see, of tetanus arising from the toe being smashed; and it seems to me,
although, of course, you will form your own opinion upon it, bears no
analogy whatever to the case of Cook, with regard to whom no such cause
could be assigned. Again, gentlemen, he says, what is very material,
that, in the event of a given state of tetanus, it would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, without collateral evidence, to ascribe
the tetanic disease to any cause in the absence of any evidence as to
the cause. But you will form your own opinion upon it. Therefore you are
to look to collateral evidence; and if the collateral evidence would
impute the symptoms of tetanic convulsions to any particular cause,
according to this witness that cause may be assigned. That I say with a
view to get what is called the moral evidence with regard to the conduct
of a particular person, and with regard to what he may have done or what
he may have had in his possession.
[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]
Now comes Dr. M‘Donald. You will observe that he gives an account of
experiments he made for the prisoner, and you will see the lengths to
which he goes in adopting a new form of disease of epilepsy with these
complications. You are to say what weight you give to that evidence
compared with the witnesses who have given evidence before you.
The next witness is Mr. John Bainbridge. The object of this witness’s
evidence seems to be to induce you to believe that this was a case of
epilepsy, and from the symptoms you will say whether you can come to
that conclusion.
The next witness is Mr. Edward Steady. The case referred to by this
witness seems to be a case of traumatic tetanus; and you will say, if it
were idiopathic, whether the course of it in the slightest degree
resembles the symptoms of Cook, the deceased.
The next witness is Dr. Robinson. Now, gentlemen, you have this
respectable physician, who gives an account from which you are called to
infer that Cook’s case was a case of epilepsy. He says he should only
take it to be epilepsy in the absence of evidence of strychnia being
administered. He says that all the symptoms described by Jones on the
Tuesday night are consistent with strychnia; and, with regard to
epilepsy, he says in no case where epilepsy had existed would it cause
death without a loss of consciousness. Cook, you will remember, remained
conscious to the last, and you will say whether, upon the evidence that
is laid before you, there was or was not a bending of the body, which is
characteristic of tetanus, and what the witnesses have described as
being inconsistent with epilepsy.
[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]
The next witness is Dr. Richardson, who now brings in for the first time
angina pectoris as a disease of which it may be presumed Cook died. Now,
gentlemen, you have to attend to this case; the witness, who seems most
highly respectable, says this case being detailed by him, the symptoms
were consistent with strychnia, and that, if he had known as much of
strychnia then as he does now, he would have made an analysis to see
whether strychnia was in the body. The great question that I propounded
for your consideration was whether Cook’s symptoms were consistent with
strychnia, and, if they were not, then the conclusion would be in favour
of the prisoner; but if they were consistent with strychnia, then you
are not upon that alone to find a verdict of guilty against him; but you
are to consider the other evidence and see whether the death arose from
strychnia or not. Dr. Wrightson is recalled, and he says that, in his
opinion, when strychnia is entirely absorbed in the system it is
diffused equally throughout the entire system. Dr. Wrightson is a
philosopher, and, as a man of science, he speaks with caution, and you
have heard his evidence. He says that if the minimum dose were taken to
destroy life, and then a long interval elapsed between the taking of the
poison and death, the more complete would be the absorption, and the
less chance there would be of finding it in the stomach.
Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I think he said he would expect to find it in the
spleen, the liver, and the blood.
LORD CAMPBELL--Yes; “I should look for it elsewhere, in the spleen, the
liver, and the blood.”
Then comes Mr. Oliver Pemberton. The evidence of this witness only goes
to show that, in his opinion, an examination of the body at that time
was not of much value, and did not afford the means of coming to a
satisfactory opinion, differing in opinion, therefore, from others that
had been called.
His lordship then dealt with the witnesses as to facts, and pointed out
that, according to the trains, Palmer could not have arrived in Rugeley
on the Monday night before ten o’clock.
Now, gentlemen, comes a very material witness, who, if he were to be
believed, would be very important, particularly upon one part of the
case. I mean Jeremiah Smith--and you, having heard the whole of his
evidence, the examination and cross-examination, are to say what faith
or reliance you can place upon his testimony. Now, gentlemen, this would
show, if true, that the genuine and very identical pills that Bamford
had made, and in the state in which he had prepared them, were taken by
Cook before Palmer arrived from London at Rugeley, or, at any rate,
before he came to the Talbot Arms. It is for you to say whether you can
place reliance upon such testimony. You saw how he conducted himself in
the witness-box, and how he at last denied that the signature to the
instrument which he purported to have attested, and which he received
from the prisoner at the bar, was in his handwriting. He said it was
like it, but it was not his handwriting. Then it appears that he did
receive £5, and you are to say whether it was not clearly for attesting
that very assignment. The counterfoil of the cheque for £5, from William
Palmer the prisoner, is shown him; and with that piece of paper he goes
to the bank and receives the £5. Can you believe a man who so disgraces
himself in the witness-box? It is for you to say what faith you can
place in a witness who, by his own admission, engaged in such fraudulent
proceedings. We are now upon veracity, and you are to say whether you
can believe a witness who at last acknowledges that he had been applied
to and had been engaged in procuring an insurance on the life of Walter
Palmer, who had been a bankrupt six years before, and who had no means
of living except by the allowance of his friends and an allowance made
to him by the prisoner at the bar.
[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]
Again, he acknowledges that he was engaged in the proposal to insure the
life of Bates for £10,000. Bates being at that time superintending the
stables of the prisoner at the bar, living in lodgings at 6s. 6d. a
week, apparently having no property, and nothing depending upon his
life, his life was to be insured for £10,000. Smith gets himself
appointed agent to an insurance office, and, with a knowledge of these
facts, he proposes the insurance to be accepted by the office which he
represents; and can you believe such a witness who acknowledges himself
to have been engaged in such fraudulent proceedings, and who, now being
examined upon his oath, denies the handwriting of his own attestation to
that document? Gentlemen, of his credit you are to judge. His evidence
would be material as to what took place on the Monday night, because it
would show that the pills that Cook took that night were taken as they
had been prepared by Bamford, and before the prisoner at the bar had had
any opportunity to substitute others for them in the pill box. Such is
the case with regard to what took place on the Tuesday. If it stood
there, and if it were believed, it would be evidence in favour of the
prisoner at the bar; and you are to say whether you believe it, or, if
you disbelieve it, what effect it has upon the other testimony that has
been brought forward.
Gentlemen, the case is now in your hands; and, unless upon the part of
the prosecution a clear conviction has been brought to your minds of the
guilt of the prisoner, it is your duty to acquit him. You are not to
proceed even upon a strong suspicion; there must be the strongest
conviction in your minds that he was guilty of this offence; and if
there be any reasonable doubt remaining in your mind, you will give him
the benefit of that doubt; but if you come to a clear conviction that he
was guilty, you will not be deterred from doing your duty by any
considerations such as have been suggested to you. You will remember the
oath that you have taken, and you will act accordingly. Gentlemen, I
have performed my task; you have now to discharge yours, and may God
direct you to a right finding.
Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Your lordship stated to the jury that _the_ question
for them to consider was whether the evidence that has been brought
forward is consistent with the death of Cook by strychnia. I submit to
your lordship that that is not the question which ought to be submitted
to the jury.
LORD CAMPBELL--Serjeant Shee, that is not _the_ question that I have
submitted to the jury; it is _a_ question. I told them that unless they
considered that the symptoms were consistent with death by strychnia
they ought to acquit the prisoner.
[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]
Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--It is my duty, my lord, not to be deterred by any
expression of displeasure at my stating it; I am accountable not only
to your lordships, but I am accountable to a much higher tribunal; and I
am bound to submit to you what occurs to me to be the proper question to
be put to the jury in this case--it is your lordship’s duty to overrule
it if you think proper. I submit to your lordships that the question,
whether the symptoms of Cook’s disease were consistent with death by
strychnia is a wrong question, unless it is followed by this, “and
inconsistent with death by other and natural causes”--and that the
question should be, whether the medical evidence establishes beyond all
reasonable doubt the death of Cook by strychnia--it is my duty to submit
that to your lordship.
LORD CAMPBELL--Gentlemen of the jury, I did not submit to you that the
question upon which your verdict alone was to turn was whether the
symptoms of Cook were consistent with death by strychnia, but I said
that that was a most material question for you; and I desired you to
consider that question with a view to guide your judgment as to whether
he died from natural disease, or whether he did not die by poison, by
strychnia administered by the prisoner. Then I went on to say that if
you were of opinion that the symptoms were consistent with death from
strychnia, you should go on to consider the other evidence given in the
case, whether strychnia had been administered to him; and whether
strychnia had been administered to him by the prisoner at the bar; and
those are the questions that I again put to you. If you come to the
conclusion that those symptoms were consistent with the strychnia, do
you believe from the evidence that it was strychnia, and do you believe
that that strychnia was administered by the prisoner at the bar? Do not
find a verdict of guilty unless you believe that the strychnia was
administered to the deceased by the prisoner at the bar. But if you
believe that, it is your duty to God and man to find a verdict of
guilty.
* * * * *
The jury retired, and, after an absence of an hour and eighteen minutes,
returned a verdict of guilty.
The prisoner was asked what he had to say why the Court should not pass
sentence of death upon him according to law, and he made no answer.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]
LORD CAMPBELL then said--William Palmer, after a long and impartial
trial you have been convicted by a jury of your country of the crime of
wilful murder. In that verdict my two learned brothers, who have so
anxiously watched this trial, and myself entirely concur, and consider
that verdict altogether satisfactory. The case is attended with such
circumstances of aggravation that I do not dare to touch upon them.
Whether it is the first and only offence of this sort which you have
committed is certainly known only to God and your own conscience. It is
seldom that such a familiarity with the means of death should be shown
without long experience; but for this offence of which you have been
found guilty your life is forfeited. You must prepare to die; and I
trust that, as you can expect no mercy in this world, you will, by
repentance of your crimes, seek to obtain mercy from Almighty God. The
Act of Parliament under which you have been tried, and under which you
have been brought to the bar of this Court at your own request, gives
leave to the Court to direct that the sentence under such circumstances
shall be executed either within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal
Court or in the county where the offence was committed. We think that,
for the sake of example, the sentence ought to be executed in the county
of Stafford. Now, I hope that this terrible example will deter others
from committing such atrocious crimes, and that it will be seen that
whatever art, or caution, or experience may accomplish, such an offence
will be detected and punished. However destructive poisons may be, it is
so ordained by Providence that there are means for the safety of His
creatures for detecting and punishing those who administer them. I again
implore you to repent and prepare for the awful change which awaits you.
I will not seek to harrow up your feelings by any enumeration of the
circumstances of this foul murder. I will content myself now with
passing upon you the sentence of the law, which is, that you be taken
hence to the gaol of Newgate, and thence removed to the gaol of the
county of Stafford, the county in which the offence of which you are
justly convicted was committed; and that you be taken thence to a place
of execution, and be there hanged by the neck until you be dead; and
that your body be afterwards buried within the precincts of the prison
in which you shall be last confined after your conviction; and may the
Lord have mercy upon your soul. Amen!
* * * * *
The prisoner was executed at eight o’clock on Saturday morning, 14th
June, 1856, in front of Stafford gaol. He reiterated that he was
“innocent of poisoning Cook by strychnia.”
APPENDICES.
APPENDIX I.
LETTER FROM THOMAS PALMER, BROTHER OF WILLIAM PALMER, TO THE LORD
CHIEF-JUSTICE CAMPBELL.
The following extract from the Diary of Lord Chief-Justice Campbell will
serve as introduction to the following letter:--
June 28.
Since my last notice in this journal the great event has been the
trial of William Palmer at the Central Criminal Court for
poisoning, which began on Wednesday, May 14th, and did not finish
till Tuesday, May 27th--the most memorable judicial proceedings for
the last fifty years, engaging the attention not only of this
country but of all Europe.
My labour and anxiety were fearful; but I have been rewarded by
public approbation. The Court sat eight hours a day. When I got
home, renouncing all other engagements, I employed myself till
midnight in revising my notes and considering the evidence. Luckily
I had a Sunday to prepare for my summing up, and to this I devoted
fourteen continuous hours. The following day, after reading in
Court ten hours, I had only got through the proofs for the
prosecution. My anxiety was over on the last day, when the verdict
of _guilty_ was pronounced and I had sentenced the prisoner to die,
for I had no doubt of his guilt, and I was conscious that by God’s
assistance I had done my duty. Such was the expressed opinion of
the public and of all the respectable part of the Press. But a most
ruffian-like attempt was made by the friends of the prisoner to
abuse me, and to obtain a pardon or reprieve on the ground that the
prisoner had not had a fair trial. Having unbounded funds at their
command, they corrupted some disreputable journals to admit these
diatribes against me. They published a most libellous pamphlet
under the title of “A Letter from the Rev. T. Palmer,” the
prisoner’s brother, to Lord Chief-Justice Campbell, in which the
Chief-Justice was represented to be worse than his predecessor
Jeffreys, and it was asserted that there had been nothing in
England like the last trial since the “Bloody Assize.” However, the
Home Secretary remained firm and the law took its course.
The Rev. T. Palmer has since disclaimed the pamphlet, and it is
said to have been written by a blackguard barrister. I bear him no
enmity. He has done me no harm; but for the sake of example he
ought to be disbarred.
* * * * *
A LETTER TO THE LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE CAMPBELL.
After a struggle with internal emotions too dreadful to be described,
amid the tears and lamentations of my family, the bereavement of a
household knit together in bonds of strongest love and amity, and the
smothered, not wholly-concealed indignation of relatives and friends, I
address your lordship, not only as the man who has sealed my brother’s
fate and borne him to the foot of the scaffold, but as the judge who
will have to render an account to your fellow-men, to posterity, and to
God of your dealing towards a human being whose fate was, to a certain
extent, placed in your hands, and on whose destiny you operated in a
manner hitherto unknown, at least in our days. The law, with bitter
irony, propounds it is an axiom dear to Englishmen that a magistrate
invested with powers like your lordship is “counsel for the prisoner”;
but every man who witnesses the late mockery at the Old Bailey, in which
you played so prominent a part, confesses--to his own heart, at least,
whatever he may own in public--that a more infamous delusion has never
been solemnly enacted before a British audience since those days of
shame when Jeffreys went forth upon the “bloody assize,” and, in the
name of Justice and the Law, consigned the young, the innocent, the
helpless, and the stricken with years to the dungeon and the gallows,
professing all the while to be actuated by a sense of duty to the Crown
and to the people.
These may appear strong words, and this a heavy accusation, but I will
demonstrate it to all who read this letter. What though I may not hope
to move your lordship to justice, yet I may, at least, awaken within you
a sense of that awful day which approaches you as certainly as it looms
on my brother, and which, at your advanced age, cannot be far removed. I
may awaken within you a feeling of compunction, or, at all events, of
solemn reflection; for you, also, will have to stand before a Judge
enthroned in majesty and power; before whom you will be, indeed, as
nought; and when upon your brow appears the awful record of your
administration of justice to the man whom you have condemned, in that
hour also shall you remember this word from the brother of his
affections. May it avail you before that terrific moment! May it serve
to save yourself from yourself, and to warn you in time that it is the
duty of a British judge to hear, not to condemn; to adjudicate, not to
execute; to administer the law as the representative of the country, not
to pervert it to his own purposes with the anxiety of a hangman.