The Attorney-General, at ten minutes before three, commenced his reply,
speaking occasionally in so low a tone that the conclusion of many of
his sentences was inaudible. He said: May it please your lordships and
gentlemen of the jury, the case for the prosecution and the case for the
defence are now before you, and it now becomes my duty to address to you
such observations upon the whole of the evidence as suggest themselves
to my mind. I feel that I have a moral, solemn, and important duty to
perform. I wish I could have answered the appeal made to me the other
day by my learned friend (Serjeant Shee), and say that I am satisfied
with the case which he submitted to you for the defence. But, standing
here as the instrument of public justice, I feel that I should be
wanting in the duty that I have to perform if I did not ask at your
hands for a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. I approach the
consideration of the case in, I hope, what I may term a spirit of
fairness and moderation. My business is to convince you, if I can, by
facts and legitimate arguments, of the prisoner’s guilt; and if I cannot
establish it to your satisfaction, no man will rejoice more than I shall
in a verdict of acquittal. Gentlemen, in the mass of evidence which has
been brought before you, two main questions present themselves
prominently for your consideration. Did the deceased man, into whose
death we are now inquiring, die a natural death, or was he taken off by
the foul means of poison? And if the latter proposition be sanctioned by
the evidence, then comes the important--if possible, the still more
important--question, whether the prisoner at the bar was the author of
the death? I will proceed with the consideration of the subject in the
order which I have mentioned. Did John Parsons Cook die by poison? I
assert and contend the affirmative of that proposition. The case which
is submitted to you on behalf of the Crown is this--that, having been
first practised upon by antimony, Cook was at last killed by strychnine.
The first question to be considered is--what was the immediate and
proximate cause of his death. The witnesses for the prosecution have
told you, one and all, that, in their judgment, he died of tetanus,
which signifies a convulsive spasmodic action of the muscles of the
body. Can there be any doubt that their opinion is correct? Of course it
does not follow that, because he died of tetanus, it must be the tetanus
of strychnia. That is a matter for after consideration. But, inasmuch as
strychnine produces death by tetanus, we must see, in the first place,
whether it admits of doubt that he did die of tetanus. I have listened
with great attention to every form in which that disease has been
brought under your consideration--whether by the positive evidence of
witnesses, or whether by reference to the works of scientific writers;
and I assert deliberately that no case, either in the human subject or
in the animal, has been brought under your notice in which the symptoms
of tetanus have been so marked as in this case.
From the moment the paroxysms came on of which the unhappy man died, the
symptoms were of the most marked and of the most striking character.
Every muscle, says the witness, the medical man who was present at the
time--every muscle of his body was convulsed--he expressed the most
intense dread of suffocation--he entreats them to lift him up lest he
should be suffocated--and every muscle of his body, from the crown of
his head to the soles of his feet, was so stricken--the flexibility of
the trunk and the limbs was gone--and you could only have raised him up
as you would have raised a corpse. In order that he might escape from
the dread of suffocation, they turned him over, and then, in the midst
of that fearful paroxysm, one mighty spasm seemed to have seized his
heart, to have pressed from it the life blood, and the result
was--death. And when he died, his body exhibited the most marked
symptoms of this fearful disease. He was convulsed from head to foot.
You could have rested him on his head and heels--his hands were clasped
with a grasp that it required force to overcome, and his feet assumed an
arched appearance. Then, if it was a case of tetanus--into which fact I
will not waste your time by inquiry--the question arises, was it a case
of tetanus produced by strychnia? I will confine myself for a moment to
the exhibition of the symptoms as described by the witnesses. Tetanus
may proceed from natural causes as well as from the administration of
poisons, and while the symptoms last they are the same. But in the
course of the symptoms, and before the disease reaches its consummation
in the death of the patient, the distinction between the two is marked
by characteristics which enable any one conversant with the subject to
distinguish between them. We have been told on the highest authority
that the distinctions are these--natural tetanus is a disease not of
minutes, not of hours, but of days. It takes--say several other
witnesses--from three to four days; and will extend to a period of even
three weeks before the patient dies. Upon that point we have the most
abundant and conclusive evidence of Dr. Curling; we have the evidence of
Dr. Brodie; we have the evidence of Dr. Daniel, a gentleman who has seen
something like twenty-five or thirty cases; we have the evidence of a
gentleman who has practised twenty-five years in India, where these
cases, arising from cold, are infinitely more frequent; and he gives
exactly the same description of the course which this disease invariably
takes. Idiopathic or traumatic tetanus is therefore out of the question,
upon the evidence which has been given. But traumatic tetanus is out of
the question for a very different reason. Traumatic tetanus is brought
on by the lesion of some part of the body. But what is there in this
case to show that there was anything like lesion at all. We have had
several gentlemen called, who have come here with an evident
determination to misconceive and misrepresent every fact. We have called
before you an eminent physician, who had Cook under his care.
It seems that, in the spring of the year 1855, Cook, having found
certain small spots manifest themselves in one or two parts of his body,
and having something of an ulcerated tongue and a sore throat, conceived
that he was labouring under symptoms of a particular character. He
addressed himself to Dr. Savage, who found that the course of medicine
he had been pursuing was an erroneous one. He enjoined the
discontinuance of mercury. His injunction was obeyed, and the result was
that the patient was suffering neither from disease nor wrong treatment.
But lest there should be any possibility of mistake, Dr. Savage says
that long before the summer advanced every unsatisfactory symptom had
entirely gone; there was nothing wrong about him, except that affection
of the throat, to which thousands of people are subject. In other
respects, the man was better than he had been, and might be said to be
convalescent. On the very day that he leaves London to go into the
country, a fortnight before the races, his stepfather, who accompanied
him to the station, congratulated him upon his healthy and vigorous
appearance, and, the young man, conscious of a restored state of health,
struck his breast, and said “He was well, very well.” Then he goes to
Shrewsbury, and shortly afterwards arose those matters to which I am
about to call your attention. I want to know in what part of the
evidence there is the slightest pretence for saying that this man had an
affection which might bring on traumatic tetanus? It is said that he had
exhibited his tongue to witnesses, and applied for a mercurial wash, but
it is clear that, although he had at one time adopted that course, he
had, under the recommendation of Dr. Savage, got rid of it, and there is
no pretence for saying he was suffering under any syphilitic affection
of any kind. That fact has been negatived by a man of the highest
authority and eminence. It is a pretence for which there was not a
shadow of a foundation, and I should shrink from my duty if I did not
denounce it as a pretence unworthy of your attention. There was nothing
about the man which would warrant, for a single moment, the supposition
that there was anything of that character in any part of his body when
the tetanus set in. One or two cases of traumatic tetanus have been
adduced in the evidence which has been brought forward for the defence.
One is the case of a man in the London Hospital, who was brought into
that institution one evening, and died the same night. But what are the
facts? The facts are, that before he had been brought in he had had a
paroxysm early in the morning--that he was suffering from ulcers of the
most aggravated description. The symptoms had run their course rapidly,
it is true, but the case was not one of minutes, but of hours. Another
case has been brought forward in which a toe was amputated, but there we
have disease existing some time before death. But then it is suggested
that this may be a case of idiopathic tetanus proceeding from--what?
They say that Cook was a man of delicate constitution, subject to
excitement; that he had something the matter with his chest; that in
addition to having something the matter with his chest, he had the
diseased condition of throat; and putting all these things together,
they say that if the man took cold he might get idiopathic tetanus.
We are here launched into a sea of speculations and possibilities. Dr.
Nunneley, who comes here for the purpose of inducing you to believe
there was something like idiopathic tetanus, goes through supposed
infirmities, and talks about his excitability, his delicacy of chest,
his affection of the throat, and he says these things would predispose
to idiopathic tetanus if he took colds. But what evidence is there that
he did take cold? Not the slightest in the world. There is not the
smallest pretence that he ever complained of a cold, or was treated for
a cold. I cannot help saying that it seems to me that it is a scandal
upon a learned, and distinguished, and liberal profession, that men
should come forward to put forth such speculations upon these perverted
facts, and draw from them sophistical and unwarrantable conclusions,
with a view to deceive you. I have the greatest respect for science. No
man can have more. But I cannot repress my indignation and abhorrence
when I see it perverted and prostituted for the purposes of a particular
case in a court of justice. Dr. Nunneley talked to you about certain
excitements being the occasion of idiopathic tetanus. You remember the
sorts of excitement of which he spoke. They are unworthy of your notice.
They were topics discreditable to be put forward by a witness as worthy
of your consideration. But, suppose for a single moment that excitement
at the time could produce any such effect, where is the excitement
manifested by Cook as leading to the supposed disease? They say that the
man, when he won his money at Shrewsbury, was for a moment excited. And
well he might be. His fortunes depended upon the result of the race, and
I will not deny that he was overpowered with emotions of joy. But those
emotions subsided, and we have no further trace of them from that time
to the moment of his death. The man passed the rest of the day with his
friends in ordinary conversation and enjoyment. No trace of emotion was
found. He is taken ill. He goes to Rugeley. He is taken ill there again.
But is there the slightest symptom of excitement about him, or of
depression? Not the least. When he is ill, like most people, he is low
spirited. As soon as he gets a little better, he is cheerful and happy.
He invites his friends and converses with them. On the night of his
death his conversation is cheerful. He is mirthful and happy, little
thinking, poor fellow, of the fate that was depending over him. He is
cheerful, and talks of the future, but not in language of excitement.
What pretence is there for this idle story about excitement? None
whatever. But even if there were excitement or depression--if these
things were capable of producing idiopathic tetanus, the character of
the disease is so essentially different that it is impossible to mistake
the two. What are the cases which they attempt to set up against us?
They brought forward a Mary Watson, who, with a gentleman, came all the
way from some place in Scotland to tell us that a girl had been ill all
day, that she is taken worse at night, that she gets well in a short
time, and goes about her business. That is a case which they brought
here to be compared with the death agony of this man. These are the sort
of cases with which they attempt to meet such a case as is spoken to
here. Gentlemen, I venture, upon the evidence which has been brought
before you, to assert boldly, that the cases of idiopathic and traumatic
tetanus are marked by clear and distinct characteristics distinguishing
them from the tetanus of strychnine; and I say that the tetanus which
accompanied Cook’s death is not referable to either of these forms of
tetanus. You have, upon this point, the evidence of men of the highest
competency and most unquestionable integrity, and upon their evidence, I
am satisfied, you can come to no other conclusion than that this was not
a case of either idiopathic or traumatic tetanus. But, then, various
attempts have been made to set up different causes as capable of
producing this tetanic disease. And first, we have the theory of general
convulsions; and Dr. Nunneley having gone through the beadroll of the
supposed infirmities of Cook, says, “Oh, this may have been a case of
general convulsions--I have known general convulsions assuming a tetanic
character!” I said to him, “Have you ever seen one single case in which
death arising from general convulsions accompanied with tetanic symptoms
has not ended in the unconsciousness of the patient?” He says, “No, I
never heard of such a case, not one; but in some book or other, I am
told, there is some such case reported,” and he cites, for that purpose,
as an authority for general convulsions being accompanied with tetanic
symptoms, Dr. Copland.
Now, Dr. Copland, I apprehend, would stand higher as an authority than
the man who quotes him. Dr. Copland might have been called, but was not
called, notwithstanding the challenge which I threw out, because it is,
unfortunately, easier for the case to gather together from the east and
from the west practitioners of more or less celebrity, than to bring to
bear on the subject the light of science as treasured in the books of
the eminent practitioners whom you have seen. But, I say, as regards
general convulsions, the distinction is plain. If they destroy the
patient, they destroy consciousness. But here, unquestionably, at the
very last moment, until Cook’s heart ceased to beat, his consciousness
remained. But then comes another supposed condition from which death in
this form is said to have resulted, and that is the cause intended to be
set up by a very eminent practitioner, Dr. Partridge. It seems that in
the _post-mortem_ examination of Cook, when the spinal marrow was
investigated, some granules were found, and it is said these may have
occasioned tetanic convulsions similar to those found in Cook. He is
called to prove that this was a case of what is called arachnitis,
arising from granules. I asked him the symptoms which he would find in
such a case. I called his attention to what it had evidently not been
called before--namely, the symptoms in Cook’s case; and I asked him, in
simple terms, whether, looking at these symptoms, he would pledge his
reputation, in the face of the medical world, and in the face of this
court, that this was a case of arachnitis. He would not do so, and the
case of arachnitis went. Then we have a gentleman who comes all the way
from Scotland to inform us, as the next proposition, that Cook’s was a
case of epileptic convulsions, with tetanic complications. Well, I asked
him the question, “Did you ever know of epilepsy, with or without
tetanic complications, in which consciousness was not destroyed before
the patient died?” His reply was, “No, I cannot say that I ever did, but
I have read in some book that such a case has occurred.” “Is there
anything to make you think this was epilepsy?--It may have been
epilepsy, because I don’t know what else it was.” “But you must admit
that epilepsy is characterised generally by loss of consciousness; what
difference would the tetanic complications have made?” That he was
unable to explain. I remind you of this species of evidence, in which
the witnesses have resorted to the most speculative reasoning, and put
forward the barest possibilities without the shadow of foundation. But
this I undertake to assert, that there is not a single case to which
they have spoken from their experience, or as the result of their own
knowledge, on which there were the formidable and decisive symptoms of
marked tetanus which existed in this case.
Having gone through these three sets of diseases--general convulsions,
arachnitis, epilepsy proper, and epilepsy with tetanic complications, I
supposed we had pretty nearly exhausted the whole of these scientific
theories. But we are destined to have another, and that assumed the
formidable name of angina pectoris. It must have struck you when my
learned friend opened his case, that he never ventured to assert the
nature of the disease to which they refer the death of Cook; and it
strikes me as most remarkable that no less than four distinct and
separate theories are set up by the witnesses who have been
called--general convulsions, arachnitis, epilepsy with tetanic
complications, and lastly, angina pectoris. My learned friend had this
advantage in not stating to you what his medical witnesses would set up,
because I admit that one after another they took me by surprise. The
gentleman who was called yesterday, and who talked of angina pectoris,
would not have escaped so easily if I had been in possession of the
books to which he referred, for I should have been able to expose the
ignorance, the presumption, of the assertions he dared to make. I say
ignorance and presumption, and what is worse, an intention to deceive. I
assert it in the face of the whole medical profession, and I am sure I
can prove it. These medical witnesses, one and all, differ in the views
they take on the subject; but there is a remarkable coincidence between
the views of some of them and the views of those who have been examined
on the other side. Dr. Partridge, Dr. Robinson, and Dr. Letheby, the
most eminent of the witnesses whom my learned friend has called, agreed
with the statements of Dr. Brodie and other witnesses, that in the whole
of their experience, and in the whole range of their learning and
observations, they know of no known disease to which the symptoms in
Cook’s case can be referred. When such men as these agree upon any
point, it is impossible to exaggerate its importance. If it be the fact
that there is no known disease which can account for such symptoms as
those in Cook’s case, and that they are referable to poison alone, can
you have any doubt that that poison was strychnia? The symptoms, at all
events, from the time the paroxysms set in, are precisely the same.
Distinctions are sought to be made by the sophistry of the witnesses for
the defence between some of the antecedent symptoms and some of the
others. I think I shall show you that these distinctions are imaginary
and that there is no foundation for them. I think I may say that the
witnesses called for the defence admit this, that, from the time the
paroxysms set in, of which Cook died, until the time of his death, the
symptoms are precisely similar to that of tetanus by strychnine. But
then they say--and this is worthy of most particular attention--there
are points of difference which have led them to the conclusion that
these symptoms could not have resulted from strychnine.
In the first place, they say that the period which elapsed between the
supposed administration of the poison and the first appearance of the
symptoms is longer than they have observed in the animals on which they
have experimented. The first observation which arises is this: that
there is a known difference between animal and human life, in the power
with which certain specific things act upon their organisation. It may
well be that poison administered to a rabbit will produce its effect in
a given time. It by no means follows that it will produce the same
effect in the same time on an animal of a different description. Still
less does it follow that it will exercise its baneful influence in the
same time on a human subject. The whole of the evidence on both sides
leads to establish this fact, that not only in individuals of different
species, but between individuals of the same species, the same poison
and the same influence will produce effects different in degree,
different in duration, different in power. But, again, it is perfectly
notorious that the rapidity with which the poison begins to work depends
mainly upon the mode of its administration. If it is administered in a
fluid state, it acts with greater rapidity. If it is given in a solid
state, its effects come on more slowly. If it is given in an indurated
substance, it will act with still greater tardiness. Then what was the
period at which this poison began to act after its administration,
assuming it to have been poison? It seems, from Mr. Jones’s statement,
that the pills were administered somewhere about eleven o’clock. They
were not administered on his first arrival, for the patient, as if with
an intuitive sense of the death that awaited him, strongly resisted the
attempts to make him take them; and no doubt these remonstrances, and
the endeavours to overcome them, occupied some period of time. The pills
were at last given. Assuming, which I only do for the sake of argument,
that the pills contained strychnine, how soon did they begin to operate?
Mr. Jones says he went down to supper, and came back again about twelve
o’clock. Upon his return to the room, after a word or two of
conversation with Cook, he proceeded to undress and go to bed, and had
not been in bed ten minutes before a warning came that another of the
paroxysms was to take place. The maid servant puts it still earlier, and
it appears that so early as ten minutes before twelve the first alarm
was given, which would make the interval little more than a quarter of
an hour. When these witnesses tell us that it would take an hour and a
half, or two hours, we see here another of those exaggerated
determinations to see the facts only in the way that will be the most
favourable to the prisoner. I find in some of the experiments that have
been made that the duration of time, before the poison begins to work,
has been little, if anything, less than an hour.
In the case of the girl at Glasgow, it was stated that it was
three-quarters of an hour before the pills began to work. There may have
been some reason for the pills not taking effect within a certain period
after their administration. It would be easy to mix them up with
substances difficult of solution, or which might retard their action. I
cannot bring myself to believe that, if in all other respects you are
perfectly satisfied that the symptoms, the consequences, the effects
were analogous, and similar in all respects to those produced by
strychnine, it is not because the pills have been taken only a quarter
of an hour that you will say strychnine was not administered in this
case. But they say the premonitory symptoms were wanting, and they say
that in the case of animals, the animal at first manifests some
uneasiness, shrinks, and draws itself into itself as it were, and avoids
moving; that certain involuntary twitchings about the head come on--and
they say there were no premonitory symptoms in Cook’s case. I utterly
deny the proposition, I say there were premonitory symptoms of the most
marked character. He is lying in his bed; he suddenly starts up in an
agony of alarm. What made him do that? Was there nothing
premonitory--nothing that warned him the paroxysm was coming on? He
jumps up, says “Go and fetch Palmer--fetch me help--I am going to be ill
as I was last night.” What was that but a knowledge that the symptoms of
the previous night were returning, and a warning of what he might expect
unless some relief were obtained? He sits up and prays to have his neck
rubbed. What was the feeling about his neck but a premonitory symptom,
which was to precede the paroxysms which were to supervene? He begs to
have his neck rubbed, and that gives him some comfort. But here they say
this could not have been tetanus from strychnia, because animals cannot
bear to be touched, for a touch brings on a paroxysm--not only a touch,
but a breath of air, a sound, a word, a movement of any one near will
bring on a return of the paroxysm.
Now in two cases of death from strychnine we have shown that the patient
has endured the rubbing of his limbs, and received satisfaction from
that rubbing. We produced a third case. In Mrs. Smyth’s case, when her
legs were distorted, she prayed and entreated that she might have them
straightened. The lady at Leeds, in the case which Dr. Nunneley himself
attended, implored her husband, between the spasms, to rub her legs and
arms in order to overcome the rigidity. That case was within his own
knowledge; and yet in spite of it, although he detected strychnine in
the body of the unhappy woman, he dares to say that Cook’s having
tolerated the rubbing between the paroxysms is a proof that he had not
taken strychnia. But there is a third case--the case of Clutterbuck. He
had taken an overdose of strychnia, and suffered from the re-appearance
of tetanus, and his only comfort was to have his legs rubbed. And,
therefore, I say that the continued endeavour to persuade a jury that
the fact of Cook’s having had his neck rubbed proves that this is not
tetanus by strychnia, shows nothing but the dishonesty and insincerity
of the witnesses who have so dared to pervert the facts. But they go
further, and say that Cook was able to swallow. So he was before the
paroxysms came on; but nobody has ever pretended that he could swallow
afterwards. He swallowed the pills, and, what is very curious, and
illustrates part of the theory, is this--that it was the act of
swallowing the pills, a sort of movement in raising his head, which
brought on the violent paroxysm in which he died. So far from militating
against the supposition that this was a case of strychnine, the fact
strongly confirms it. Then they call our attention to the appearances
after death, and they say there are circumstances to be found which
militate against this being a case of strychnine. They say the limbs
became rigid either at the time of death or immediately after, and that
ought not to be found in a case of strychnia. Dr. Nunneley says, “I have
always found the limbs of animals become flaccid before death, and have
not found them become rigid after death.” Now, I can hardly believe that
statement.
The very next witness who got into the box told us that he had made two
experiments upon cats, and killed them both, and he described them as
indurated and contracted when he found them some hours after death. And
yet the presence of rigidity in the body immediately after death is put
forth by Dr. Nunneley as one of his reasons for saying this is not a
death by strychnia, although Dr. Taylor told us that, in the case of one
of the cats, the rigidity of the body was so great that he could hold it
out by the leg in a horizontal position. Notwithstanding that evidence,
Dr. Nunneley has the audacity to say that he does not believe this is a
case of strychnine, because there was rigidity of the limbs, because the
feet were distorted, and the hands clinched, and the muscles rigid. This
shows what you are to think of the honesty of this sort of evidence, in
which facts are selected because they make in favour of particular
hypotheses of the party advancing them. The next thing that is said is
that the heart was empty, and that in the animals operated upon by Dr.
Nunneley and Dr. Letheby, the heart was full. I don’t think that applies
to all cases. But it is a remarkable fact connected with the history of
the poison that you never can rely upon the precise form of its
symptoms and appearances. There are only certain great, leading, marked,
characteristic features. We have here the main, marked, leading,
characteristic features; and we have what is more, collateral incidents,
similar to the cases in which the administration and the fact of death
have been proved beyond all possibility of dispute. Why, in two cases
which have been mentioned--that of Mrs. Smyth and the Glasgow girl--the
heart was congested and empty. We know that in cases of tetanus death
may result from more than one cause. All the muscles of the body are
subject to the exciting action of the poison. But no one can tell in
what order these muscles may be affected, or where the poisonous
influence will put forth. When it arrests the play of the lungs and the
breathing of the atmospheric air, the result will be that the heart is
full; but if some spasm siezes on the heart, the heart will be empty.
You have never any perfect certainty as to the mode in which the
symptoms will exhibit themselves. But this is brought forward as a
conclusive fact against death by strychnine, and yet these men who make
this statement under the sanction of scientific authority, have heard
both cases spoken to by the gentlemen who examined the bodies. Then with
regard to congestion of the brain, and other vessels, the same
observation applies. Instead of being killed by action on the
respiratory muscles of the heart, death is the result of a long series
of paroxysms, and you expect to find the brain and other vessels
congested by that series of convulsive spasms. As death takes place from
one or other of these causes, so will the appearances be. There is every
reason to believe that the symptoms in this case were symptoms of
tetanus in the strongest and most aggravated form. Looking at the
symptoms which attended this unhappy man, setting aside the theory of
convulsions of epilepsy, of arachnitis, and angina pectoris, and
excluding idiopathic and traumatic tetanus--what remains? The tetanus of
strychnine, and the tetanus of strychnine alone. And I pray your
attention to the cases in which there was no question as to strychnine
having been administered in which the symptoms were so similar--the
symptoms so analogous--that I think you cannot hesitate to come to the
conclusion that this death was death by strychnine.
Several witnesses of the highest eminence, both on the part of the Crown
and for the defence, agree that in the whole range of their experience,
observation, and knowledge, they have known of no natural disease to
which these remarkable symptoms can be attributed. That being so, and
there being a known poison, which will produce them, how strong, how
cogent, how irresistible is the conclusion that it is that poison, and
that poison alone, to which they are to be attributed. On the other
hand, the case is not without its difficulties. Strychnia was not found
in this body, and we have it no doubt upon strong evidence, that in a
great variety of experiments upon the bodies of animals, killed by
strychnia, strychnia has been detected by tests which science placed at
the disposal of scientific men. If strychnia had been found, of course
there would have been no difficulty in the case, and we should have had
none of the ingenious theories which medical gentlemen have been called
here to propound. The question for your consideration is, whether the
absence of its detection leads conclusively to the view that this death
was not caused by the administration of strychnia. Now, in the first
place, under what circumstances was the examination made by Dr. Taylor
and Dr. Rees. They told us that the stomach of the man was brought to
them for analysation under the most unfavourable circumstances. They
state that the contents of the stomach had been lost, and therefore they
had no opportunity of experimenting upon them. It is true that they who
put the portions of the body into the jar make statements somewhat
different. But there appears to have been by accident some spilling of
the contents, and there is the most undeniable evidence of considerable
bungling in the way in which the stomach had been cut and placed in the
jar. It was cut, says Dr. Taylor, from end to end, and it was tied up at
both ends. It had been turned among the intestines, and placed amongst a
mass of feculent matter, and was in the most unsatisfactory condition
for analysation. It is very true that Dr. Nunneley, Mr. Herapath, and
Dr. Sotheby say that whatever impurities there may have been, if
strychnia had been in the stomach they would have found strychnia there.
I should have had every confidence in the testimony of Mr. Herapath if
he had not confessed a fact which had come to my knowledge, that he had
asserted that this was a case of poisoning, but that they did not go the
right way to find it out. I reverence the man who, from a sense of
justice and love of truth, will come forward in favour of any man for
the purpose of stating what he believes to be true; but I abhor the
trafficked testimony which I regret to see men of science sometimes
advance. But, assuming all they say to be true, as to the case of
detecting strychnine, is it certain that it can be found in all cases?
Dr. Taylor says no; and it would be a most mischievous and dangerous
proposition to assert that it is necessarily so, for it enables many a
guilty man to escape, who, by administering the smallest quantity
necessary to destroy life, might prevent its detection in the stomach.
What have these gentlemen done? They have given large doses in the
experiments they have made for the purposes of this case, in which they
have been retained--I use the word “retained,” for it is the proper
word--in all these cases, I say, they have given doses large enough to
be detected. But the gentlemen who made the experiments in Cook’s case
failed in detecting strychnine in two cases out of four in which they
had administered it to animals. The conclusion I draw is that there is
no positive mode of detection. But this case does not rest here. Alas, I
wish it did! I must now draw your attention to one part of the case
which has not been met or attempted to be disputed in the slightest
degree by my learned friend. My learned friend said that he would
contest the case for the prosecution step by step. Alas! we are now upon
ground upon which my friend has not even ventured a word in explanation.
Was the prisoner at the bar possessed of the poison of strychnia? This
is a matter with which it behoved my learned friend to deal, and to
exhaust all the means in his power in order to meet this part of the
case. The prisoner obtained possession of strychnia on the Monday night.
It is true that the evidence of the man who sold the strychnia to
Palmer, as I stated at the outset of these proceedings, and I repeat it
now, must be received with care and attention. Now Newton said that on
the night when Palmer came back from London, he came to him and obtained
three grains of that poison, the symptoms and effects of which are
precisely similar to those which are stated to have occurred in the case
of this poor man. With respect to the evidence of Newton, my learned
friend has done no more than repeat the warning which I gave you at the
commencement of the case. You have heard the reason assigned by the
witness why he did not state the fact of his having sold strychnine to
the prisoner on the previous evening, before the coroner, and you will
judge of the value of the explanation which he gave. Upon the other
hand, there is the consideration, what conceivable motive could this
young man have had for now coming forward and deposing to the fact of
his having sold this poison to the prisoner, except a sense of truth. My
learned friend has very justly and very properly asked for your most
attentive consideration to the question of the motives involved in this
part of the evidence, before you can come to the conclusion of the
prisoner having taken away, with malice and forethought, the life of
another.
Hideous though may be the crime of taking away life by poison, it is
probably not so horrible to contemplate as the motive of a judicial
murder effected by a false witness against a man’s life. Can you suppose
that this young man Newton could have the shadow of any such motive in
coming forward in a court like this to take away the life of the
prisoner at the bar, as, alas! his evidence must do, if you believe him.
If you believe the witness that, on the Monday night, for no other
conceivable and assignable purpose except the deed of darkness to be
committed that night, the prisoner at the bar obtained from him the
fatal means and instrument whereby Cook was to be destroyed, it is
impossible that you can come to any other conclusion than that the
prisoner is guilty of the foul deed with which he stands charged at the
bar. My learned friend says that Newton did not speak truth, because,
first, he did not make this statement before the coroner; and, secondly,
because Newton laid the time of Palmer’s arrival at nine o’clock,
whereas he did not arrive until ten o’clock. Now Newton only stated that
it was about nine o’clock, and every one knows how easy it is to make a
slight mistake as to the hour when there is nothing particular to fix
the event on the memory. My learned friend has sought to meet this part
of the case. He has produced a witness, all I can say of whom is, that
for the sake of the prisoner at the bar, I trust you will not allow him
to be affected by anything which that most disreputable witness,
Jeremiah Smith, has stated. Now Dr. Bamford said that Palmer told him he
had himself seen Cook between nine and ten o’clock, while Smith said
that they did not leave the car until past ten o’clock. With respect to
the evidence of Smith that he saw Palmer alight from the car, go from
thence to the house of Palmer’s mother, I ask you not to believe one
single word of it, because I do not myself believe a single word of his
evidence. Certainly such a miserable spectacle as that witness in the
box, I have never seen surpassed in a court of justice. He is a member
of the legal profession, and I blush that such a member is to found upon
the rolls. There was not one who heard his evidence who was not
satisfied that the man came here to tell a falsehood--not one who was
not convinced that he was mixed up in many of the villanies which, if
not perpetrated, were, at all events, contemplated, and that he came
here to save the life of his companion and friend, and the son of the
woman with whom he had that intimacy the nature of which he sought in
vain to disguise. I cannot but think that, looking to the whole of this
part of the case, you must believe the evidence of Newton, and if you do
so believe it, then that evidence is conclusive of the case. But the
case does not stop there, because we have the most indisputable evidence
that on the following day Palmer purchased more strychnine at the shop
of Mr. Hawkins.
You remember the circumstance connected with that purchase, Palmer’s
first asking for some prussic acid, and then ordering some strychnine to
be put up for him, Newton coming in, and the prisoner calling him out of
the shop to speak to him of the most unimportant matters. Why did the
prisoner take Newton out of the shop? Evidently because he wished to
avoid exciting suspicions which would very naturally be raised in the
mind of Newton, from the fact of the prisoner having purchased strychnia
on two occasions, and who would very naturally inquire for what purpose
it was that the prisoner wanted nine grains of strychnine. Why did the
prisoner go to Hawkins’s shop to purchase the poison? The reason was
clear. If he had gone to Thirlby’s, who was his former assistant, he
would naturally have asked Palmer for whom the strychnine was intended.
Why the prisoner should have gone on two successive days and purchased
the poison is one of those mysteries attending this case which I cannot
explain. At all events, it is quite clear that he did so. But if there
is some difficulty in this part of the case, there is, on the other
hand, a still greater difficulty arising from the use to which this
poison was to be put. If it was for the purpose of professional use, for
the benefit of some patient, where is the patient, and why was he not
produced? My learned friend passed over this part of the case in
mysterious but significant silence. Account for that six grains of
strychnia. Throw a doubt, if you please, on the purchase of the
strychnine on the Monday night, but on Tuesday it is unquestionably true
that six grains were purchased. If these six grains were required for
the use of any patients, why were they not produced, and if for any
other purpose why was it not explained?
Has there been the slightest shadow of attempt to show the use to which
the poison was applied? Alas! no. Something was said at the outset about
dogs which were troublesome in the paddock to the prisoner’s mares and
foals, but that was proved to have been in September. And if there had
been any recurrence of this annoyance why was it not proved in evidence?
If it were used for the purpose of destroying dogs some one must have
assisted him in the act. Why were they not called? But not only were
these persons not called, they were not even named. I ask you what
conclusion you can draw from these circumstances, except this one, that
the death of Cook took place with all the symptoms of poison by
strychnia--death in all the convulsions and throes which that deadly
poison produces in the frame of man.
It is said by my learned friend that Palmer might easily have purchased
strychnine at London, and that he would not have purchased it in Rugeley
on two occasions, if he had intended to have used it for a criminal
purpose. I admit the fact, and feel the full force of the observation;
and if he could have shown any proper use to which the poison was
applied, the assertion would have been one well worthy of your
consideration. But, how do the facts stand with respect to Palmer’s
visit to London? He might, it is true, have purchased strychnine there.
But, then, on the occasion of his visit he had a great deal to do; he
had to catch the train; he had pecuniary difficulties to settle and
arrange; and even then it would have required the certificate of one
other person in order to have obtained the strychnine, as he was not
known in London as a medical practitioner. But what avail all these
suppositions, when we have, on the other hand, the strong and
unmistakeable evidence that the prisoner did actually purchase the
strychnine at Rugeley? Well, then, it has been said that the fact of the
prisoner having called in two medical men, was strong presumptive
evidence to negate his guilt. It is true that he called in Dr. Bamford,
and wrote to Dr. Jones to come and see Cook. Now, as medical men, it is
true, that they would be very likely to know the symptoms of death by
strychnine. But there is a point in this part of the case which deserves
notice. If these symptoms exhibited were not those resulting from
strychnia, but were referable to that multiform variety of diseases to
which the witnesses have referred, there is no reason why the prisoner
should have any credit for sending for these medical gentlemen. It is
quite true that he called on old Dr. Bamford. I speak of that gentleman
in no terms of disrespect, but still I think I do him no injustice when
I say that the vigour of his intellect and the powers of his mind have
been impaired, as all human powers are liable to be, by the advance of
age. I do not think he was a person likely to make any very shrewd
observation as to the cause of the death of Cook; and the best proof of
this is to be found in what he did and what he wrote on the subject.
As regards Mr. Jones, these observations do not apply, for he was a man
in the possession of the full powers of mind. The prisoner selected
Jones, and the result proved how wise he was in making that selection.
The death of Cook occurred in the presence of Jones, with all those
painful symptoms you have heard described, and yet Jones suspected
nothing, and if the prisoner had succeeded in introducing Cook’s body
into that “strong oak coffin” which he had made for him, the body would
have been consigned to the grave, and nobody would have known anything
of these proceedings, while the presence of Jones and Dr. Bamford would
have been used to prevent any suspicion. On the other hand, it is not at
all improbable that the prisoner might have thought that the best mode
of disarming all suspicions would be to take care that some medical men
should be called in, and should be present at the time of death. There
is nothing to show that the prisoner entertained the most distant notion
that Jones would have to sleep in the same room as Cook, and if this had
not been the case, they would have found in the morning that Cook had
gone through his mortal struggle, and had died there alone and
unfriended. Cook would have been found dead next morning, and the old
man would have said he died of apoplexy, and the young man that he died
of epilepsy; and had any suspicion been awakened, it would have been
urged in reply, as it has been by my learned friend, that two medical
men were called in by the prisoner previous to his death. But the case
does not end here. We have had a great many witnesses who have told us a
great deal about strychnia, but none that have said a word about
antimony.
On the Wednesday night, at Shrewsbury, when Cook drank a glass of brandy
and water, he said that there was something in it which burned his
throat, and was afterwards seized with vomiting, which lasted for
several hours. On that same night, Mrs. Brooks saw the prisoner shaking
something in a glass. It is a remarkable fact, that when Cook drank that
brandy and water, he was taken ill a few minutes after. There were, it
is true, other persons taken ill at Shrewsbury about the same time; but
still you will have to bear in mind that scene of the shaking up of the
fluid in the glass in the passage, the fact that Cook was somewhat in
liquor, and that in that state he ought not to have been told by the
prisoner that he would not drink any more unless he finished his glass.
Pass on, however, to Rugeley. You still find that Cook was under the
influence of the same symptoms as those which he suffered at Shrewsbury.
You have the fact of the prisoner sending him over toast and water and
broth, and that no sooner had the poor man taken these things than he is
seized with incessant vomitings of the most painful character. Then,
too, there was the broth, said to have been sent by Smith from the
Albion, which was sent, however, not to the Talbot Inn, but to the
prisoner’s kitchen. This broth was taken over to the Talbot by the
prisoner himself, and as soon as it was touched by Cook, vomitings
followed. There is, too, the fact that the servant at the Talbot, after
taking two spoonfuls of the broth, was ill for several hours, and
vomited something like twenty times. Then, again, on the Monday, when
the prisoner was absent, Cook was found to be better; but upon the
Tuesday, when he returned to Rugeley, the vomitings again returned. Now,
the important fact is, that antimony was found in the tissues of the
poor man’s body, and in his blood; and the presence of the antimony in
the blood shows that it must have been taken within the last forty-eight
hours before death. The small quantity found does not afford, however,
the slightest criterion of the whole quantity administered. A part of
the quantity given would be thrown up in the vomiting.
Something has been said about Cook having taken the antimony in “James’s
powder,” but not a tittle of evidence has been given that he ever took
any of these powders, while the presence of the antimony in the blood
proved that it had been administered within, forty-eight hours of death.
I believe that you will feel that you have a right to conclude from all
the evidence that has been brought before you upon this point, that
antimony had been administered to Cook in a mode and in quantities which
showed that it could have been given for no legitimate object; and
further, that it must have been administered by the prisoner. And from
these facts you will see how great is the probability that he must, in
that case, have acted with the view of carrying out a fatal resolution
previously formed; for it is well known that antimony has often been
given in amounts capable of destroying life. But let us take into
consideration the conduct of the prisoner in the afterstages of the
case, and let us look at what took place on the day of Cook’s death. On
the preceding night he had suffered from what was indisputably a most
severe attack. Dr. Bamford sees Palmer on the Tuesday morning, and not a
word is said to him about that attack. The prisoner manifests an anxiety
that he should not see the deceased; he states that Cook is quiet, and
is dosing, and that he does not wish to have him disturbed. That might
be. But on the other hand it must be remembered that if Dr. Bamford had
seen Cook in the morning, Cook would in all probability have made known
to him his frightful suffering of the night before, as they must then
have formed the subject which was, of all others, the most present to
his memory. Dr. Bamford, however, did not see the deceased until seven
o’clock on the Tuesday evening, when he was much better. Palmer had then
talked of his having suffered from a bilious affection; and it is a
remarkable fact that he had more than once represented the illness of
Cook as one arising from a bilious attack, both to Dr. Bamford and Dr.
Jones, although the patient had exhibited none of the symptoms which
ordinarily accompany a bilious constitution. The moment Dr. Jones saw
him he made the observation that his “tongue was not that of a bilious
patient,” and the answer he got from Palmer was, “Oh, you should have
seen him before.” Seen him when before? There was not the slightest
ground for supposing that he had been suffering from any bilious
complaint, either at Shrewsbury or since his arrival at Rugeley. But not
one word did Palmer say to Dr. Jones about the fit of Cook on the night
before. Well, the three medical men consulted together, by the bedside
of the patient, and then Cook turned round and said, “Mind, I will have
no more pills and medicine, to-night,” remembering, as he no doubt did
at the time, his illness of the preceding night. No observation was made
even then by Palmer as to what had been the nature of Cook’s attack on
the night before; but the medical men having withdrawn into the
adjoining room or lobby, Palmer immediately proposed that Cook should
again take the same pills he had taken on the previous night; but he
desired Jones not to say anything to him about what they contained, lest
he might object to take them.
It was then arranged that the pills should be made up, and Palmer
proposed that they should be compounded by Dr. Bamford, although it was
then early in the evening, and he might easily have prepared them on his
own premises. He accompanied Dr. Bamford to the surgery of the latter;
and after the pills had been made up there, he asked Dr. Bamford to
write the address on them, and the address was so written. An interval
occurred of an hour or two, during which the prisoner had abundant
opportunities of going to his surgery, and doing what he pleased in the
way of changing the pills. He returned to the hotel, and before he gave
the pills to Cook he took care to call the attention of Jones, who was
present at the time, to the remarkable handwriting of an old gentleman
like Dr. Bamford, by whom the direction of the medicine had been
written. What necessity was there for that? Might it not have been part
of a preconceived design to save himself from any subsequent suspicion,
by his being able to state that the pills had been prepared by Dr.
Bamford? and might it not have been done for the purpose of disarming
any immediate suspicion on the part of Dr. Jones himself? Have we not
every reason to suppose that it may have been effectual in accomplishing
the latter result? Any one of these circumstances could not have been of
so decisive a character as to lead you to the conviction of the
prisoner’s guilt; but I ask you to consider them as a series of events
following one another in close succession; and I then leave it to you to
draw from them the conclusion to which you may find they must
legitimately lead. I will now pass over for a moment the remainder of
the history of the Tuesday night, and I will take you to the
circumstances which immediately followed Cook’s death. On the Thursday,
Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of the deceased, went over to Rugeley, on
receiving intelligence of the sad event. He applied to Palmer for
information upon the subject of Cook’s affairs; and in the course of the
communications which passed between them, Stevens said, “rich or poor,
the poor fellow should be buried.” Palmer then observed that he would
undertake to bury him himself, but Mr. Stevens declined, in a decisive
manner, to avail himself of that offer. I admit that there may be
nothing suspicious in the proposal of Palmer to bury his friend, if it
should be taken by itself, but there is this somewhat remarkable
circumstance in this part of the case, that when Mr. Stevens had said
that he could not have the funeral for a few days, Palmer observed that
“the body ought to be put into a coffin immediately;” and when, after an
absence of about half an hour, he returned, and was asked by Mr. Stevens
for the name of an undertaker to whom he should give directions about
the funeral, the prisoner stated, much to the surprise of the gentleman
whom he was addressing, that “he had himself ordered a shell and a
strong oak coffin.” Why should he have so hurriedly interfered in the
business of another man, unless he had made up his mind that the body
should be consigned to its last resting place, and removed from the
sight of man with the utmost possible rapidity?
You have heard the conversation which took place between Mr. Stevens and
the prisoner on the Saturday at the different railway stations at which
they met. It appears that at that time Mr. Stevens had made up his mind
that a _post-mortem_ examination of the body of the deceased should take
place, in consequence of circumstances which had engendered a suspicion
in his mind that the death of his step-son had not been the result of
natural disease. He had noticed the strange attitude of the
deceased--his clinched hands, and the unusual appearance of his
face--and being a man of natural shrewdness and sagacity, he felt a
lurking suspicion which he could not unravel, that there must have been
foul play in the case. He made known to the prisoner his intention of
having the body opened before it was consigned to the grave. It is true
that the prisoner did not flinch from that trying ordeal, and that he
met with firmness the trying gaze of Mr. Stevens, when the report of the
_post-mortem_ examination was first mentioned. But finding that there
was to be a _post-mortem_ examination, he was anxious to know who was to
perform it. Mr. Stevens would not inform him, but merely stated that it
was to take place on the Monday. Then we have on the Sunday that
remarkable conversation between the prisoner and Newton, which has been
for some time known to the Crown. It is true that Newton did not mention
the conversation in the course of his examination before the coroner;
but the reason for his silence upon the subject on that occasion may be
easily proved. He was called at the inquest solely for the purpose of
corroborating the evidence of Roberts with respect to Palmer’s
appearance in Dr. Hawkins’s shop on the Tuesday morning; and to that
point his evidence before the coroner was confined. He has since deposed
that during a conversation with Palmer on the Sunday, the latter
suddenly asked him, “What quantity of strychnine would you give if you
wanted to kill a dog?” The reply was, “From half-a-grain to a grain.”
The prisoner then asked, “Would you expect to find any traces of it in
the stomach after death;” Newton answered, “No;” and, on his doing so,
he observed the prisoner make a movement conveying an intimation of his
delight.
I had at one time thought that my learned friend engaged for the defence
would have attempted to show that the prisoner had purchased the
strychnia at the commencement of the week for the purpose of destroying
dogs; but no evidence whatever has been adduced to establish such a
point; and we had no evidence of any kind to show how that strychnia was
applied. But my learned friend has contended that the prisoner had no
motive for taking away the life of his friend, Cook. Now if I convince
you upon unimpeachable evidence that the death of Cook had bean caused
by strychnine, and that that strychnine could only have been
administered by the prisoner, then the question of motive must become a
mere secondary consideration. It is often difficult to dive into the
breast of man, and to ascertain with any certainty the reasons which
directed him to any particular course of action; and the inscrutable
character of any particular motive ought not to destroy the force of a
well-authenticated fact. But motive is unquestionably an important
element in a case over which any doubt as to the facts can by any
possibility rest. I believe I can perfectly satisfy your minds that in
this case the prisoner had a motive, and a very obvious motive, for
taking away the life of Cook. He was at the time reduced to a condition
of the direst embarrassment. It appears that in the month of November
last he owed on bills not less than £19,000, of which £12,500 worth was
in the hands of Pratt; and out of that latter sum £5,500 was pressing
for immediate payment. By the death of Cook he was enabled to obtain
possession of £1,020, due to the latter in the shape of bets; he was
enabled to obtain possession of the money which Cook must have had about
him on his arrival at Rugeley, and which, according to one of the
witnesses, must have amounted to £700 or £800; and he attempted to
obtain possession of the £350 which the Messrs. Weatherby were to have
received as the amount of the stakes of the Shrewsbury Handicap. The
order forwarded by Palmer to the Messrs. Weatherby for the £350, and
purporting to bear the signature of Cook, had been sent back by them to
the prisoner; and if that signature was not a forgery, why had it not
been produced on the part of the defendant?
My learned friend says that Cook was the best friend of the prisoner,
and that Cook was the only person to whom he could look for assistance
in his embarrassments. But Cook had no means of assisting him, unless he
were to appropriate to his use the money which he had won at Shrewsbury,
which was all the property he then possessed; and can any one believe
that the deceased would have parted with that money, and would have left
himself wholly without any resources for the approaching winter? My
learned friend contends that the fact that Palmer had written the letter
on the Friday night, in which he asked Fisher to pay £200 to Pratt, on
account of a transaction in which both he and Palmer were interested,
while £300 more were to be sent upon that night--my learned friend
contends that that fact shows that the prisoner and the deceased
perfectly understood one another at the time, and goes far to prove the
innocence of his client. To my mind, however, that very circumstance
affords a very strong argument in favour of the case for the Crown. The
only transaction with Pratt, in which Palmer and Cook were both
interested, was that relating to the bill for £500, and in which Cook
had assigned his horse as a collateral security. It is very easy to see
that he must have felt particularly anxious that that claim should at
once be settled, and that his horses should come into his own undisputed
possession, one of these horses being a very valuable one, namely,
Polestar, which had just won the Shrewsbury race. He accordingly, I have
no doubt, gave Palmer £300 to be sent up to London on account of that
bill; but that sum was never applied by the prisoner to the purpose for
which it had been placed in his hands. There is not the slightest
foundation for the statement that Cook had entered into an arrangement
with Palmer for the purpose of defrauding Fisher of the £200 he had
advanced; for there was nothing in his character which could show that
he was capable of so infamous an act, and it could not possibly have
been his interest that it should take place. I will not ask you to
direct your attention to the request addressed by the prisoner to
Cheshire, the postmaster, that he should bear his witness to the
genuineness of Cook’s signature to the order on the Messrs. Weatherby
for the sum of £350. That request was made forty-eight hours after
Cook’s death; and if the signature was not a forgery, why was that
extraordinary demand made of Cheshire, and why had not the document been
since produced? It is impossible to forget that if Cheshire had
testified to the genuineness of that document, the prisoner would have
been enabled to exercise over him the most fatal control, and that he
might then have compelled him to sign another paper, transferring, as
the prisoner had sought to do in the course of one of his conversations
with Mr. Stevens, to the deceased the liability for £4,000 or £5,000 due
on bills to Pratt, and outstanding in his own name.
All these facts show irrefragably, as I contend, that the death of Cook
had, in the opinion of the prisoner, become most desirable for his own
relief. There is another part of his conduct as tending to throw light
on this matter, and that is with reference to Cook’s betting book. On
the night when Cook died--ere the breath had hardly parted from that
poor man’s body--the prisoner was found there, rummaging his pockets,
and searching for his papers. When, subsequently, Stevens asked for the
betting book, the prisoner said, “Oh, it’s of no use, for a dead man’s
bets are void.” True it is that a dead man’s bets are void, but not when
they are paid during his life. Who received the bets? The prisoner at
the bar. Who was answerable for them? The prisoner at the bar. Who had
an interest in concealing the amount of those debts? The prisoner at the
bar. If Stevens had seen that book, he would have seen that Cook was
entitled to a sum of £1,020; he would have seen that Fisher was his
agent, and from him that Herring, and not Fisher, had calculated his
bets. But there is still more yet to be accounted for. When Stevens
determined upon having a _post-mortem_ examination, what was the conduct
of the prisoner at the bar? [The learned Attorney-General then
proceeded to refer to the arrival of Dr. Harland in the town of Rugeley
for the purpose of making the examination, his conversation with Palmer,
when the latter said that Cook had died of epileptic fits, and that
traces of old disease would be found in the head and heart, none of
which were, however, found on the examination of the body; the removal
of the jar containing the stomach and intestines of Cook, the slits cut
in the covering probably for the purpose of introducing something into
the jar, which would neutralise the poison if it were present, the
restlessness and uneasiness of the prisoner while the examination was
going on, his remonstrating with Dr. Bamford for letting the jars be
sent away, and his attempt to bribe the post-boy to upset the chaise and
break the jar.]
The conduct of Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of Cook, in resolving to
prosecute this inquiry, was such as the gravity and importance of the
case proved ought to have protected him from the charge of insolent
curiosity brought against him by my learned friend. The hon. and learned
gentleman then concluded as follows:--It is for you to say, under these
circumstances, whether or not the death of the deceased was caused by
the prisoner at the bar. You have indeed had introduced into this case
one other element which I cannot help thinking might well have been
omitted. You have heard from my learned friend an unusual, I think I may
even say an unprecedented, expression of the innocence of his client. I
can only say on that point that I believe my learned friend might have
abstained from any such statement. What would he think of me, if,
imitating his example, I should at this moment declare to you, on my
honour, as he did, what is the internal conviction which has followed
from my conscientious consideration of this case? My learned friend has,
with a full display of his great ability, also adopted another course,
which, although sometimes resorted to by members of our profession,
involves in my mind a species of insult to the good sense and the good
feeling of the jury; he has endeavoured to intimidate you by evoking
your own conscientious scruples for the purpose of preventing you from
adopting the only honest mode of discharging the great duty you are
called upon to perform. My learned friend told you that if your verdict
in this case should be Guilty, the innocence of the prisoner will one
day or other be made manifest, and you would never cease to regret the
verdict you had given. If my learned friend was sincere in that--and I
know that he was, for there is no man who is more alive than he is to
the claims of truth and honour--but if he said what he believed, all I
can state in answer is, that I can only attribute the conviction he has
expressed to that strong bias which his mind easily, perhaps, received
in directing all his energies to the defence of a man charged with this
frightful crime. But I still think he would have done well to have
abstained from any assurance of the innocence of the prisoner at the
bar. I go further, and say that I think he ought, in justice and in
consideration to you, to have abstained from telling you that the voice
of the country would not sanction the verdict which you might give. I
say nothing of the inconsistency which is involved in such a statement,
coming from one who but a short time before complained in eloquent terms
of the universal torrent of passion, and of prejudice by which, he said,
his client was borne down.
In answer to my learned friend, I have only this to say to you. Pay
no regard to the voice of the country, whether it be for
condemnation or for acquittal; pay no regard to anything but to the
internal voice of your own consciences; trust to the sense of that
duty to God and man, which you are about to discharge upon this
occasion, seeking no reward except the comforting assurance that
when you shall look back at the events of this trial you have
discharged, to the best of your ability, and to the utmost of your
power, the duty you have been called upon to fulfil. If, on a
review of the whole case, comparing the evidence on one side and on
the other, and weighing it in the even scales of justice, you can
come to the conclusion of the innocence, or even entertain that
fair and reasonable doubt of guilt, of which the accused is
entitled to the benefit, in God’s name give to him that benefit.
But if, on the other hand, all the facts and all the evidence lead
your minds with satisfaction to yourselves to the conclusion of his
guilt, then--but then only--I ask for a verdict of Guilty at your
hands. For the protection of the good, for the repression of the
wicked, I then ask for that verdict by which alone--as it seems to
me--the safety of society can be secured, and the demands--the
imperious demands--of public justice can be satisfied. (The hon.
and learned gentleman concluded his address shortly after half-past
six o’clock, after having occupied the breathless attention of
every one who had heard him during a period of three hours and
three quarters).
Lord Campbell then addressed the jury as follows:--the cause of public
justice imperatively requires that the court should now adjourn. I shall
feel it my duty, in this important case, to bring before you the whole
of the evidence on the one side and on the other, accompanying the
reading of it with such remarks as I may think it proper to make. It is
impossible to enter on that duty at this hour, and I am, therefore,
under the painful necessity of ordering that you be again kept
sequestered from your families and friends during another Sabbath.
The court then adjourned at twenty-five minutes to seven o’clock until
ten o’clock on Monday.
We may here observe that the prisoner listened with deep attention to
the whole of the address of the Attorney-General, and even with, an air
of considerable anxiety, although he still preserved his usual perfect
self-possession.