deposition of Mr. Newton, taken before the coroner, was then read, and his lordship concluded reading the evidence of the witness.) Now, gentlemen, this is the evidence of Newton, and most important it is for your consideration. It certainly must be recollected that he did not mention the furnishing of the strychnia to Palmer on Monday before the coroner, and that he did not mention it till the Tuesday morning, when he was coming up here. That certainly requires consideration at your hands; but then, gentlemen, you will observe that in his deposition, which has been read before you, although there is an omission, which is always to be borne in mind, there is no contradiction of anything that he has said. Well, then, you are to consider what is the probability of his inventing this wicked and most abominable lie. He had no ill-will towards the prisoner at the bar; he had nothing to gain by injuring him, much less by saying anything to affect his life. I see no motive that Mr. Newton could have for inventing a lie to take away the life of another person. No inducement could be held out to him from the Crown; he says himself that no inducement was held out to him, and that he at last disclosed it from a sense of justice. If you believe him, certainly the evidence is very strong against the prisoner at the bar. Now I will take you to the evidence of the next witness, whose evidence is closely connected with the witness Newton--who did furnish strychnia to the prisoner--I mean Joseph Roberts. (The learned judge read the examination-in-chief of Mr. Roberts.)

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Now comes the cross-examination, which consists in this, and this only, “I did not make an entry of any of those things in our books; if articles are sold over the counter and paid for at the time, we do not enter them in our books.” Now, gentlemen, this is the evidence of Mr. Roberts, which is most important, for he is not cross-examined as to the veracity of his testimony, nor is it contradicted at all. It is not denied that on this Tuesday morning the prisoner at the bar got 6 grains of strychnia from Mr. Roberts. If you couple that with the evidence of Mr. Newton, believing that, then you will have positive evidence of strychnia being procured by the prisoner at the bar; that the symptoms of strychnia were exhibited in Mr. Cook, the deceased; and you have the evidence of Mr. Roberts, undenied and unquestioned, that on the Tuesday the 6 grains of strychnia were supplied. Now, gentlemen, if you believe both, a very serious case is adduced, supposing you should come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Mr. Cook were consistent with that poison. If you think the symptoms are accounted for by merely ordinary tetanus, of course the fact of strychnia being obtained by the prisoner at the bar is entitled to very little weight; but if you should come to the conclusion that the symptoms which Mr. Cook exhibited on the Monday night and Tuesday night are consistent with strychnia, then a fearful case is made out against him. Gentlemen, I have listened with the most anxious attention to know what explanation would be given respecting the strychnia that was purchased on the Tuesday morning. The learned counsel for the prisoner told us that we must believe nothing, that he would combat and disprove everything, and no doubt, according to his instructions, he very properly denied that Mr. Newton was to be believed; and, disbelieving Mr. Newton, you have no evidence of any strychnia being obtained on the Monday evening; but, disbelieving Mr. Newton and believing Mr. Roberts, you have evidence of 6 grains of strychnia having been obtained on the Tuesday morning, and no explanation is given of it. The learned counsel did not favour us with the theory which he had formed in his own mind respecting that strychnia, and how he considered it to be consistent with the view that he suggested. There is no evidence of the intention with which it was purchased; there is no evidence how it was applied, what became of it, or what was done with it.

Then I say, gentlemen, that it will not at all influence your verdict unless you come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Mr. Cook were consistent with a death by strychnia; but if you come to that conclusion I should shrink from my duty, and I should be unworthy to sit here, if I did not draw to your consideration the importance of the testimony and the inference it may afford of the death having been occasioned by strychnia, and that that was administered by the prisoner.

[The evidence as to the post-mortem was then read, and that of the postboy, of Cheshire, the postmaster, and several others, without comment of material importance. Passing to the scientific witnesses, his lordship said--“Now, gentlemen, you are called upon to form your opinion as to the opinion of scientific men respecting the appearance of the symptoms that Cook exhibited, and how far they can be accounted for by natural disease, and how far also, upon the evidence, they are consistent with strychnia. Whether they agree with traumatic or idiopathic tetanus, whatever it may be, or whether the symptoms correspond with a natural disease, and do not correspond with strychnia, is a matter that is of very great importance for you to consider.” Until his lordship reached Dr. Taylor the scientific evidence was read to the jury with no material comments.]

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

The next witness is Dr. Taylor. Now, gentlemen, here is something most important for your consideration. You see it is very properly relied on, on the part of the prisoner, that, though strychnia may be found in the body by analysis, none was found upon the analysis which was made by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, for they, and they alone, experimented upon it, and they could find none. We know that experiments were made by those two individuals, and they say that, so far as their skill goes, there may be death by strychnia and yet that strychnia cannot be detected. But Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees state experiments that they made where the death had been by strychnia which they themselves administered; and in at least two of those cases where there had been death by strychnia they could discover none. Now, it is possible that other chemists and other medical men might have discovered strychnia in those animals, and might have discovered strychnia in the body or in the jar which contained the stomach of Cook, but they found none in their analysis. They found none also in at least two cases where they killed animals by strychnia, and afterwards did all their skill enabled them to do for the purpose of discovering the strychnia. I thought at one time that these examinations were made with a view to show that, if the pills prepared by Mr. Bamford had been taken as he prepared them, mercury ought to have been found in the body of Mr. Cook; but I think that was not pressed, and I should think that it ought not to have any influence upon your verdict--there was no mercury found. There was mercury in the pills which Mr. Bamford prepared, and which Cook ought to have taken, but the simple fact of no mercury being found in those parts of Cook’s body that were examined ought not to have any influence upon your verdict; but that, of course, you will judge of for yourselves. Then the learned counsel, in cross-examination, read a passage from Orfila about a dog who had taken antimony, and some few minutes afterwards antimony was found in the bones, in the fat, and in the liver. (His lordship read the letter written by Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardener.) You will bear in mind, gentlemen, that was written before the symptoms were known to Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, but they had been informed that prussic acid and strychnia and opium had been bought by Palmer on the Tuesday. They search for all these poisons and they find none; but they swear distinctly that they found antimony in the body, and therefore, in the absence of the symptoms, they do not impute the death to strychnia, but they say it may possibly have been produced by antimony, because the quantity they discovered in the body was no test of the quantity that had been administered to the deceased. Then a letter was read which Dr. Taylor wrote to the _Lancet_, and I must say that he would have done better to have abstained from taking any notice whatsoever of what was said about him, but you will say whether what he did write materially detracts from the credit which would otherwise be due to him. I think the passage in this letter in the _Lancet_, which was relied on, is the last passage which I will read to you. He explains what his evidence had been, and complains of the reports that had been spread abroad respecting him, and then he concludes his letter thus--“In concluding this letter I would observe that during a quarter of a century which I have now specially devoted to toxicological inquiries, I have never met with any cases like those suspected of poisoning at Rugeley. The mode in which they will affect the person accused is of minor importance compared with their probable influence on society. I have no hesitation in saying that the future security of life in this country will mainly depend on the judge, the jury, and the counsel who may have to dispose of the charges of murder which have arisen out of these investigations.” I again say that I think it would have been better if he had trusted to the credit which he had already acquired, instead of writing a letter to the _Lancet_; but it is for you to say that he, having been, as he says, misrepresented, and writing this letter to set himself right, whether that materially detracts from the credit which is due to him.

Then Dr. Rees follows, and he corroborates the evidence given by Dr. Taylor. Here, therefore, is Dr. Rees, whom no one can suppose to have an interest in the matter. I do not know what interest it can be supposed that Dr. Taylor had in the matter, for he was regularly employed in his profession; he knew nothing about Mr. Palmer until he was called on by Mr. Stevens to analyse the contents of the jar; he had no animosity against him, and no interest whatever in misrepresenting the matter.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--He said that the experiments with the two rabbits were made after the inquest.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

LORD CAMPBELL--Certainly; it cannot matter whether they were made before or after if they are witnesses of truth. It is the case that there was the death of the animals by strychnia, and that after death no strychnia could be found in the animals; and, if the experiments had been made this morning, the effect would have been the same. Dr. Taylor has been questioned about the indiscreet letter which he wrote to the _Lancet_ and some indiscreet conversation which he had with the editor of the _Illustrated Times_; but with regard to Dr. Rees that imputation does not exist, and he concurs with Dr. Taylor in the evidence that the rabbits were killed by strychnia, and that, although they did everything in their power, according to their skill and knowledge, to discover the strychnia, as they did with regard to the contents of the jar, yet no strychnia could be found. You will judge from the vomiting that took place at Shrewsbury, and afterwards at Stafford, whether antimony may have been administered to Cook at Shrewsbury or Stafford. Antimony may not produce death; but it is part of the transaction, and deserves your deliberate consideration.

The Court then adjourned.

Twelfth Day, Tuesday, 27th May, 1856.

The Court met at ten o’clock.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

LORD CAMPBELL--Gentlemen of the jury, at the adjournment of the Court yesterday evening I had finished the task of laying before you all the evidence on the part of the prosecution; and certainly that case, if not answered, does present for your consideration a serious case against the prisoner at the bar. It appears that in the middle of November he was involved in pecuniary difficulties of the most formidable nature; he had engagements to perform that he was unable to perform without some most extraordinary expedients; he had to make payments for which he was unprepared; there were actions brought against both himself and his mother upon the forged acceptances; he had no credit in any quarter upon which money could be raised. It so happened that at that time Cook, the deceased, by the winning of the race on the 13th November, became the master of at least £1000, and there is evidence from which an inference may be drawn that the prisoner formed the design of appropriating that money to his own use, and that he is prepared to do whatever was necessary to accomplish that object. There is some evidence that he did appropriate that money to the payment of debts for which he alone was liable. There is evidence from which it may be inferred that he drew a cheque in the name of Cook, which was a forgery, upon which to obtain payment of part of the money which was due to Cook; and there is further evidence that he employed Herring to collect money on the Monday and to appropriate it to his own use. What effect would have been produced by the survival of Cook, under such circumstances, you are to consider. However, it appears that from Cook’s death he contemplated the advantage of obtaining possession of the horse “Polestar,” which had belonged to Cook; and you have evidence of his having fabricated a document which was to declare that certain bills of exchange with which it appears that Cook had no concern were negotiated for Cook’s advantage, and that the prisoner at the bar had derived no benefit from them. Gentlemen, that was brought forward after Cook’s death, and if Cook had survived that fraud must have been exposed, and might have been punished. Then, gentlemen, with respect to the joint liability of Cook and Palmer, which, it is said, would now be thrown entirely upon Palmer, that was rather a distant object; and if Palmer had got possession of all Cook’s property by the means that he resorted to, he would not have been a sufferer by his death. Then, gentlemen, as to the important question whether Cook must be supposed to have died by natural disease or by poison. You have the evidence of Sir Benjamin Brodie and other most skilful and honourable men, who say that, in their opinion, he did not die from natural disease; they know no natural disease in the whole catalogue of diseases which attack the human frame that will account for those symptoms. Further, gentlemen, the witnesses go on to say that they believe that the symptoms that were exhibited by Cook were the symptoms of strychnia, that they were what would be expected from strychnia, and that, comparing those symptoms with natural tetanus, they do not correspond with it, but they do correspond with the symptoms brought on by a man being poisoned by the administration of strychnia. Then, gentlemen, with respect to the consideration that no strychnia was found in the body, that is for you to consider, and no doubt you will pay great attention to it; but there is no point of law according to which the poison must be found in the body of the deceased; and all that we know respecting the poison not being in the body of Cook is that in that part of the body that was analysed by Drs. Taylor and Rees they found no strychnia. But witnesses of great reputation have said, Dr. Christison among the number, that, under certain circumstances, where there has been poison by strychnia, they would not expect the strychnia should be detected; and you have the evidence of Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, who made the examination, that they having experimented upon animals killed by strychnia which they themselves administered, and by resorting to the same means that they had employed in examining the body of Cook, no strychnia could be found.

Then, gentlemen, with regard to the length of time that occurred between the alleged administration of the strychnia and the time that the symptoms appeared, the evidence seems to me to lead to this conclusion, that, where it is administered to animals with a view of making experiments and with a view of observing its operations as quickly as possible, it generally operates more rapidly than in the human frame when it is put in the shape of pills, and that will depend upon the manner in which those pills are compounded, and likewise on the state of the health and body of the person to whom they are to be administered, and whether there may or may not have been any previous tampering with the health of that person. Instances are referred to where, even in the human body, a greater space of time has elapsed than in this case between the administration of the poison and the symptoms which were exhibited.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I think that is not so upon the evidence, my lord.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

LORD CAMPBELL--There are instances referred to in which it has been detected; there have been instances referred to in the course of this trial in which there has been as long an interval.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I believe that is a mistake.

LORD CAMPBELL--With regard to there being no blood in the heart, which seems to have been relied upon, it appears that the result is this, that if the death is produced by an obstruction of the respiratory organs, producing asphyxia, the blood is found in the heart; but if it be produced by a spasm upon the heart itself, the heart contracts, the blood is expelled, and no blood is found after death. Now, taking the evidence before us, there are two instances where that took place.

Then, gentlemen, we have to look to the evidence as it implicates the prisoner at the bar. You must consider the evidence to show that he must have tampered with the health of the deceased, by administering something to him in the brandy and water, in the broth, and in the other things which were administered to him at Rugeley. One part of the broth was taken by Elizabeth Mills, as she swears, and the consequence which followed, according to her evidence and the evidence of Lavinia Barnes, was that she was taken ill with a vomiting in the stomach as Cook the deceased had been.

Then, gentlemen, you have antimony found in the body of the deceased; antimony, which would show that tartar emetic, producing vomiting, had been administered, and it seems to be clearly proved that that substance was found in his body, from what source you are to say from the evidence before you.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Then, gentlemen, comes the more direct evidence that the prisoner at the bar, if you believe the witnesses, procured this very poison on the Monday and on the Tuesday--3 grains, I think, on the Monday, and 6 on the Tuesday. For what purpose was that obtained? The evidence of the witness who swears to the poison being obtained on the Monday is impeached, but no impeachment rests upon the evidence of the witness who swears to the poison being sold by him on the Tuesday to the prisoner at the bar. You have no account of that poison; what was the intention with which it was purchased, and what was the application of it, you are to infer. Then, gentlemen, it is impossible that you should not pay attention to the conduct of the prisoner at the bar, and there are some instances of his conduct which you will say whether they belong to what might be expected from an innocent or a guilty man. He was eager to have the body fastened down in the coffin. Then, with regard to the betting book, there is certainly evidence from which you may infer that he did get possession of the betting book, that he abstracted it and concealed it. Then, gentlemen, you must not omit his conduct in trying to bribe the postboy to overturn the carriage in which the jar was being conveyed, to be analysed in London, and from which evidence might be obtained of his guilt. Again, you find him tampering with the postmaster, and procuring from the postmaster the opening of a letter from Dr. Taylor, who had been examining the contents of the jar, to Mr. Gardner, the attorney employed upon the part of Mr. Stevens. And then, gentlemen, you have tampering with the coroner, and trying to induce him to procure a verdict from the coroner’s jury which would amount to an acquittal. These are serious matters for your consideration, but you, and you alone, will say what inference is to be drawn from them. If not answered, they certainly present a serious case for your consideration. It is for you to say whether the answer is satisfactory. Either you may be of opinion that the case on the part of the prosecution is insufficient, or you may be of opinion that the answer to it is satisfactory.

Then, gentlemen, that answer consists of two parts--first, of the medical evidence, and, secondly, of the evidence of facts. With regard to the medical evidence, I must say that there were examined on the part of the prisoner a number of gentlemen of high honour and solid integrity and proved scientific knowledge, who came here only to speak the truth and assist in the administration of justice. You may be of opinion that others came whose object was to procure an acquittal of the prisoner. Gentlemen, it is material, in the due administration of justice, that a witness should not be turned into an advocate, any more than an advocate should be turned into a witness. It is for you to say whether some of those who were called on the part of the prisoner did not belong to the category which I described as witnesses becoming advocates.

Gentlemen, the first witness on the part of the prisoner was Mr. Thomas Nunneley. (The learned judge read the evidence of Mr. Nunneley and the documents therein referred to.) You will recollect what he says, and you will form your opinion as to the weight that is to be given to it. He certainly seemed to me to give his evidence in a manner not quite becoming a witness in a Court of justice, but you will give all attention to the facts to which he refers in the evidence he gave. He differs very materially in his general opinion from several of the witnesses who were examined on the part of the prosecution. He speaks of there being an extraordinary rigidity of the body after death, when there has been a death of this description, with other symptoms, and he attaches considerable importance to the heart being empty, but you will say what weight ought to be attached to his opinion.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Mr. William Herapath is then called. (The examination-in-chief of Mr. Herapath was read.) He seems to differ from Mr. Nunneley with respect to the rigidity produced by this poison. Now, gentlemen, Mr. Herapath is a very skilful chemist, and I have no doubt he spoke sincerely what he thought, and what was his opinion? That when there has been death by strychnia, strychnia ought to be discovered; but it seems he intimated an opinion on this very case of Cook that there might have been strychnia, and that Dr. Taylor did not use the proper means to detect it. Now, the only evidence that we have in this case that there was not strychnia is the analysis by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees that they did not discover it. As I before pointed out to you, in two other cases in which there certainly had been poisoning by strychnia the result was the same--they could not discover it.

Then the next witness is Mr. Rogers. Now, this is a gentleman whom there seems no reason to doubt; there seems no reason to doubt the facts that he stated, and that he does sincerely entertain the opinion that he expresses; and, according to his evidence, where there has been strychnia mixed with impure matter, it may be expected that it would be detected by skilful experimentalists, and by using the proper tests. Then Dr. Letheby is called; he is the medical officer of health to the city of London and of the London Hospital. I doubt not that Dr. Letheby speaks sincerely, and according to his experience and opinion, but he does say truly that cases vary very much, and that there may be cases which he calls “exceptional,” alluding to the case of the lady at Romsey; and it may probably be the fair result that enough of this disease is not known to be aware of all its varieties, and that any peculiarity that may arise where there is strong probability of strychnia having been administered would not be anything like conclusive evidence to rebut that result.

Then Mr. Robert Gray is examined. Now, gentlemen, here you have a case of what is called idiopathic tetanus; but you are to say whether from this you can infer that the illness of Mr. Cook was idiopathic tetanus. The great weight of evidence seems to me to show that it was not idiopathic any more than traumatic tetanus; but that whatever form of disease it might be, it would not be idiopathic tetanus; and you will find that the symptoms vary most materially in their appearance from the case that is here detailed in the duration as well as the rest of the course of events.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

The next witness that was called was Mr. Brown Ross. Now, gentlemen, I do not know for what purpose the case alluded to by Mr. Ross was brought before you, unless to lead to an inference that Mr. Cook’s was a case of tetanus of the same sort with this which is here described, because this was tetanus; and I suppose it was intended that you are to infer that Mr. Cook’s was of the same description; but whether you call it idiopathic or traumatic, it was a case of tetanus--was directly to be ascribed to wounds which were upon his body, and which are here described. No such wounds were upon the body of Mr. Cook; and other witnesses who were examined on the part of the defence say that this was not a case of tetanus at all; but then, even in this case that has been described, you see there were the symptoms so nearly approaching those of strychnia that strychnia was suspected, but there was no ground for it; and in the case described there was no ground for supposing strychnia could by possibility be the cause of death.

The next witness is a witness worthy of all praise for the sincerity which he exhibited. I mean Dr. Wrightson. Now, gentlemen, this witness, who, I have no doubt, is a most scientific and a very honourable man, speaks as a man of science, and, according to him, the poison would be found in the body; but he speaks with proper caution, and upon his evidence you ought to say whether, under particular circumstances, it might not be discoverable, or whether the person seeking for it might fail to employ the proper means for detecting it in the body.

Then comes Mr. Partridge, a most respectable gentleman, who says he has been many years in practice as a surgeon, and is professor of anatomy at King’s College. Now, gentlemen, you have here the opinion of a very respectable witness as to the different topics that he touches upon; and the most important one is that he thinks that the symptoms that were exhibited did not correspond with what he should expect from strychnia; but he speaks from his own experience, and you have it from the other witnesses that the symptoms vary considerably in different cases.

The next witness is Mr. John Gay. Now, gentlemen, this was a case, you see, of tetanus arising from the toe being smashed; and it seems to me, although, of course, you will form your own opinion upon it, bears no analogy whatever to the case of Cook, with regard to whom no such cause could be assigned. Again, gentlemen, he says, what is very material, that, in the event of a given state of tetanus, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, without collateral evidence, to ascribe the tetanic disease to any cause in the absence of any evidence as to the cause. But you will form your own opinion upon it. Therefore you are to look to collateral evidence; and if the collateral evidence would impute the symptoms of tetanic convulsions to any particular cause, according to this witness that cause may be assigned. That I say with a view to get what is called the moral evidence with regard to the conduct of a particular person, and with regard to what he may have done or what he may have had in his possession.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Now comes Dr. M‘Donald. You will observe that he gives an account of experiments he made for the prisoner, and you will see the lengths to which he goes in adopting a new form of disease of epilepsy with these complications. You are to say what weight you give to that evidence compared with the witnesses who have given evidence before you.

The next witness is Mr. John Bainbridge. The object of this witness’s evidence seems to be to induce you to believe that this was a case of epilepsy, and from the symptoms you will say whether you can come to that conclusion.

The next witness is Mr. Edward Steady. The case referred to by this witness seems to be a case of traumatic tetanus; and you will say, if it were idiopathic, whether the course of it in the slightest degree resembles the symptoms of Cook, the deceased.

The next witness is Dr. Robinson. Now, gentlemen, you have this respectable physician, who gives an account from which you are called to infer that Cook’s case was a case of epilepsy. He says he should only take it to be epilepsy in the absence of evidence of strychnia being administered. He says that all the symptoms described by Jones on the Tuesday night are consistent with strychnia; and, with regard to epilepsy, he says in no case where epilepsy had existed would it cause death without a loss of consciousness. Cook, you will remember, remained conscious to the last, and you will say whether, upon the evidence that is laid before you, there was or was not a bending of the body, which is characteristic of tetanus, and what the witnesses have described as being inconsistent with epilepsy.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

The next witness is Dr. Richardson, who now brings in for the first time angina pectoris as a disease of which it may be presumed Cook died. Now, gentlemen, you have to attend to this case; the witness, who seems most highly respectable, says this case being detailed by him, the symptoms were consistent with strychnia, and that, if he had known as much of strychnia then as he does now, he would have made an analysis to see whether strychnia was in the body. The great question that I propounded for your consideration was whether Cook’s symptoms were consistent with strychnia, and, if they were not, then the conclusion would be in favour of the prisoner; but if they were consistent with strychnia, then you are not upon that alone to find a verdict of guilty against him; but you are to consider the other evidence and see whether the death arose from strychnia or not. Dr. Wrightson is recalled, and he says that, in his opinion, when strychnia is entirely absorbed in the system it is diffused equally throughout the entire system. Dr. Wrightson is a philosopher, and, as a man of science, he speaks with caution, and you have heard his evidence. He says that if the minimum dose were taken to destroy life, and then a long interval elapsed between the taking of the poison and death, the more complete would be the absorption, and the less chance there would be of finding it in the stomach.

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I think he said he would expect to find it in the spleen, the liver, and the blood.

LORD CAMPBELL--Yes; “I should look for it elsewhere, in the spleen, the liver, and the blood.”

Then comes Mr. Oliver Pemberton. The evidence of this witness only goes to show that, in his opinion, an examination of the body at that time was not of much value, and did not afford the means of coming to a satisfactory opinion, differing in opinion, therefore, from others that had been called.

His lordship then dealt with the witnesses as to facts, and pointed out that, according to the trains, Palmer could not have arrived in Rugeley on the Monday night before ten o’clock.

Now, gentlemen, comes a very material witness, who, if he were to be believed, would be very important, particularly upon one part of the case. I mean Jeremiah Smith--and you, having heard the whole of his evidence, the examination and cross-examination, are to say what faith or reliance you can place upon his testimony. Now, gentlemen, this would show, if true, that the genuine and very identical pills that Bamford had made, and in the state in which he had prepared them, were taken by Cook before Palmer arrived from London at Rugeley, or, at any rate, before he came to the Talbot Arms. It is for you to say whether you can place reliance upon such testimony. You saw how he conducted himself in the witness-box, and how he at last denied that the signature to the instrument which he purported to have attested, and which he received from the prisoner at the bar, was in his handwriting. He said it was like it, but it was not his handwriting. Then it appears that he did receive £5, and you are to say whether it was not clearly for attesting that very assignment. The counterfoil of the cheque for £5, from William Palmer the prisoner, is shown him; and with that piece of paper he goes to the bank and receives the £5. Can you believe a man who so disgraces himself in the witness-box? It is for you to say what faith you can place in a witness who, by his own admission, engaged in such fraudulent proceedings. We are now upon veracity, and you are to say whether you can believe a witness who at last acknowledges that he had been applied to and had been engaged in procuring an insurance on the life of Walter Palmer, who had been a bankrupt six years before, and who had no means of living except by the allowance of his friends and an allowance made to him by the prisoner at the bar.

[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]

Again, he acknowledges that he was engaged in the proposal to insure the life of Bates for £10,000. Bates being at that time superintending the stables of the prisoner at the bar, living in lodgings at 6s. 6d. a week, apparently having no property, and nothing depending upon his life, his life was to be insured for £10,000. Smith gets himself appointed agent to an insurance office, and, with a knowledge of these facts, he proposes the insurance to be accepted by the office which he represents; and can you believe such a witness who acknowledges himself to have been engaged in such fraudulent proceedings, and who, now being examined upon his oath, denies the handwriting of his own attestation to that document? Gentlemen, of his credit you are to judge. His evidence would be material as to what took place on the Monday night, because it would show that the pills that Cook took that night were taken as they had been prepared by Bamford, and before the prisoner at the bar had had any opportunity to substitute others for them in the pill box. Such is the case with regard to what took place on the Tuesday. If it stood there, and if it were believed, it would be evidence in favour of the prisoner at the bar; and you are to say whether you believe it, or, if you disbelieve it, what effect it has upon the other testimony that has been brought forward.