Eleventh Day, Monday, 26th May, 1856 — The Court Met at Ten O’Clock
Charge to the Jury.
Lord Campbell
Lord Campbell—Gentlemen of the jury, we have at length arrived at that stage of these solemn proceedings when it becomes my duty, as the chief judge presiding in this Court, to explain to you the nature of the charge brought against the prisoner, and those questions and considerations upon which your verdict ought to be found. And, gentlemen, I must begin by conjuring you to banish from your minds all that you have heard with reference to these proceedings before entering into that box. There is no doubt that a strong prejudice elsewhere did prevail against the prisoner at the bar, in the county of Stafford, where the offence for which he has now to answer is alleged to have been committed; that prejudice was so strong that the Court of Queen’s Bench made an order to remove the trial from that county. The prisoner, by his counsel, expressed a wish that the trial should take place in the Central Criminal Court. To enable that wish to be accomplished an Act has been passed by the Legislature authorising the Court of Queen’s Bench to direct the trial to take place in the Central Criminal Court, where it was believed and known that the trial would be fair and impartial. I must not only warn you, gentlemen, against being influenced by what you may have before heard, but I must likewise warn you—although I am sure it is an unnecessary caution, but one which it is my duty to offer—against being improperly influenced by the evidence that has been laid before you; because there has been evidence which certainly implicates the prisoner in transactions of a very discreditable nature. It appears that he had forged a great many bills of exchange, and that he had entered into transactions not of a reputable nature. These transactions, however, would have been excluded from your consideration altogether had it not been necessary to bring them forward to assist you in arriving at your verdict. By the law and practice of some countries it is allowed to raise a probability that the party accused has committed the offence which he has to answer, to show that he has committed other offences, with a view of showing that he is an immoral man, and not unlikely to commit other offences, whether of the same or of a different nature; but the law of England is different, and, presuming every man to be innocent until his guilt is established, it allows his guilt to be established only by evidence directly connected with the charge brought against him.
Lord Campbell
Gentlemen, it gives me great satisfaction to find that this case has been so fully laid before you. Everything has been done that could be accomplished for the purpose of assisting the jury in coming to a right conclusion. The prosecution has been taken up by the Government of the country, so that justice may be effectively administered. The Attorney-General, who is the first law officer of the Crown, has conducted the prosecution as the Minister of Public Justice. Again, I am much pleased to think that the prisoner appears to have had ample means to prepare for and conduct his defence. Witnesses very properly have been brought from all parts of the kingdom to assist in his defence; and he has had the advantage of having his case conducted by one of the most distinguished advocates at the English bar. Gentlemen, I most strongly recommend to you to attend to everything that fell so eloquently, so ably, and so impressively from that advocate, with the exception of his own private personal opinion. It is my duty to tell you that that ought to be no ingredient in your verdict. You are to try the prisoner upon the evidence before you, according as that evidence may be laid before you upon the one side and on the other, and by that alone, and not by any opinion of his advocate. I feel also bound to say that it would have been better if his advocate had abstained from some of the observations which he made in his address to you, in which he laid great stress upon his own conviction of the prisoner’s innocence of the crime imputed to him and of his apprehension that if you returned a verdict of guilty you one day would have to regret your verdict. The fact of the prisoner saying “Not guilty” is a mere form; it goes for nothing, and it may lead to the most disastrous consequences if that formal answer is to be dwelt upon with too much importance, as it may lead a jury to believe that a prisoner is not guilty because his advocate expresses his perfect conviction of his innocence. And, upon the other hand, if the advocate withholds an opinion, the jury may suppose that he is conscious of his client’s guilt, whereas it is the duty of the advocate to press his argument upon the jury, and not his opinion.
Lord Campbell
Gentlemen, I will now in a few words give you the allegations upon the one side and on the other. On the part of the prosecution it is alleged that the deceased, John Parsons Cook, was first tampered with by antimony, that he was then killed by strychnia, and that his symptoms were the symptoms of poison by strychnia. It is then alleged that the prisoner at the bar had a motive for making away with him; that he had an opportunity of administering the poison; that suspicion fell upon no one else; and that on two days, when the poison was supposed to have been administered, he actually purchased strychnia, the poison employed; and that, as they allege, his conduct before that transaction, before the deed, while it was going on, and afterwards, was that of a guilty, and not of an innocent, man. On the other side it is contended (and you are to say whether or not truly contended) that the prisoner at the bar was really the victim of prejudice; that he had no interest in the death of the deceased; and, on the contrary, that the death of the deceased was to his prejudice; further, that Cook did not die from poison by strychnia, but from natural disease; that his symptoms were those of natural disease, and not of poison by strychnia; and, further, it is contended that no part of the evidence which has been given shows anything which is at all consistent with the guilt of the prisoner. Gentlemen, it is for you to determine between the allegations on the one side and the other according to the evidence. A most anxious task is imposed upon you, knowing that the life of the prisoner is at stake; and, if you find him guilty, he must expiate his crime by an ignominious death. It is of the last importance that you should be convinced of his innocence or his guilt; and, if you are not convinced of his guilt, you will rescue him from the fate with which he is threatened. On the other hand, when you have heard the statements which were given in evidence—if you are satisfied of his guilt—it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty; for if the poisoner were to escape with impunity, there would be no safety for mankind, and society would fall to pieces. Gentlemen, the burthen of proving the guilt rests on the prosecution; and unless that is fully sustained, and you are not convinced upon the evidence that he is guilty, then it will be your duty to acquit the prisoner; but in a case of this kind you cannot expect that witnesses should be called to state that they saw the deadly poison administered by the prisoner or mixed up by the prisoner openly before them. Circumstantial evidence as to that is all that can be reasonably expected; and if there are a series of circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt, then, gentlemen, a verdict of guilty may satisfactorily be pronounced. With respect to the alleged motive, it is of great importance to see whether there was a motive for committing such a crime, or whether there was not, or whether there is an improbability of its having been committed so strong as not to be overpowered by positive evidence. But, gentlemen, if there be any motive which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you that the adequacy of that motive is of little importance. We know from the experience of criminal Courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from very slight motives, not merely from malice and revenge, but to gain a small pecuniary advantage and to drive off for a time pressing difficulties. It seems to me, gentlemen, you will have to consider well whether the symptoms of Cook’s death are consistent with a poisoning by strychnia. If they are not, if you believe that death arose from natural causes, the prisoner is at once entitled to a verdict of not guilty at your hands; but if those symptoms are consistent with a poisoning by strychnia, then you will have another and an important question to consider, whether the evidence which has been adduced is sufficient to convince you that it was a death by strychnia, and by strychnia which the prisoner administered. In cases of the sort the evidence has often been divided into medical and moral evidence, the medical being that of the scientific men, and the moral the circumstantial facts which are calculated to prove the truth of the charge against the party accused. Gentlemen, they cannot be finally separated in the minds of the jury, because it is by combination of the two species of evidence that their verdict ought to be found. In this case you will look at the medical evidence to see whether the deceased, in your opinion, did die by strychnia or by natural disease; and you will look at what is called the moral evidence, and consider whether that shows that the prisoner not only had the opportunity, but that he actually availed himself of that opportunity, to administer to the deceased the deadly poison of which he died.
Now, gentlemen, with these preliminary observations I will proceed to read over to you the evidence which has been given in this long trial; and I must implore you earnestly that, in any observations I may make upon its effect, you will be guided only by your own judgment. To assist you from time to time I may make observations, but you will not be in the slightest degree influenced by them unless so far as your own judgment concurs in them. The verdict must be yours, and in your hands the life of the prisoner must rest.
[His lordship then began with and took the jury through the story of Palmer’s financial transactions; next the evidence of Cook’s illness at Shrewsbury; and then that of Elizabeth Mills and Lavinia Barnes, and of Mr. Jones as to the illness at Rugeley; and passed to the evidence of Newton.]
Lord Campbell
Now, gentlemen, comes a witness of the greatest importance, Charles Newton. (His lordship read a portion of Mr. Newton’s evidence.) I may notice to you that Roberts swears, and is, I think, not contradicted, that he had sold strychnia, among other drugs, to Palmer; and you are called upon to observe the demeanour of Palmer at that time, and the way in which he tried to prevent Newton from observing that he had been obtaining this drug at the shop of Mr. Hawkins. (His lordship then read a further portion of the evidence of Mr. Newton.) Then the deposition of Newton was read, and it had better be read again. (The deposition of Mr. Newton, taken before the coroner, was then read, and his lordship concluded reading the evidence of the witness.) Now, gentlemen, this is the evidence of Newton, and most important it is for your consideration. It certainly must be recollected that he did not mention the furnishing of the strychnia to Palmer on Monday before the coroner, and that he did not mention it till the Tuesday morning, when he was coming up here. That certainly requires consideration at your hands; but then, gentlemen, you will observe that in his deposition, which has been read before you, although there is an omission, which is always to be borne in mind, there is no contradiction of anything that he has said. Well, then, you are to consider what is the probability of his inventing this wicked and most abominable lie. He had no ill-will towards the prisoner at the bar; he had nothing to gain by injuring him, much less by saying anything to affect his life. I see no motive that Mr. Newton could have for inventing a lie to take away the life of another person. No inducement could be held out to him from the Crown; he says himself that no inducement was held out to him, and that he at last disclosed it from a sense of justice. If you believe him, certainly the evidence is very strong against the prisoner at the bar. Now I will take you to the evidence of the next witness, whose evidence is closely connected with the witness Newton—who did furnish strychnia to the prisoner—I mean Joseph Roberts. (The learned judge read the examination-in-chief of Mr. Roberts.)
Lord Campbell
Now comes the cross-examination, which consists in this, and this only, “I did not make an entry of any of those things in our books; if articles are sold over the counter and paid for at the time, we do not enter them in our books.” Now, gentlemen, this is the evidence of Mr. Roberts, which is most important, for he is not cross-examined as to the veracity of his testimony, nor is it contradicted at all. It is not denied that on this Tuesday morning the prisoner at the bar got 6 grains of strychnia from Mr. Roberts. If you couple that with the evidence of Mr. Newton, believing that, then you will have positive evidence of strychnia being procured by the prisoner at the bar; that the symptoms of strychnia were exhibited in Mr. Cook, the deceased; and you have the evidence of Mr. Roberts, undenied and unquestioned, that on the Tuesday the 6 grains of strychnia were supplied. Now, gentlemen, if you believe both, a very serious case is adduced, supposing you should come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Mr. Cook were consistent with that poison. If you think the symptoms are accounted for by merely ordinary tetanus, of course the fact of strychnia being obtained by the prisoner at the bar is entitled to very little weight; but if you should come to the conclusion that the symptoms which Mr. Cook exhibited on the Monday night and Tuesday night are consistent with strychnia, then a fearful case is made out against him. Gentlemen, I have listened with the most anxious attention to know what explanation would be given respecting the strychnia that was purchased on the Tuesday morning. The learned counsel for the prisoner told us that we must believe nothing, that he would combat and disprove everything, and no doubt, according to his instructions, he very properly denied that Mr. Newton was to be believed; and, disbelieving Mr. Newton, you have no evidence of any strychnia being obtained on the Monday evening; but, disbelieving Mr. Newton and believing Mr. Roberts, you have evidence of 6 grains of strychnia having been obtained on the Tuesday morning, and no explanation is given of it. The learned counsel did not favour us with the theory which he had formed in his own mind respecting that strychnia, and how he considered it to be consistent with the view that he suggested. There is no evidence of the intention with which it was purchased; there is no evidence how it was applied, what became of it, or what was done with it.
Then I say, gentlemen, that it will not at all influence your verdict unless you come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Mr. Cook were consistent with a death by strychnia; but if you come to that conclusion I should shrink from my duty, and I should be unworthy to sit here, if I did not draw to your consideration the importance of the testimony and the inference it may afford of the death having been occasioned by strychnia, and that that was administered by the prisoner.
[The evidence as to the post-mortem was then read, and that of the postboy, of Cheshire, the postmaster, and several others, without comment of material importance. Passing to the scientific witnesses, his lordship said—“Now, gentlemen, you are called upon to form your opinion as to the opinion of scientific men respecting the appearance of the symptoms that Cook exhibited, and how far they can be accounted for by natural disease, and how far also, upon the evidence, they are consistent with strychnia. Whether they agree with traumatic or idiopathic tetanus, whatever it may be, or whether the symptoms correspond with a natural disease, and do not correspond with strychnia, is a matter that is of very great importance for you to consider.” Until his lordship reached Dr. Taylor the scientific evidence was read to the jury with no material comments.]
Lord Campbell
The next witness is Dr. Taylor. Now, gentlemen, here is something most important for your consideration. You see it is very properly relied on, on the part of the prisoner, that, though strychnia may be found in the body by analysis, none was found upon the analysis which was made by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, for they, and they alone, experimented upon it, and they could find none. We know that experiments were made by those two individuals, and they say that, so far as their skill goes, there may be death by strychnia and yet that strychnia cannot be detected. But Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees state experiments that they made where the death had been by strychnia which they themselves administered; and in at least two of those cases where there had been death by strychnia they could discover none. Now, it is possible that other chemists and other medical men might have discovered strychnia in those animals, and might have discovered strychnia in the body or in the jar which contained the stomach of Cook, but they found none in their analysis. They found none also in at least two cases where they killed animals by strychnia, and afterwards did all their skill enabled them to do for the purpose of discovering the strychnia. I thought at one time that these examinations were made with a view to show that, if the pills prepared by Mr. Bamford had been taken as he prepared them, mercury ought to have been found in the body of Mr. Cook; but I think that was not pressed, and I should think that it ought not to have any influence upon your verdict—there was no mercury found. There was mercury in the pills which Mr. Bamford prepared, and which Cook ought to have taken, but the simple fact of no mercury being found in those parts of Cook’s body that were examined ought not to have any influence upon your verdict; but that, of course, you will judge of for yourselves. Then the learned counsel, in cross-examination, read a passage from Orfila about a dog who had taken antimony, and some few minutes afterwards antimony was found in the bones, in the fat, and in the liver. (His lordship read the letter written by Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardener.) You will bear in mind, gentlemen, that was written before the symptoms were known to Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, but they had been informed that prussic acid and strychnia and opium had been bought by Palmer on the Tuesday. They search for all these poisons and they find none; but they swear distinctly that they found antimony in the body, and therefore, in the absence of the symptoms, they do not impute the death to strychnia, but they say it may possibly have been produced by antimony, because the quantity they discovered in the body was no test of the quantity that had been administered to the deceased. Then a letter was read which Dr. Taylor wrote to the Lancet, and I must say that he would have done better to have abstained from taking any notice whatsoever of what was said about him, but you will say whether what he did write materially detracts from the credit which would otherwise be due to him. I think the passage in this letter in the Lancet, which was relied on, is the last passage which I will read to you. He explains what his evidence had been, and complains of the reports that had been spread abroad respecting him, and then he concludes his letter thus—“In concluding this letter I would observe that during a quarter of a century which I have now specially devoted to toxicological inquiries, I have never met with any cases like those suspected of poisoning at Rugeley. The mode in which they will affect the person accused is of minor importance compared with their probable influence on society. I have no hesitation in saying that the future security of life in this country will mainly depend on the judge, the jury, and the counsel who may have to dispose of the charges of murder which have arisen out of these investigations.” I again say that I think it would have been better if he had trusted to the credit which he had already acquired, instead of writing a letter to the Lancet; but it is for you to say that he, having been, as he says, misrepresented, and writing this letter to set himself right, whether that materially detracts from the credit which is due to him.
Then Dr. Rees follows, and he corroborates the evidence given by Dr. Taylor. Here, therefore, is Dr. Rees, whom no one can suppose to have an interest in the matter. I do not know what interest it can be supposed that Dr. Taylor had in the matter, for he was regularly employed in his profession; he knew nothing about Mr. Palmer until he was called on by Mr. Stevens to analyse the contents of the jar; he had no animosity against him, and no interest whatever in misrepresenting the matter.
Mr. Serjeant Shee—He said that the experiments with the two rabbits were made after the inquest.
Lord Campbell
Lord Campbell—Certainly; it cannot matter whether they were made before or after if they are witnesses of truth. It is the case that there was the death of the animals by strychnia, and that after death no strychnia could be found in the animals; and, if the experiments had been made this morning, the effect would have been the same. Dr. Taylor has been questioned about the indiscreet letter which he wrote to the Lancet and some indiscreet conversation which he had with the editor of the Illustrated Times; but with regard to Dr. Rees that imputation does not exist, and he concurs with Dr. Taylor in the evidence that the rabbits were killed by strychnia, and that, although they did everything in their power, according to their skill and knowledge, to discover the strychnia, as they did with regard to the contents of the jar, yet no strychnia could be found. You will judge from the vomiting that took place at Shrewsbury, and afterwards at Stafford, whether antimony may have been administered to Cook at Shrewsbury or Stafford. Antimony may not produce death; but it is part of the transaction, and deserves your deliberate consideration.
The Court then adjourned.