Dr. Alfred Swaine Taylor, examined by the Attorney-General.—“I am a fellow of the College of Physicians, lecturer on medical jurisprudence at Guy’s Hospital, and the author of the well-known treatise on poisons and on medical jurisprudence. I have made the poison called strychnia the subject of my attention. It is the produce of the nux vomica, which also contains brucia, a poison of an analogous character. Brucia is variously estimated at from one-sixth to one-twelfth the strength of strychnia. Most varieties of impure strychnia that are sold contain more or less brucia. Unless, therefore, you are certain as to the purity of the article, you may be misled as to its strength. I have performed a variety of experiments with strychnia on animal life. I have never witnessed its action on a human subject. I have tried its effects upon animal life—upon rabbits—in ten or twelve instances. The symptoms are, on the whole, very uniform. The quantity I have given has varied from half a grain to two grains. Half a grain is sufficient to destroy a rabbit. I have given it both in a solid and liquid state. When given in a fluid state it produces its effects in a very few minutes; when in a solid state, as a sort of pill or bolus, in about six to eleven minutes. The time varies according to the strength of the dose, and also to the strength of the animal.”

Question.—“In what way does it operate, in your opinion?”

Answer.—“It is first absorbed into the blood, then circulated through the body, and especially acts on the spinal cord, from which proceed the nerves acting on the voluntary muscles.”

Question.—“Supposing the poison has been absorbed, what time would you give for the circulating process?”

Answer.—“The circulation of the blood through the whole system is considered to take place about once in four minutes. The circulation in animals is quicker. The absorption of the poison by rabbits is therefore quicker. The time would also depend on the state of the stomach,—whether it contained much food or not, whether the poison came into immediate contact with the inner surface of the stomach.”

Question.—“In your opinion, does the poison act immediately on the nervous system, or must it first be absorbed?”

Answer.—“It must first be absorbed.”

Question.—“The symptoms, you say, are uniform. Will you describe them?”

Answer.—“The animal for about five or six minutes does not appear to suffer, but moves about gently; when the poison begins to act it suddenly falls on its side; there is a trembling, a quivering motion of the whole of the muscles of the body, arising from the poison producing violent and involuntary contraction. There is then a sudden paroxysm or fit, the fore legs and the hind legs are stretched out, the head and the tail are drawn back in the form of a bow, the jaws are spasmodically closed, the eyes are prominent; after a short time there is a slight remission of the symptoms, and the animal appears to lie quiet, but the slightest noise or touch reproduces another convulsive paroxysm; sometimes there is a scream, or a sort of shriek, as if the animal suffered from pain; the heart beats violently during the fit, and after a succession of these fits the animal dies quietly. Sometimes, however, the animal dies during a spasm, and I only know that death has occurred from holding my hand over the heart. The appearances after death differ. In some instances the rigidity continues. In one case the muscles were so strongly contracted for a week afterwards, that it was possible to hold the body by its hind legs stretched out horizontally. In an animal killed the other day the body was flaccid at the time of death, but became rigid about five minutes afterwards. I have opened the bodies of animals thus destroyed.”

Question.—“Could you detect any injury in the stomach?”

Answer.—“No. I have found in some cases congestion of the membranes of the spinal cord to a greater extent than would be accounted for by the gravitation of the blood. In other cases I have found no departure from the ordinary state of the spinal cord and the brain. I ascribe congestion to the succession of fits before death. In a majority of instances, three out of five, I found no change in the abnormal condition of the spine. In all cases the heart has been congested, especially the right side. I saw a case of ordinary tetanus in the human subject years ago, but I have not had much experience of such cases. I saw one case last Thursday week at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. The patient recovered.”

Question.—“You have heard the description given by the witnesses of the symptoms and appearances which accompanied Cook’s attacks?”

Answer.—“I have.”

Question.—“Were those symptoms and appearances the same as those you have observed in the animals to which you administered strychnia?”

Answer.—“They were. Death has taken place in the animals more rapidly when the poison has been administered in a fluid than in a solid form. They have died at various periods after the administration of the poison. The experiments I have performed lately have been entirely in reference to solid strychnia. In the first case the symptoms began in seven minutes, and the animal died (including those seven) in thirteen minutes. In the second case the symptoms appeared in nine minutes, and the animal died in seventeen. In the third case the symptoms appeared in ten minutes, and the animal died in eighteen. In the fourth case the symptoms appeared in five minutes, and death took place in twenty-two. In the fifth case the symptoms appeared in twelve minutes, and death occurred in twenty-three. If the poison were taken by the human subject in pills it would take a longer time to act, because the structure of the pill must be broken up in order to bring the poison in contact with the mucous membrane of the stomach. I have administered it to rabbits in pills.”

Question.—“Would poison given in pills take a longer period to operate on a human subject than on a rabbit?”

Answer.—“I do not think we can draw any inference from a comparison of the rapidity of death in a human subject and in a rabbit. The circulation and absorption are different in the two cases. There is also a difference between one human subject and another. The strength of the dose, too, would make a difference, as a large dose would produce a more rapid effect than a small one. I have experimented upon the intestines of animals, in order to reproduce the strychnia. The process consists in putting the stomach and its contents in alcohol, with a small quantity of acid which dissolves the strychnia, and produces sulphate of strychnia in the stomach. The liquid is then filtered, gently evaporated, and an alkali added—carbonate of potash, which combines with the sulphuric acid, and precipitates the strychnia. Tests are applied to the strychnia, or supposed strychnia, when extracted. Strychnia has a peculiar strongly bitter taste. It is not soluble in water, but it is in acids and in alcohol. The colour tests are applied to the dry residue after evaporation. Change of colour is produced by a mixture of sulphuric acid and bichromate of potash. It produces a blue colour, changing to violet and purple, and passing to red; but colouring tests are very fallacious, with this exception,—when we have strychnia separated in its crystallised state we can recognise the crystals by their form and their chemical properties, and, above all, by the tetanic symptoms and death when administered through a wound in the skin of animals.”[44]

Question.—“Are there other vegetable substances from which, if these colouring tests were applied, similar colours could be obtained?”

Answer.—“There are a variety of mixtures which produce similar colours;[45] one of them also has a bitter taste like strychnine.[46] Vegetable poisons are more difficult of detection than mineral: the tests are far more fallacious. I have endeavoured to discover the presence of strychnine in animals I have poisoned in four cases, assisted by Dr. Rees. I have applied the process I first described. I have applied the tests of colouring and taste. In one case I discovered some by the colour test. In a second case there was a bitter taste, but no other indication of strychnine. In the other two cases there were no indications at all. In the case where it had been discovered by the colour test, two grains had been administered; and in the second case, where there was a bitter taste, one grain. In one of the cases where we failed to detect it, one grain, and, in the other, half a grain had been given. I account for the absence of any indication, because it is absorbed in the blood, and is no longer in the stomach. It is in a great part changed in the blood. When administered in large doses there is a retention of some in excess of what is required for the destruction of life.”

Question.—“Supposing a minimum dose, which will destroy life, has been given, could you find any?”

Answer.—“No. It is taken up by absorption, and is no longer discoverable in the stomach. The smallest quantity by which I have destroyed an animal is half a grain. There is no process with which I am acquainted by which it can be discovered in the tissue.[47] As far as I know, a small quantity cannot be discovered.”

Question.—“Suppose half a grain to be absorbed into the blood, what proportion does it bear to the total quantity of blood circulated in the system?”

Answer.—“Assuming the system to contain the lowest quantity of blood—25lb.—it would be one-fiftieth of a grain to a pound of blood. A physician once died from a dose of half a grain in twenty minutes. I believe it undergoes some partial change in the blood which increases the difficulty of discovering it. I never heard of its being separated from the tissues in a crystallised state. The crystals are peculiar in form, but there are other organic crystallised substances like them, so that a chemist will not rely on form only. After the post-mortem examination, a portion of the stomach was delivered to me by Mr. Boycott, covered with bladder, tied and sealed. The jar contained the stomach and the intestines. I have experimented upon them with a view to discover if any poison was present. I sought for prussic acid, morphia, strychnia, veratria, tobacco poison, hemlock, arsenic, antimony, mercury, and other mineral poisons, but only found small traces of antimony. The parts on which I had to operate were in the most unfavourable condition that could possibly be. The stomach had been cut completely from end to end; all the contents were gone, and the fine mucous surface, on which any poison, if present, would have been found, was lying in contact with the outside of the intestines—all thrown together. The inside of the stomach was lying in a mass of intestinal fœcal matter. That was, I presume, the fault or misfortune of the person who dissected, but it seemed to have been shaken about in every possible way in its journey to London.[48] By my request the spleen, two kidneys, and a small bottle of blood, were sent up to me. We had no idea where the blood came from. Each part of the liver, one kidney, and the spleen, all yielded antimony. It was reproduced, or brought out by boiling the animal matter in a mixture of hydrochloric acid and water. Copper, in the shape of foil and gauze in a sort of web of fine copper, was introduced, and the antimony was found deposited on the copper. The quantity of antimony was less in proportion in the spleen than in the other parts. I detected some antimony in the blood. We applied the tests of Professor Brande, Dr. Rees, and others. It is impossible to say how recently it had been administered, but I should say shortly before death, that is, within some days. The longest period at which antimony can be found in the blood after death, within my knowledge, is eight days; the earliest period, within my knowledge, eighteen hours. A boy died within eighteen hours after taking it, and it was found in his liver. It is usually given in the form of tartar emetic; it acts as an irritant, and produces vomiting. If given in repeated doses, a portion would find its way into the blood and the system, beyond what was ejected. If it continued to be given after it had produced certain symptoms, it would destroy life. It may, however, be given with impunity.”

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“I mean by the word ‘trace’ a very small quantity, which can hardly be estimated by weight. I do not apply it in the sense of an imponderable quantity. In chemical language it is frequently used in that sense. An infinitesimal quantity would be called ‘a trace.’ The quantity of antimony that we discovered in all parts of the body would make up about half a grain. We did not ascertain that there was that quantity, but I will undertake to say that we extracted as much as half a grain. That quantity would not be sufficient to cause death. Only arsenic or antimony could have been deposited, under the circumstances, on the copper, and no sublimate of arsenic was obtained.” [The witness, in reply to a further question, detailed the elaborate test which he had applied to the deposit, in order to ascertain that it consisted of antimony.]

Question.—“Would a mistake in any one of the processes you have described, or a defect in any of the materials you have used, defeat the object of the test?”

Answer.—“It would, but all the materials I used were pure. Such an accident could not have happened without my having some intimation of it in the course of the process. I should think antimony would operate more quickly upon animals than upon men. I am acquainted with the works of Orfila. He stood in the highest rank of analytical chemists.”

Question.—“Did not Orfila find antimony in a dog four months after injection?”

Answer.—“Yes; but the animal had taken about forty-five grains.”

Mr. Serjeant Shee called the attention of the witness to a passage in Orfila’s work in reference to that case, to the effect that the antimony was found accumulating in the bones, the liver contained a great deal, and the tissues a very little.

Witness.—“Yes; when antimony has been long in the body it passes into the bones; but I think you will find that these are not Orfila’s experiments. Orfila is quoting the experiments of another person.”[49]

Question.—“But is not that the case with nearly all the experiments referred to in your own book?”

Answer.—“No; I cannot say that.”

Mr. Serjeant Shee again referred to a case in Orfila in which forty-five grains were given to a dog, and three and a half months after death a quantity was found in the fat, and some in the liver, bones, and tissues.

Witness.—“That shows that antimony gets into the bones and flesh, but I never knew a case in which forty-five grains had been given to a human being in ten days, and I have given no opinion upon such a case.”

Question.—“A pretty good dose is required to poison a person, I suppose?”

Answer.—“That depends on the mode in which it is given. A dog has been poisoned with six grains. The dog died in the case you mentioned. When antimony is administered as it was in that case the liver becomes fatty and gristled. Cook’s liver presented no appearance of the sort. I should infer that the antimony we found in Cook’s body was given much more recently than in the experiments you have described. We cannot say positively how long it takes to get out of the body, but I have known three grains cleared out in twenty-four hours. I was first applied to in this case on Thursday, the 27th of November, by Mr. Stevens, who was introduced to me by Mr. Warrington, professor of chemistry. Either then or subsequently he mentioned Mr. Gardner. I had not known Mr. Gardner before. I had never before been concerned in cases of this kind at Rugeley.”

“Chemical Laboratory, Guy’s Hospital,

“Dec. 4, 1855.

“Re J. P. Cook, Esq., deceased.

“Dear Sir,—Dr. Rees and I have completed the analysis to-day. We have sketched a report, which will be ready to-morrow or next day.

“As I am going to Durham Assizes on the part of the Crown, in the case of Reg. v. Wooler, the report will be in the hands of Dr. Rees, No. 26, Albemarle-street. It will be most desirable that Mr. Stevens should call on Dr. Rees, read the report with him, and put such questions as may occur.

“In reply to your letter received here this morning I beg to say that we wish a statement of all the medicines prescribed for deceased (until his death) to be drawn up and sent to Dr. Rees.

“We do not find strychnine, prussic acid, or any trace of opium. From the contents having been drained away it is now impossible to say whether any strychnine had or had not been given just before death, but it is quite possible for tartar emetic to destroy life if given in repeated doses; and, so far as we can at present form an opinion, in the absence of any natural cause of death, the deceased may have died from the effects of antimony in this or some other form.

“We are, dear Sir, yours faithfully,

“Alfred S. Taylor.

“G. Owen Rees.”

Question.—“Was that your opinion at the time?”

Answer.—“It was. We could infer nothing else.”

Question.—“Have you not said that the quantity of antimony you found was not sufficient to account for death?”

Answer.—“Certainly. If a man takes antimony he first vomits, and then a part of the antimony goes out of the body; some may escape from the bowels. A great deal passes at once into the blood by absorption, and is carried out by the urine.”

Question.—“Can you say upon your oath that from the traces in Cook’s body you were justified in stating your opinion that death was caused by antimony?”

Answer.—“Yes; perfectly and distinctly. That which is found in a dead body is not the slightest criterion as to what the man took when alive.”

Question.—“When you gave your opinion that Cook died from the effects of antimony, had you any reason to think that an undue quantity had been administered?”

Answer.—“I could not tell. People may die from large or small quantities; the quantity found in the body was no criterion as to how much he had taken.”

Question.—“May not the injudicious use of a quack medicine containing antimony, the injudicious use of James’s powders, account for the antimony you found in the body?”

Answer.—“Yes; the injudicious use of any antimonial medicine would account for it.”

Question.—“Or even their judicious use?”

Answer.—“It might.”

Question.—“With that knowledge, upon being consulted with regard to Cook, you gave it as your opinion that he died from the poison of antimony?”

Answer.—“You pervert my meaning entirely. I said that antimony in the form of tartar emetic might occasion vomiting and other symptoms of irritation, and that in large doses it would cause death, preceded by convulsions.” [The witness was proceeding to read his report upon the case, but was stopped by the Court.] “I was told that the deceased was in good health seven or eight days before his death, and that he had been taken very sick and ill, and had died in convulsions. No further particulars being given us, we were left to suppose that he had not died a natural death. There was no natural cause to account for death; and finding antimony existing throughout the body, we thought it might have been caused by antimony. An analysis cannot be made effectually without information.”

Question.—“You think it necessary before you can rely upon an analysis to have received a long statement of the symptoms before death?”

Answer.—“A short statement will do.”

Question.—“You allow your judgment to be influenced by the statement of a person who knows nothing of his own knowledge?”

Answer.—“I do not allow my judgment to be influenced in any way; I judge by the result.”

Question.—“Do you mean to say that what Mr. Stevens told you did not assist you in arriving at the conclusion you state in writing?”

Answer.—“I stated it as a possible case—not as a certainty. If we had found a large quantity of tartar emetic in the stomach we should have come to the conclusion that the man died from it. As we found only a small quantity, we said he might have died from it. I attended the coroner’s inquest, first, I think, on December 14. Some of the evidence was read over to me. I think that Dr. Harland was the first witness I heard examined. I heard Mr. Bamford, and also Lavinia Barnes. I cannot say as to Newton. I heard Jones. I had experimented some years ago on five of the rabbits I have mentioned. That is the only knowledge of my own that I had of the effect of strychnia upon animal life when I wrote my book. I have a great objection to the sacrifice of life. No toxicologist will sacrifice the lives of one hundred rabbits to establish facts which he knows to be already well established. I experimented on the last rabbits since the inquest.”

Question.—“Do you not think it rather rash to judge of the effects of strychnia on man by so small an experiment?”

Answer.—“You must add to the experiment the study of poisons and cases.”

Question.—“Do you not think that a rabbit is a very unfair animal to select?”

Answer.—“No.”

Question.—“Would not a dog be better?”

Answer.—“They are very dangerous to handle.”

Question.—“Do you mean to give that answer?”

Answer.—“Dogs and cats bear a greater analogy to man because they vomit, while rabbits do not; but rabbits are much more manageable.”

Question.—“Do you admit that as to the action of the respiratory organs they would be better than rabbits?”

Answer.—“I do not.”

Question.—“As to the effect of poison would they not?”

Answer.—“I think a rabbit quite as good as any animal. The poison is retained, and its operation is shown. At the inquest I saw Mr. Gardner (the solicitor of Mr. Stevens). I suggested questions to the coroner. Some of them he put to the witnesses, and others they answered upon my suggesting them. Ten days before the inquest Mr. Gardner informed me in his letter that strychnia, Battley’s solution, and prussic acid, had been purchased on Tuesday; that was why I used the expressions to which you have referred. We did not allow that information to have any influence on our report.” [The witness’s deposition before the coroner was then read.] “Having given my evidence, I returned to town, and soon afterwards heard that the prisoner had been committed on a charge of wilful murder.”

Question.—“And that his life depended in a great degree on you?”

Answer.—“No. I simply gave an opinion as to the poison, not as to the prisoner’s case. I knew I should probably be examined as a witness on the trial.”

Question.—“Do you think it your duty to abstain from all public discussion of the question which might influence the public mind.”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“Did you write a letter to the Lancet?”

Answer.—“Yes, to contradict several mis-statements of my evidence that had been made.”

Letter to Lancet of Feb. 2, 1856, read, in which Dr. Taylor said:—“During the quarter of a century which I have now specially devoted to toxicological inquiries, I have never met with any cases like these suspected cases 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.”[50]

Cross-examination continued.—“That is my opinion now. It had been stated that if strychnia caused death it could always be found, which I deny. It had also been circulated in every newspaper that a person could not be killed by tartar emetic, which I deny, and which might have led to the destruction of hundreds of lives. I entertained no prejudice against the prisoner. What I meant was that if these statements which I had seen in medical and other periodicals were to have their way there was not a life in the country which was safe.”

Question.—“Do you adhere to your opinion that ‘the mode in which they will affect the person accused,’ that is, lead him to the scaffold, ‘is of minor importance, compared with their probable influence on society’?”

Answer.—“I have never suggested that they should lead him to the scaffold. I hope that, if innocent, he will be acquitted.”

Question.—“What do you mean by the mode in which they will affect the person accused being of minor importance?”

Answer.—“The lives of sixteen millions of people are, in my opinion, of greater importance than that of one man.”

Question.—“That is your opinion?”

Answer.—“Yes. As you appear to put that as an objection to my evidence, allow me to state that in two dead bodies I find antimony. In one case death occurred suddenly, and in the other the body was saturated with antimony, which I never found before in the examination of three hundred bodies. I say these were circumstances which demanded explanation.”

Question.—“You adhere to the opinion that, as a medical man and a member of an honourable profession, you were right in publishing this letter before the trial of the person accused?”

Answer.—“I think I had a right to state that opinion in answer to the comments which had been made upon my evidence.”

Question.—“Had any comments been made by the prisoner?”

Answer.—“No.”

Question.—“Or by any of his family?”

Answer.—“Mr. Smith, the solicitor for the defence, circulated in every paper statements of ‘Dr. Taylor’s inaccuracy.’ I had no wish or motive to charge the prisoner with this crime. My duty concerns the lives of all.”

“Cook’s symptoms were quite in accordance with an ordinary case of poisoning by strychnia.”

Question.—“Can you tell me any case in which a patient after being seized with tetanic symptoms sat up in bed and talked?”

Answer.—“It was after he sat up that Cook was seized with these symptoms.”

Question.—“Can you refer to a case in which a patient who had taken strychnia beat the bed with his or her arms?”

Answer.—“It is exactly what I should expect to arise from a sense of suffocation.”

Question.—“Do you know in your reading of any case in which the symptoms of poisoning by strychnia commenced with beating of the bed clothes?”

Answer.—“There have been only about fifteen cases, and in none of those was the patient seized in bed. Beating of the bed clothes is a symptom which may be exhibited by a person suffering from a sense of suffocation, whether caused by strychnia or other causes. A case has been communicated to me by a friend, in which the patient shook as though with an ague.” [Answer objected to, but allowed as witness had been questioned as to the results of his reading.] “I have known of no case of poisoning by strychnia in which the patient screamed before he was seized. That is common in ordinary convulsions. In cases of poisoning by strychnia the patient screams when the spasms set in; the pain is very severe. I cannot refer to a case in which the patient has spoken freely after the paroxysms had commenced.”

Question.—“Can you refer me to any case in an authentic publication in which the access of the strychnia paroxysm has been delayed so long after the injection of the poison as in the case of Cook on Tuesday night?”

Answer.—“Yes; longer. In my book on Medical Jurisprudence, p. 185, 5th Edition, it is stated that in a case communicated to the Lancet, Aug. 31, 1850, by Mr. Bennett, a grain and a half of strychnia taken by mistake destroyed the life of a healthy female in an hour and a half. None of the symptoms appeared for an hour. There is a case in which the period which elapsed was two hours and a half. A grain and a half is a full, but not a very considerable, dose. In my book on Poisons there is no case in which the paroxysm commenced more than an hour and a half after the injection of the poison. That book is eight years old, and since 1848 cases have occurred. There is a mention of one in which three hours elapsed before the paroxysms occurred.”

Cross-examination continued.—“I know of no other fatal case in which the interval was so long. In that case there was disease of the brain. Referring to the Lancet, I find that in the case to which I referred, as communicated by Dr. Bennett, the strychnia was dissolved in cinnamon water. Being dissolved, one would have expected it to have a more speedy action. The time in which a patient would recover would depend entirely upon the dose of strychnia which had been taken. I do not remember any case in which a patient recovered in three or four hours, but such cases must have occurred. There is one mentioned in my book on Medical Jurisprudence. The patient had taken nux vomica, but its powers depend upon strychnia. In that case the violence of the paroxysms gradually subsided, and the next day, although feeble and exhausted, the patient was able to walk home. The time of the recovery is a point which is not usually stated by medical men. I cannot mention any case in which there was a repetition of the paroxysms after so long an interval as that from Monday to Tuesday night, which occurred in Cook’s case. I do not think that the attack on Tuesday night was the result of anything which had been administered to him on the Monday night. In the cases of four out of five rabbits the rigidity was continued at the time of death and after death. In the other the animal was flaccid at the time of death.”

Question.—“Are you acquainted with this opinion of Dr. Christison, that in these cases rigidity does not come on at the time of death, but comes on shortly afterwards?”

Answer.—“Dr. Christison speaks from his experience, and I from mine.”

Question.—“Did you hear that Dr. Bamford said that when he arrived he found the body of Cook quite straight in bed?”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“Can that have been a case of ophisthotonos?”

Answer.—“It may have been.”

Question.—“Are not the colour tests of strychnia so uncertain and fallacious that they cannot be depended upon?”

Answer.—“Yes, unless you first get the strychnia in a visible and tangible form.”

Question.—“Is it not impossible to get it so from the stomach?”

Answer.—“It is not impossible; it depends upon the quantity which remains there.”

Question.—“You do not agree that the fiftieth part of a grain might be discovered?”

Answer.—“I think not.”

Question.—“Nor even half a grain?”

Answer.—“That might be. It would depend upon the quantity of food in the stomach with which it was mixed.”

Re-examined by the Attorney-General.—“In cases of death from strychnia the heart is sometimes found empty after death. That is the case of human subjects. There are three such cases on record. I think that emptiness results from spasmodic affection of the heart. I know of no reason why that should rather occur in the case of man than in that of a small animal like a rabbit. The heart is generally more filled when the paroxysms are frequent. When the paroxysm is short and violent, and causes death in a few moments, I should expect to find the heart empty. The rigidity after death always affects the same muscles; those of the limbs and back. In the case of the rabbit, in which the rigidity was relaxed at the time of death, it returned while the body was warm. In ordinary death it only occurs when the body is cold, or nearly so. I never knew a case of tetanus in which the rigidity lasted two months after death; but such a fact would give me the impression that there were very violent spasms. It would indicate great violence of the spasms from which the person died. The time which elapses between the taking of strychnia and the commencement of the paroxysms depends on the constitution and strength of the individual. A feeling of suffocation is one of the earliest symptoms of poisoning by strychnia, and that would lead the patient to beat the bedclothes. I have no doubt that the substances I used for the purpose of analysis were pure. I had tested them. The fact that three distinct processes each gave the same result was strong confirmation of each. I have no doubt that what we found was antimony. The quantity found does not enable me to say how much was taken. It might be the residue of either large or small doses. Sickness would throw off some portion of the antimony which had been administered. We did not analyse the bones and tissues. I suggested questions to the coroner because he did not put such as enabled me to form an opinion. I think that arose rather from want of knowledge than intention. There was an omission to take down the answers. At the time I wrote to Mr. Gardiner I had not learnt the symptoms which attended the attack and death of Cook. I had only the information that he was well seven days before he died, and had died in convulsions. I had not information to lead me to suppose that strychnia had been the cause of death, except that Palmer had purchased strychnia. Failing to find opium, prussic acid, or strychnia, I referred to antimony as the only substance found in the body. Before writing to the Lancet, I had been made the subject of a great many attacks. What I had said as to the possibility or impossibility of discovering strychnia after death had been misrepresented. In various newspapers it had been represented that I had said strychnia could never be detected—that it was destroyed by putrefaction. What I had said was, that when absorbed in the blood it could not be separated as strychnia. I wrote the letter in my own vindication.”

Professor Christison said:—“I am a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Professor of Materia Medica to the University of Edinburgh; I am also the author of a work on the subject of poisons, and I have directed a good deal of attention to strychnia. In my opinion it acts by absorption into the blood, and through that upon the nervous system. I have seen its effects upon a human subject, but not a fatal case. I have seen it tried upon pigs, rabbits, cats, and one wild boar. (A laugh.) I first directed my attention to this poison in 1820, in Paris. It had been discovered two years before in Paris. In most of my experiments upon animals I gave very small doses—a sixth of a grain; but I once administered a grain. I cannot say how small a dose would cause the death of an animal by administration into the stomach. I generally applied it by injection through an incision in the cavity of the chest. A sixth part of a grain so administered killed a dog in two minutes. I once administered to a rabbit, through the stomach, a dose of a grain. I saw Dr. Taylor administer three-quarters of a grain to a rabbit, and it was all swallowed except a very small quantity. The symptoms are nearly the same in rabbits, cats, and dogs. The first is a slight tremor and unwillingness to move; then frequently the animal jerks its head back slightly; soon after that all the symptoms of tetanus come on which have been so often described by the previous witnesses. When the poison is administered by the stomach death generally takes place between a period of five minutes and five and twenty minutes after the symptoms first make their appearance. I have frequently opened the bodies of animals thus killed, and have never been able to trace any effect of the poison upon the stomach or intestines, or upon the spinal cord or brain, that I could attribute satisfactorily to the poison. The heart of the animal generally contained blood in all the cases in which I have been concerned. In the case of the wild boar the poison was injected into the chest. A third of a grain was all that was used, and in ten minutes the symptoms began to show themselves. If strychnia was administered in the form of a pill it might be mixed with other ingredients that would protract the period of its operation. This would be the case if it were mixed with resinous materials, or any materials that were difficult of digestion, and such materials would be within the knowledge of any medical men, and they are frequently used for the purpose of making ordinary pills. Absorption in such a case would not commence until the pill was broken down by the process of digestion. In the present state of our knowledge of the subject I do not think it is possible to fix the precise time when the operation of the poison commences on a human subject. In the case of an animal we take care that it is fasting, and we mix the poison with ingredients that are readily soluble, and in every circumstance favourable for the development of the poison. I have seen many cases of tetanus arising from wounds and other causes. The general symptoms of the disorder very nearly resemble each other, and in all the natural forms of tetanus the symptoms begin and advance much more slowly, and they prove fatal much more slowly, and there is no intermission in certain forms of natural tetanus. In tetanus from strychnia there are short intermissions. I have heard the evidence of what took place at the ‘Talbot Arms’ on the Monday and Tuesday, and the result of my experience induces me to come to the conclusion that the symptoms exhibited by the deceased were only attributable to strychnia, or the four poisons containing it: namely, nux vomica, St. Ignatius’s bean, snakewood, and a draught poison called “exhetwick.”[52] There is no natural disease of any description that I am acquainted with to which I could refer these symptoms. In cases of tetanus consciousness remains to the very last moment. When death takes place in a human subject by spasm it tends to empty the heart of blood. When death is the consequence of the administration of strychnia, if the quantity is small, I should not expect to find any trace in the body after death. If there was an excess of quantity more than was required to cause the death by absorption, I should expect to find that excess in the stomach. The colour tests for the detection of the presence of strychnia are uncertain. Vegetable poisons are more difficult of detection than mineral ones, and there is one poison with which I am acquainted for which no known test has been discovered. The stomach of the deceased was sent in a very unsatisfactory state for examination, and there must have been a considerable quantity of strychnia in the stomach to have enabled any one to detect its presence under such circumstances.”

Cross-examined by Mr. Grove.—“The experiments I refer to were made many years ago. In one instance I tried one of the colour tests in the case of a man who was poisoned by strychnia, but I failed to discover the presence of the poison in the stomach. I tried the test for the development of the violet colour by means of sulphuric acid and oxide of lead. From my own observation I should say that animals destroyed by strychnia die of asphyxia, but in my work, which has been referred to, it will be seen that I have left the question open.”

Cross-examination continued.—“I have not noticed that in cases where a patient is suffering from strychnia the slightest touch appears to bring on the paroxysm. It is very remarkable in the case of animals, unless you touch them very gently indeed. Strychnia has a most intensely bitter taste. It is said on the authority of a French chemist that a grain will give a taste to more than a gallon of water. If resinous substances were used in the formation of a pill it does not follow that they would necessarily be found in the stomach; they might be passed off.”

By the Attorney-General.—“One of the cases quoted in the work that has been referred to was that of a gamekeeper, who was found dead; his head was thrown back, his hands were clenched, and his limbs were rigid. A paper containing strychnia was found in his pocket, and upon a post-mortem examination, there were indications which, under the circumstances, satisfied me of the existence of strychnia. There was a substance in the body of an intensely bitter taste, which was tested by the colour test, and it succeeded in one instance, but failed in another. It appears that colour tests are not to be relied upon in the case of strychnia in an impure condition: in the first place, you may not find indication of strychnia: and, secondly, they are subject to fallacy even if the strychnia is pure from other substances not containing strychnia presenting similar appearances.”