but I call your attention to it for the purpose of claiming for it its
proper place in this discussion, and that you may know at the
commencement of my address what the whole course of my argument will be,
and not be under the impression that, because I do not under the three
heads to which I have directed your attention advert particularly to
that head. I intend to pass it over. I tell you exactly what the case
for the defence will be, as to the point that strychnia was not found in
Mr. Cook’s body. Let me state it as fairly as I can--the gentlemen who
have come to the conclusion that strychnia may have been there, though
they did not find it, have arrived at that conclusion by experiments of
a very partial kind indeed; they contend that the poison of strychnia is
of that nature, that when once it has done its fatal work, and become
absorbed into the system, it ceases to be the thing which it was when it
was taken into the system; it becomes decomposed, its elements separated
from each other, and therefore no longer capable of responding to the
tests which, according to them, would certainly detect the poison of
undecomposed strychnia; that is their case. They account for the fact
that it was not found, and for their still retaining the belief that it
destroyed Mr. Cook, by that hypothesis. Now, it is only a hypothesis;
there is no foundation for it in experiment; it is not supported by the
evidence of any eminent toxicologist but themselves--it is due to them
to say, and to Dr. Taylor in particular to say, because it will be quite
out of my power to speak of Dr. Christison through any part of this
discussion except with the respect and consideration which is due to a
man of eminent acquirements and of the highest character; it is due to
Dr. Taylor to say that he does propound that theory in his book, but he
propounds it as a theory of his own; he does not vouch, as I remember,
any eminent toxicologist in support of it; and when we recollect that
his knowledge on the matter consists--good, humane man!--in having
poisoned five rabbits twenty-five years ago, and five since this
question of the guilt or innocence of Palmer arose, his opinion, I
think, unsupported by the opinions of others, cannot have much weight
with you; however, what I have to say now upon that point is, that I
will call before you many gentlemen of the highest eminence in their
profession, analytical chemists, to state to you their utter
renunciation of that theory. I will call before you Mr. Nunneley, a
Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, and Professor of Surgery at
the Leeds School of Medicine, who attended that case of strychnia poison
that took place at Leeds, and to which we have agreed that no reference
shall be made by name. I will call before you Dr. Williams, Professor of
Materia Medica at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, and surgeon
for eighteen years to the City of Dublin Hospital, who will tell you
that he also entirely rejects that theory, and believes that it has no
foundation in experiment or authority. I will call before you Dr.
Letheby, one of the ablest and most distinguished among the men of
science in this great city, Professor of Chemistry and Toxicology in the
Medical College of the London Hospital, and medical officer of health of
the city of London, who also rejects that theory as a heresy unworthy of
the belief of scientific men. I will call before you Dr. Nicholas
Parker, of the College of Physicians, a physician of the London Hospital
and Professor of Medicine to that institution, who concurs with Dr.
Letheby in his opinion; Dr. Robinson, also of the Royal College of
Physicians; Mr. Rogers, Professor of Chemistry to St. George’s School;
and lastly, I will call before you probably the most eminent chemical
analyst in this country, Mr. William Herapath, of Bristol, who totally
rejects the theory as utterly unworthy of credence--all of these
gentlemen contending, and ready to depose to it on their oaths, that not
only if half a grain, or the fiftieth part of a grain, but I believe
they will go on to say that if five, or ten, or twenty times less than
that quantity had entered into the human frame at all, it could be and
must be detected by tests which are unerring. They will tell you this,
not as the result of a day’s cruelty for ever regretted on five rabbits,
but upon a large and tried experience upon the inferior animals, made
and created, as you know they were, for the benefit of mankind; upon a
very extensive experience in many cases, as to many of them, of the
effects of strychnia on the human system. And not to detain you on this
part of the case, to which I only now advert, not intending to press it
on you later at any length, that you may see what the nature of the
defence in point of medical testimony will be, I will satisfy you by
evidence which I think must control your judgment, that the only safe
conclusion at which you can arrive is that strychnia not having been
found in Cook’s body, under the circumstances of this case never could
have been there. You will find that they all agree in this opinion, that
no degree of putrefaction or fermentation in the human system could in
their judgment so decompose the poison of strychnia as that it should no
longer possess those qualities which in its undecomposed state cause it
to respond to the tests which are used for its detection.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
Having said so much I will now apply myself to what, in my judgment, is
an equally important, if not more important, question in this case, one
which I approach with no diffidence whatever except the distrust which I
have, under the circumstances in which I speak, of myself, and which, if
it were possible for me to write what I think upon it and then to read
it to you, I do not entertain the smallest doubt that you must be
convinced of the innocence of this man--the question whether, in the
second week of November, 1855, he had a motive for the commission of
this murder, some strong reason for desiring that Cook should die. I
never will believe that, unless it be made clear to you that it was the
interest of William Palmer, or that he thought it was his interest, to
destroy Cook--I never will believe, till I hear your verdict pronounced,
that a jury can come to the conclusion of his guilt. And it seems to me,
upon the evidence which has been laid before you, abundantly clear that
it not only was not the interest of William Palmer that Cook should die,
but that his death was the very worst calamity that could befall him,
and that he could not possibly be ignorant that it must be immediately
followed by his own ruin. That it was followed by his immediate ruin we
know. We know that at the time when he is said to have commenced to plot
the death of Cook he was in a condition of the greatest embarrassment.
It was an embarrassment which, in its extreme intensity, had come but
recently upon him, an embarrassment, too, in some degree mitigated by
the circumstance that the person upon whom these bills, which have been
stated to you to be forgeries, purported to be drawn was his own mother,
a lady of a very large fortune, and with whom he was on the most
affectionate terms. Still, he was in a condition unquestionably of great
embarrassment. My learned friend has raised the hypothesis of his having
a wish to destroy Cook upon the ground of this embarrassment. My learned
friend stated to you that the case of the Crown against the prisoner was
this, that, “being in desperate circumstances, with ruin, disgrace, and
punishment staring him in the face, he took advantage of his intimacy
with Cook, when Cook had been the winner of a considerable sum of money,
to destroy him and get possession of his money.” That is the theory of
the Crown. Now, let us test it as a matter of business, relieving, if
possible, our minds from the anxiety we must all feel when the fate of a
fellow-creature is at stake, as if it was a case in a private room for
the decision of an arbitrator. It is my misfortune not to be able at
times to speak otherwise than earnestly, but let us look at it as a
matter of business and scrutinise it in every corner. Was it his
interest that in the second week in November, 1855, Mr. Cook should be
killed by a railway accident? If it was not, we have no motive to
ascribe to it. If it was not, and more, if the contrary was clearly his
interest, no sensible man would believe that he deliberately plotted
and committed the murder. A long correspondence has been put in, the
material parts of which letters will, in a subsequent stage of the case,
be called to your attention. There is evidently a great deal in it that
does not touch the point in the case, but the learned judge, before the
end of the case, will direct your mind to a correct appreciation of the
contents. I watched them with an anxiety which no words can express.
Having had the advantage, for which I shall ever honour my learned
friend, of reading the correspondence beforehand, I found the history,
as told by the correspondence, filled up by the _vivâ voce_ testimony
which was afterwards given. I was aware, at least I firmly believed,
that in that correspondence the innocence of the prisoner lay concealed;
and I think that I shall be able to show you that it is demonstrative of
this proposition that he not only had no motive to kill Cook, but that
the death of Cook was the very worst kind of thing that could happen for
him. I shall not apologise to you, you would think it very inopportune
to do so, for going into the details of this matter. Allow me, confining
myself, as it is my duty, to the evidence in the cause, to call your
attention to the position in which these two men stood to each other.
They had been intimate as racing friends for two or three years; they
had had a great many transactions together; they were jointly interested
in at least one racehorse which was training at the stables of Saunders
at Hednesford; they generally stayed together at the same hotel; they
were seen together on almost all the racecourses in the kingdom, and
were known to be connected in betting transactions, and adventurers upon
the same horses at the same races. It is in evidence that just before
Cook’s death he said, in the presence of his friend Jones, addressing
Palmer, “Palmer, we have lost a great deal of money upon races this
year.” And though it is impossible, Cook being dead, and the mouth of
the prisoner sealed, and transactions of this character not being
recorded in regular books as the transactions in a merchant’s
counting-house are, to give you in the fulness of evidence the actual
state of their relations to each other, yet it is abundantly clear, and
I will make it more clear to you presently, that they were very closely
connected. When, in the month of May, 1855, money was wanted either by
Mr. Cook or Palmer, Palmer applied to Pratt for it. He wanted, I think,
£200 to make up a sum for the payment of a debt, he having, I think, a
balance of £190 in the hands of Pratt. Mr. Pratt would not lend it him
without security, and he proposed the security of his friend John
Parsons Cook, a gentleman of respectability and a man of substance.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
Now, what the exact state of the affairs of John Parsons Cook at that
time was I do not know. Such a fortune as he had might be thrown down in
a week by the course of life that he was leading. A young man who is
reckless as to the mode in which he employs his fortune, and who has
only £13,000, may, if he likes, for a year or two pass before the world
as a man of much more considerable means; it is not everybody who will
go to Doctors’ Commons to ascertain what the exact amount of property he
derived from his grandfather was. He was Mr. Cook, of Lutterworth, a
gentleman who had a stud of racehorses, who lived expensively, and was
known to have inherited a fortune; he was a person whose friendship was
at that time probably, and probably continued to be, a matter of
considerable convenience to Palmer. You recollect, gentlemen, I am not
defending Palmer against the crime of forgery. I am not defending him
against the reckless improvidence of obtaining money at the enormous
discounts at which he obtained it. The question is, whether he is guilty
of murder. Palmer and Cook were then so circumstanced as early as the
month of May, 1855. They had had another transaction previously to the
date of November, 1855, which I will not advert to now, because it was
taken second in the case of my learned friend the Attorney-General; but
let us see what their position was in the second week of November, 1855.
Respecting that, we have the evidence of Pratt, and from the
correspondence which he explained to us there can be no doubt upon our
minds. Amongst a mass of bills, amounting altogether to £11,500, which
had been repeatedly renewed, there were two bills for £2000 each, which
became due in the last week in October; and there was another bill, or
two other bills, amounting to £1500 which had become due some time
before, but which were held over, as they say, from month to month,
Palmer, who was liable upon them, paying for the advantage of having
them held over at the end of every month, at what they call interest of
about 60 per cent. These three bills, or sums of £2000, £2000, and £1500
were the embarrassments which were pressing upon him in the second week
of November; and, be it observed, though pressing upon him, they were
pressed upon him by a man, who, no doubt, would have been glad to have
got the principal, but who would also upon anything approaching to
security have been very well pleased with the interest. How can capital,
if it be secure, be better employed than at 40 or 60 per cent. per
annum? As long as there was a vestige of good security, Mr. Pratt or Mr.
Pratt’s clients desired nothing better than that Palmer should continue
to hold the money.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
Now, in that state of things, on the 27th of October, Palmer, in answer
to an urgent demand upon him for money on the ground of the security
becoming doubtful, came up to London, and Pratt insisted that, in
respect of one of those bills of £2000 which had just become due, as
Palmer could not pay it, he should pay instalments upon it in addition
to the enormous interest which he charged; and it was agreed at that
interview of the 22nd of October that £250 should be paid down, £250
paid on the 31st of October, and that as soon after as possible a
further sum of £300 should be paid, making in the whole a payment on
account of that bill of £800 to quiet Pratt, or, as Pratt said, to quiet
his clients, and induce them to let the bill stand over. On the 9th of
November that £300 was paid, and, when paid, a letter was written, which
I beg your particular attention to, and you will see how closely and
strongly it bears on the point to which I am now entreating your most
anxious consideration; a letter of the 13th of November, that is the day
when “Polestar” won the race, written by Pratt to Palmer, as
follows:--“Dear Sir,--Curiously enough, I find that the great point of
the office is, that your brother had delirium tremens more than once,
say, three or four times before his life was accepted, and that actually
their medical man, Dr. Hastings, reported against the life, as well as
Dr. Wardell. I think I shall be able to get a copy of the proposal
through a friend.” Palmer did not know what the proposal was, and
therefore probably it had been made by his brother. “The opinions of
several secretaries of insurance offices are that the company have not a
leg to stand upon, and from the mere fact of the enormous premium, it is
plain that the policy was effected on an extra rate of premium on
account of the true statement of the condition of health of the assured.
The enormous premium will go a great way to give us a verdict.” I do not
like to read only one passage from a letter, lest by chance I should
mislead, therefore I have read that portion of it; but now attend to
this--“I count most positively on seeing you on Saturday; do for both
our sakes try to make up the amount to £1000, for without it I shall be
unable to renew the £1500 due on the 9th.” What does that mean? Pratt
told us yesterday the three sums of £300, £250, and £250, and some other
small amount, making up the sum of £800, were instalments payable on the
bill overdue, and upon which Pratt had threatened to issue writs against
Palmer’s mother, and Palmer had gone almost down on his knees to beg him
not to do so; he said, “For God’s sake, do not think of writs.” Now,
that £800 being paid, Pratt said, “I shall only credit you for £600; I
must take £200 for the interest.” In his letter of the 13th of November
he says, “Do for both our sakes try and make up the amount to a
thousand”--that is, make the £800 up to a thousand pounds--“for without
it I shall be unable to renew the £1500. I must have a larger
instalment, or else I cannot keep this bill afloat for you.” He said so,
whether it was true or not does not matter in this case; that was the
representation which he made, and the duress which he put on Palmer;
and, in truth, it meant this--Make it up to a thousand, give me £200
more, or the writ shall be served on your mother. He does not say so,
but he said something to the same effect before, and it was a
representation that he could not satisfy the people whom he said he
represented without that additional sum. Observe, that letter is written
on the 13th of November, and Palmer gets it at Rugeley when he arrives
on that evening from the race at which “Polestar” won. Palmer, who was
at the races the first day, went away in the evening, and went to
Rugeley; when he gets to Rugeley, early in the morning of the 14th, the
next day probably, he gets this letter of Pratt’s pressing on him the
necessity of paying a further sum of £200. What does he do? See if it is
possible to doubt that at that time Cook’s life was of the utmost value
to him. He instantly returns to Shrewsbury; he sees Cook. They say he
dosed him. We will see how probable that is presently. He gets there on
the Wednesday; he sees Cook. Cook goes to bed in a state which I will
not at present describe; he gets up much more sensible than he went to
bed; goes upon the racecourse, and comes home with Palmer to Rugeley on
the next day, Thursday; he goes to bed when he gets to Rugeley; he gets
up still ill and uncomfortable, but able to go out, and he dines with
Palmer that day, Friday.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
Now, I beg your attention to this letter. On that day, the 16th, Palmer
writes thus to Pratt--“I am obliged to come to Tattersall’s on Monday to
the settling, so that I shall not call and see you before Monday, but a
friend of mine will call and leave you £200 to-morrow, and I will give
you the remainder on Monday.” That is written on the 16th, the day they
dine together at Palmer’s house. Now, you recollect that the person who
ordinarily settled Cook’s accounts in racing transactions was a person
of the name of Fisher, the wine merchant, in Shoe Lane. He was called as
the first witness on this trial. That very day Cook writes to Fisher as
follows:--“It is of very great importance to both Palmer and myself that
a sum of £500 should be paid to a Mr. Pratt, of 5 Queen Street, Mayfair,
to-morrow without fail; £300 has been sent up to-night, and if you would
be kind enough to pay the other £200 to-morrow on the receipt of this,
you will greatly oblige me, and I will give it to you on Monday at
Tattersall’s.” Then there is a postscript which I will read, but make no
comment upon it now--“I am much better.” What is the fair inference from
these two letters? I submit to you that the inference is that at that
date Cook was making himself very useful to Palmer. Pratt was pressing
him for an additional sum of £200 when he had need of all his money, and
Palmer having communicated his difficulty to Mr. Cook, Cook at once
comes forward and writes to his agent to pay that £200. And the letter
shows more--you may have forgotten that letter, but it was read in the
first hour after the speech of my learned friend the Attorney-General;
you may have forgotten it, but I read it to you word for word--the
passage, “£300 has been sent up to-night,” shows that Cook knew all
about it, and probably had an interest in Palmer’s transactions with Mr.
Pratt; it was inserted merely for the purpose of putting a good face
upon it to Mr. Pratt, as a man does who, not having a farthing of the
sum that he wants to pay, will pretend that he has to pay more, in order
to represent that he has got a portion of what he wants to pay, and he
says, “Will you lend me a little more; I am not entirely dependent upon
you for the sum that I have to pay”; or it means that on that day £300,
which had come to their hands in some way or other, was by Cook made
applicable to the convenience of Palmer--one of those things it means;
whichever way you take it, it proves to demonstration that Palmer and
Cook were playing into each other’s hands in respect of that heavy
incumbrance upon Palmer; and that Palmer could rely upon Cook as a fast
friend in any such little difficulty as that; and though his
difficulties sound large when we talk of £11,500, the difficulty of the
day was nothing like that, because in the spendthrift, reckless way in
which they were living, putting on bills from month to month, and paying
what sounds an enormous interest per annum, the actual outlay on the day
was not always so considerable. I submit to you that letter shows that
on the 16th of November, when they say he was poisoning Cook, Cook was
behaving to him in the most friendly way, was acquainted with his
circumstances, willing to assist in the relief of his embarrassments,
and actually to devote a portion of his earnings to the purposes of
Palmer. It is perfectly plain, but I will make it plainer if you will
attend to me for a moment longer. You will remember that part of the
case of my learned friend is this. He says that he intended to defraud
Cook; that Palmer having left Cook ill in bed at Rugeley, ran up to town
on the Monday, intending to despatch him on the Monday night or the
Tuesday; that he ran up to town, went, not to Fisher, who was the agent
of Cook, but to Herring, who was his own agent, and told Herring that he
was authorised by Cook to settle his Shrewsbury transactions at
Tattersall’s, thereby getting command over Cook’s winnings; that he
applied them to his own purposes, and, having done so, determined to put
Cook out of the way. That is their case. We had the evidence of Fisher
on the first day. Fisher is evidently a shrewd, intelligent man; no
friend of Palmer’s. He gave, I do not mean to say improperly, I did not
wish to throw imputations, but he gave a twist to the dosing at
Shrewsbury against Palmer. On the Monday, as on the Tuesday, Cook,
though generally indisposed, was during great part of the day quite
well, according to the evidence; on the Monday he saw his trainer,
Saunders, he saw his two jockeys; he got up and was shaved; he was
comfortable the whole day, and the theory is that he was comfortable
because Palmer was not there to dose him--you will see how grossly
absurd it is presently. He was well on the Monday, quite well on the
Tuesday; now, if Palmer had gone up to London, representing that he
would do Cook’s business for him through Cook’s own agent, Fisher,
Palmer might be perfectly certain if that was done on the Monday Fisher
would write to Cook on that night to say that the thing was done and
made straight; Herring, you see, does do it the moment the thing is
settled between Palmer and Herring; Herring represents Palmer as saying,
“You must write me word about some part of the transactions”; he says,
“No, I shall write Mr. Cook word at Rugeley.” Do not you think Fisher
would have done the same? and if Cook had not known that Palmer intended
not to go to Fisher but to Herring, do you not think Cook would have
been surprised on the Tuesday morning at not hearing that he had seen
Palmer, and that the transactions were settled? Could Palmer, as a man
of business, have relied upon Cook’s not being alarmed at Fisher’s not
doing it? We had the evidence of Fisher, who says, “On the 17th of
November, at Cook’s request, I paid £200 to Mr. Pratt; his account in
the ordinary course would have been settled at Tattersall’s on Monday,
the 19th. I advanced the £200 to pay Pratt; I knew that Cook had won at
Shrewsbury, and I should have been entitled to have deducted that £200
from his winnings if I had settled his account at Tattersall’s; I did
not settle the account.” That explains the whole transaction. Cook and
Palmer understood each other perfectly well; it was the interest of both
of them that Palmer should be relieved from the difficulty of the
pressure of Pratt, and accordingly Cook said, “As to the settlement, it
shall not go through Fisher; we will have the £200 from Fisher; it shall
not be paid to him on Monday; I will let Palmer go up and settle the
whole thing through Herring.” And that is what was done; and accordingly
Fisher has never been paid since.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]