[1] Christison on Poisons, 1829, p. 491.

[2] For instance, strychnia or strychnine, morphia or morphine, aconitia or aconitine, are the same substances.

[3] 39 & 40 Vict. cap. 77, sec. 12.

[4] Potassio-mercuric iodide, made by dissolving 50 grammes of potassium iodide and 13·5 grammes of mercuric chloride, in a litre of distilled water. The reagent is added till no further precipitate is produced, which is known by filtering a small portion at intervals and testing with the potassio-mercuric iodide to see if finished. The strength of the solution must be, as nearly as possible, 1 part of the alkaloid in 200, so that an approximate idea must first be obtained by weighing or otherwise. As the quantity is in poison cases generally too small to weigh, the approximate idea must be gathered by comparing the intensity of the tests with those furnished by known amounts of the alkaloid. Each cubic centimetre of Mayer’s solution precipitates ·02 gramme of morphia, ·0268 of aconitia, and ·0167 of strychnia. For further details see Blyth’s Practical Chemistry, 1879, p. 289.

[5] Rennard (Chem. Centr. 1876, 456) asserts that acetic ether is preferable to amylic alcohol, as the latter dissolves more colouring matter.

[6] To recover the alkaloid, dissolve the precipitate in sufficient sulphurous acid solution, and evaporate: the sulphate is left (Wagner).

[7] If the picrate precipitate be dissolved in dilute potash, and the solution shaken with ether-chloroform, the latter, on evaporation, leaves the alkaloid again in a free state.

[8] At the inquest this witness said that she rinsed out one of the glasses on the table to give the deceased the water.

[9] Evidence of Katherine White, barmaid; W. Marton, gardener; J. Kendal, waiter at the Jerusalem Coffee-house; H. Crapp, clerk G. W. Railway, Slough; G. Lewis, postboy at Salthill; R. Roberts, innkeeper, Slough; C. Wibberts, guard of G. W. R.; Weymouth, a plumber; E. J. Howell, superintendent of Slough station; Rev. E. T. Champneys T. Holman, constable, of Farnham-Royal.

[10] At the inquest, this witness, speaking of the results of the chemical analysis, said:—“It may not have been prussic acid, but in conjunction with some salt nearly allied to it. I do not think it was administered by itself but in some liquid. The salts of prussic acid have not the same pungent peculiar odour as prussic acid itself. They would produce death, but he could not say how quickly.” Mr. Norblad, on the same occasion, suggested that one of the salts into the composition of which prussic acid enters, might have been given; “that cyanide of potassium, the salt to which he referred, would cause death in from two seconds to a quarter of an hour, according to the amount given.” At the time of the inquest it was not known that the prisoner had bought of Thomas, Scheele’s solution of prussic acid. On the properties of the various kinds of these salts, see Mr. Stewart’s remarks, pp. 73-77.

[11] Doubtful. C. G. S.

[12] On the mooted question of “odour,” see Mr. Stewart’s experiments and remarks on smell-blindness, pp. 63-66.

[13] In giving the examination-in-chief of this witness, I have, through the kindness of Mr. C. Platt, the clerk of assize of the old Norfolk circuit, been able to correct the cotemporary reports in the Times and the Bucks Heraldby the original report of his experiments made by Mr. Cooper to the prosecution. Mr. Cooper was unable to be at the inquest, and the results of such of these experiments as Messrs. Champneys and Norblad had witnessed were then alone given in evidence, excluding those where the odour of prussic acid was smelt by Mr. Cooper and his sons, and where the quantity in the portion of the contents of the stomach submitted to analysation was determined.

[14] See the table of Mr. Stewart’s experiments on bitter and sweet apples, and other fruits, p. 59.

[15] The reporter is wrong here; see cross-examination of Mr. Champneys, p. 24, in which he says that neither Mr. Norblad nor Mr. Pickering smelt the odour on the first opening of the body.

[16] Sweet almonds would not affect the production of prussic acid from the apple-pips, except as tending to produce emulsine.

[17] See note at p. 38 as to Pickering’s evidence on this point.

[18] See p. 58.

[19] Judge Therry’s Reminiscences of 30 Years’ Residence in N. S. Wales. 2nd edition, p. 107. I have altered the conclusion of the Judge’s remarks from information supplied to me by a relative well acquainted with Sydney in those days.

[20] Animal matter contains the elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen: the carbon and nitrogen unite with the alkaline metal to form a cyanide, or a ferrocyanide if iron also be present.

[21] Case of Sir T. Boughton, 1781.

[22] The potash and ferrous salt form potassium sulphate and ferrous hydroxide, the latter combines with cyanogen and more potash to form potassium ferro-cyanide, the ferric chloride with the potash produces ferric hydroxide and potassium chloride; when the hydrochloric acid is added, it dissolves up the excess of ferrous and ferric hydroxides, forming ferrous and ferric chlorides, and the ferric chloride unites with the potassium ferrocyanide to form ferric ferrocyanide or Prussian blue.

[23] Professor Carey Lea (American Journal of Science, 3, ix., 121) prefers to mix a weak solution of ammonio-ferrous sulphate with a little ammonio-ferric citrate, to acidify with hydrochloric acid, then to place two or three drops of this on a white plate, and to add a few drops of the suspected solution. A blue cloudiness indicates HCN. This method, he says, is capable of detecting ¹/₅₀₀₀ of a grain of HCN. But I do not think it more delicate than the old method if properly performed, and it does not so easily admit of comparative experiment as to quantity.

[24] Professor Toynbee met his death by incautious use in this way.

[25] Death from suffocation.

[26] 19 Vict. c. 16.

[27] The authorities for the following report are (1) Report of Trial of William Palmer. J. Gilbert, Lond., 1856. (2) Reprint of Times Report of the Trial. Ward and Lock, Lond., 1856; and the Life and Career of William Palmer, by the same publishers. (3) Verbatim Report of the Trial, from shorthand notes of Mr. Angelo Bennett. J. Allen, Lond., 1856. (4) Letter to Lord Chief Justice Campbell by the Rev. Thomas Palmer, brother to the prisoner, with appendix of documents, including memorial from his solicitor to Sir G. Grey, letters and newspaper criticisms. Taylor, Lond., 1856. I have also availed myself of Mr. Justice Stephens’ summary of the trial and his comments on the evidence, in the appendix to the third volume of his History of the Criminal Law of England.

[28] “From his childhood upward,” says his brother, “no man was gentler of heart—his charity was inexhaustible; his kindliness to all who were in distress well known. To him the wanderer resorted in his afflictions; by him the poor and houseless were fed and comforted. I write in the face of the public, with my character as a gentleman and a clergyman at stake, and I avow only facts that cannot be denied. His liberality was a proverb; his frank sincerity, his courage, his faithful loyalty to his friends, his temperance, his performance of the duties of religion, his social relations in the character of father, husband, and son, won for him the love and confidence of all who approached him; and though it is true that in one fatal instance he violated the laws of his country, and subjected himself to a severe penalty for an infringement of its commercial code, yet, this excepted, his was in all respects the very opposite of that cool, calculating, cowardly, crafty temper, which is essential to the poisoner, and we know cannot co-exist with those qualities which my brother possessed from his earliest years down even to the day when your lordship sent him to his death.” Letter to Lord Campbell, pp. 4, 5.

[29] The excuse put forward for this was his wish to raise money for Bate. The prisoner’s brother complains, in his letter to Lord Campbell, pp. 29, 30, and with justice, that though the evidence of the negotiation for this insurance was afterwards excluded as irrelevant, the statement was allowed to be made by the Attorney-General without a comment, which Lord Campbell must have known would prejudice the case against the prisoner. This exclusion of the evidence of a statement which has been allowed to pass unchallenged is nearly as useless as the formal warning not to pay any attention to some evidence that has been wrongly admitted—the prejudice has been raised, and the mischief already done. But for the result of this trial, he would have been tried for the murder of his wife, whose body had been exhumed and analysed.

[30] As the probability of Cook’s state of health predisposing him to epileptic attacks was made part of the prisoner’s case, the evidence of his regular medical attendant is subjoined:—

Dr. Henry Savage, physician, of 7, Gloucester-place, examined by the Attorney-General.—I knew John Parsons Cook. He had been in the habit of consulting me professionally during the last four years. He was a man not of robust constitution; but his general health was good. He came to me in May, 1855, but I saw him about November of the year before, and early in the spring of 1855. In the spring of 1855 the old affair—indigestion—was one cause of his visiting me, and he had some spots upon his body, about which he was uneasy. He had also two shallow ulcers on his tongue, which corresponded with two bad teeth. He said that he had been under a mild mercurial course, and he imagined that those spots were very syphilitic. I thought they were not, and I recommended the discontinuance of mercury. I gave him quinine as a tonic, and an aperient composed of cream of tartar, magnesia, and sulphur. I never at any time gave him antimony. Under the treatment which I prescribed the sores gradually disappeared, and they were quite well by the end of May. I saw him, however, frequently in June, as he still felt some little anxiety about the accuracy of my opinion. If any little spot made its appearance he came to me, and I also was anxious on the subject, as my opinion differed from that of another medical man in London. Every time he came to me I examined him carefully. There were no indications of a syphilitic character about the sores, and there was no ulceration of the throat, but one of the tonsils was slightly enlarged and tender. I saw him last alive, and carefully examined him, either on the 3rd or 5th of November. There was in my judgment no venereal taint about him at the time.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee.—I do not think that the deceased was fond of taking mercury before I advised him against it; but he was timid on the subject of his throat, and was apt to take the advice of anyone. No; I don’t think that he would take quack medicines. I don’t think he was so foolish as that.

Mr. Stevens, his stepfather, who saw him at the Euston Station on the 5th of November, when starting for Rugeley, said, “he looked better than he had seen him for a long time. ‘You don’t look,’ he said to him, ‘like an invalid’; and Cook, striking his chest, said he was quite well, and should be all right if he was happy.” In point of appearance he was not a robust man; his complexion was pale, and he had sore throat in the previous winter for some months.

For the defence, Foster, a farmer, said he considered him of a weak constitution, because he had bilious headaches, the last a year and a half back, but admitted that he hunted three days a week.

John Sargeant, a betting man, who met him at the races which he attended, said:—I had an opportunity of seeing the state of his throat before he died. I was with him at the Liverpool meeting the week previous to the Shrewsbury races; we slept in adjoining rooms. One morning he called me into his room and drew my attention to his throat, which was much inflamed. There were ulcers upon it, and the tongue was so swollen, that I said I was surprised at the state of his mouth. He said he had been in that state for weeks and months, “And now,” he said, “I don’t take notice of it.” He had shown me his throat before this at almost every meeting we attended. He took some gingerbread and cayenne on the platform at Liverpool, and told me afterwards it nearly killed him. (It came out afterwards that the cayenne nut was a trick nut.) The witness had also known Palmer supply Cook with blackwash before his death. He had never seen Cook’s throat dressed by anybody, and was surprised to see him eat and drink so well. He saw the blackwash applied (externally) at the Warwick Spring Meeting in 1855. With reference to another point, this witness spoke to Cook being unable to pay him more than £10 out of £25 at the Liverpool meeting, and promising the balance at Shrewsbury.

[31] On the part of the prisoner, a saddler at Rugeley, of the name of Myalt, whom Fisher spoke of as being in the room with Cook and Palmer, was called to give an entirely different account of this suspicious incident. “I saw Cook,” said this witness, “in Palmer’s company on Wednesday, about twelve o’clock. I had not dined with Palmer, but at my house at Rugeley, and got back to Shrewsbury between eight and nine, and went to Palmer’s room to see if he was in. The first person I saw was Cook at the room door, who said, ‘What brought you here?’ I told him, ‘to see how they were getting on.’ Palmer, I found, had gone out, and I went into the town, and was away about an hour. “When I returned Palmer was not there, so I waited in his room till he returned, about a couple of hours. He came in with Cook, who was the worse for liquor—not very drunk—rather. They asked me to take some brandy and water; it was produced directly afterwards—the brandy in a decanter, the water might be on the table. I did not leave the room at all, from the time Cook and Palmer came in till they all went to bed. I did not see anything put into the brandy and water; nothing could be without my seeing it. Palmer and I left together, and slept that night in the same room. Cook said something about its being bad. He drank part of it off, and then gave it to some one to taste. He proposed to have some more, but Palmer said he would not unless Cook drank his out. Nothing more happened that night. Next morning Palmer asked me to call Cook. I went into his room, and he told me how ill he had been in the night, and obliged to send for a doctor. He asked me what had been put into the brandy and water, and I told him I did not know of anything. He asked me to send for the doctor—Palmer. I did so. The witness did not remember Mrs. Brooks coming, or Palmer being called out of the room. He swore that Cook did not say ‘it burns my throat.’ Did not remember Fisher saying that it was no good his tasting it, as there was nothing in the glass. He told Mr. Gardner and Mr. Stevens before the inquest what he now said, but they had not subpœnaed him.

[32] “Lord Campbell did not even read this portion of the witness’s evidence to the jury. Whatever its value might be, and it had some in the prisoner’s favour, they were not reminded of it, and can hardly be expected to have remembered it after a twelve days’ trial.” Letter to Lord Campbell, p. 24.

[33] Some questions on this point were put to Mr. Gardner, the solicitor for the prosecution, but were stopped as too general.

[34] Mills, in her cross-examination, said that Palmer “had on a plaid dressing-gown, but could not say whether he had on a cap or not.”

[35] Lord Campbell had omitted from his notes this contradiction of the statement of Mills and others that the body was arched, and when Mr. Serjeant Shee called his attention to it, made no comment on it to the jury.—Evidence of Mary Keeling.

[36] But see the evidence of Mr. Partridge, Mr. Rogers, and Mr. Pemberton as to the state of the exhumed corpse, and the probable effect of the granules.—Evidence of scientific witnesses for the defence, post, pp. 170-4.

[37] A Mr. Devonshire, a late assistant of Dr. Monckton’s, who was present at the post-mortem, was also called to confirm the previous witnesses. He also proved the extraction of the liver, kidneys, spleen, and some blood, and their safe delivery through a clerk (Boycott) to the attorneys at Rugeley to Dr. Taylor for analysis.

[38] Mr. Curling agreed with Dr. Watson, Principles and Practice of Physic, in the cases of “the sticking of a fish bone in the fauces, the stroke of a whip-lash under the eye leaving the skin unbroken, the cutting of a corn, the biting of the finger by a sparrow, the blow of a stick on the neck, the insertion of a seton, the extraction of a tooth, the injection of a hydrocele, and the operation of cupping,” but not with “the percussion of the air caused by a musket-shot.” He also explained that the supposed case of tetanus produced at once where a negro servant cut his thumb with a dish, rested on the authority of an old cyclopædia, and that his judgment was more mature and his experience greater than when, twenty-two years of age, he wrote the treatise in which he had quoted this case. (It was only in Rees’ Cyclopædia.)

[39] Dr. Todd, in reply to Lord Campbell, defined idiopathic tetanus to be “that form of the disease which is produced without any external wound, apparently from internal causes—from a constitutional cause.”

[40] Evidence of Dr. Robert Corbett, physician, of Glasgow, at the time medical clerk at the Glasgow Infirmary; Dr. Watson, surgeon to the infirmary; Dr. J. Patterson, of the infirmary laboratory; and Mary Kelly, patient.

[41] This is a test for brucia and not for strychnia. See p. 285.

[42] See Ptomaine’s or Cadaveric Poisons. Chemical introduction, ante, p. 12, and Chapter V., p. 278.

[43] “Mr. Mayhew called on me with another gentleman with an introduction from Professor Faraday. I received him as I would Professor Faraday, and entered into conversation with him about these cases. He represented, as I understood, that he was connected with some insurance company, and wished for information about a number of cases of poisoning that had occurred during many years. After we had conversed about an hour, he asked if there was any objection to the publication of the details. Still believing him to be connected with an insurance office, I replied that, so far as the correction of error was concerned, I had no objection to anything appearing. On that evening he went away without telling me he was connected with the Illustrated Times, or any other paper. It was not until Thursday that I knew that. It was the greatest deception that ever was practised on a scientific man.”—Dr. Taylor’s evidence. In his charge, Lord Campbell said, “I must say I think it would have been better if Dr. Taylor, trusting to the credit he had before acquired, had taken no notice of what had been said; but it is for you to say, whether, he having been misrepresented, and having written this letter to the Lancet to set himself right, materially detracted from the credit which would otherwise be given to his evidence.” It was these statements in the Illustrated Times, copied into other papers, that led Dove to resort to strychnia to poison his wife.—See his case, post.

[44] On the value of experiments on animals, see Chemical Introduction, ante, p. 6.

[45] “A mixture of sugar and bile, or a substance called pyroxanthine—the product of a distillation of wood—will produce the purple and red tint.”—Taylor’s evidence. But see Chapter V.

[46] Curarine. See Chapter V.

[47] On this point see Chapter V.

[48] This suggestion of negligence on the part of the operator, Mr. Devonshire, and the comments on it by the Attorney-General, having subjected him to several attacks both in the Central Criminal Court and in the papers, he gave the following explanation in a letter to the Morning News, dated May 29:—

“It was agreed in consultation at Mr. Freer’s, at Rugeley, that the stomach and intestines should be opened, and, with their contents, enclosed in a jar. It was further agreed that the spinal cord should not be opened if its upper portion and the brain should prove to be in a healthy condition. At the examination I was assisted by Mr. Newton, a young gentleman who had, unfortunately, never witnessed a post-mortem. He punctured the stomach, and about a teaspoonful of its contents was lost. Afterwards, when Dr. Harland and I were examining the lining membrane, Mr. Newton suddenly turned the stomach inside out; an additional half teaspoonful was thus lost, the remainder falling into the jar. This accounts for Dr. Taylor finding the mucous membrane in contact with the intestines. With the exception of this casual puncture I maintain the post-mortem was skilfully performed.”—Letter to Lord Campbell. Appendix, p. xxiv.

[49] The extract from Orfila is: “In a dog who for four entire months had taken no emetic, having taken three grammes in ten days (that is, about forty-five grains), but had not taken any for four months, the metal was found accumulated in the bones; the liver also contained a great deal, and the other tissues but little.”

[50] The letter referred mainly to the case of the prisoner’s wife. Mr. Serjeant Shee wished only the concluding paragraph to he read, but the Attorney-General insisted on the whole. It was dated only Jan., published in the Lancet of February 2, was headed “Audi alteram partem,” and was as follows:—

“Sir,—I have great pleasure in replying to the inquiries in your leading article of January 19. (1) I stated that I had never known antimonial powder, when given in medicinal doses (i.e., from five to eight grains a dose) to produce vomiting or purging. I am aware that experience differs on this point—that some have found the substance inert, and others very active. From some recent experiments on antimonial preparations, I think it not unlikely that the powder sometimes contains arseniate of lime. Dr. Pereira mentions that in the case of a dose of half a teaspoonful it on one occasion produced violent vomiting, purging, and sweating; while in still larger doses (120 grains to a dose), prescribed by Dr. Elliotson, it occasioned in some instances only nausea. I have never met with any case in which serious symptoms could be referred to its operation; and in the case of Ann Palmer (the wife) this medical preparation would not account for the antimony found in her body. (2) My statement as to the cause of death was that the deceased died from the effects of tartar emetic, and from no other cause; that is the opinion which Dr. Rees and myself formed from the result of our examination, and from the description under which the deceased laboured during the eight days before her death. It is an opinion now equally shared by the two medical attendants of the deceased. We are quite prepared to maintain this at the trial.” The letter then went on to describe the state of Ann Palmer’s body, though not exhumed until eighteen months after death, and contrasted it with that of the brother, and concluded with the passage given in the text. Its effect could not be but prejudicial to the prisoner.

[51] In this case, stated by Dr. Christison, the patient had been affected with some complaint for four weeks, and began to take strychnia; in three hours there was stupor and loss of speech, and at length violent tetanic convulsions, and death in three hours and three-quarters.

[52] Probably a mistake of the reporter, as I cannot find any clue to the meaning of this word.—C. G. S.

[53] An instance of the indestructibility of strychnia was communicated by Mr. F. Crace Calvert, F.C.S., to the London journals subsequently to the trial. In 1849 several hounds of a pack in Cheshire were poisoned and one brought to his laboratory, from which, by the usual process, strychnia was obtained. “As the master of the hounds attached great importance to the case, he requested me,” writes Mr. Calvert, “to obtain a sufficient amount of poison from the stomachs of some other of the dead dogs, that I might not only be convinced of the presence of the poison, but might also bring some of the extracted strychnia into court. To enable me to do so, several dogs were disinterred and brought to my laboratory, and the space of time from the date of death to that when I submitted them to analysis was at least three weeks, and I still perfectly succeeded in extracting strychnia from their stomachs and exhibiting it in the state of crystallised hydrochlorate.”—Appendix to Letter to Lord Campbell, p. xxix. Another correspondent to the Times called attention to the practice in Mexico of killing a worn-out mule with nux vomica, leaving its carcase to be eaten by the wolves, which are thus killed, and that the Turkey buzzards who feed on the dead wolves also die of the poison.—Ib. p. xxv.

[54] See Chapter V.

[55] An error. See Chapter V.

[56] The table of cases of poisoning by strychnia, with their symptoms and results of the post-mortem, given by Mr. Woodman and Dr. Tidy, shows that the state of the heart varies. In six cases it was contracted and empty, in some others the right side only was empty, and in one both sides were filled with blood.—Handy Book of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. London. 1877.

[57] In a letter to the Times of June 4, Mr. Herapath says: “I learnt on my return here (Bristol) that Mr. Yates had visited Bristol with an anonymous letter in his hand (since acknowledged to have been written by the magistrates’ clerk, Keynsham), and questioned several gentlemen whom I am in the habit of meeting, as to whether they heard me say ‘that I had no doubt strychnia was in Cook’s body, but that Dr. Taylor could not find it,’ and ‘that a word from me would hang the man.’ They all said they had heard me speak of the case, but not in such terms. The mayor said that ‘he could not say the exact terms, but the impression on his mind was, that I thought strychnia was there, but that Dr. Taylor could not find it.’”—Letter to Lord Campbell, Appendix, p. xxxi.

[58] “The controversy,” as to the non-discovery of strychnia by Dr. Taylor, says Mr. Justice Stephen, “was foreign to the merits of the case, inasmuch as the evidence given for the prisoner tended to prove, not that there was no strychnia in Cook’s body, but that Dr. Taylor ought to have found it if it was there. In other words it was relevant, not so much to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, as to whether Mr. Herapath and Dr. Nunneley were better analytical chemists than Dr. Taylor. The evidence could not be even considered relevant to the shaking of Dr. Taylor’s credit, for no part of the case rested on his evidence except the discovery of the antimony, as to which he was corroborated by Mr. Brande, and not contradicted by the prisoner’s witnesses.” (One does not see how this could have been accomplished, as they were not present at the analysis.) “His opinion as to the nature of Cook’s symptoms was shared by many other medical witnesses of the highest eminence, whose credit was altogether unimpeached. The prisoner’s counsel was placed in a curious difficulty by this state of the question. They had to attack, and did attack Dr. Taylor’s credit vigorously, for the purpose of rebutting his conclusion that Cook might have been poisoned by strychnia: yet they had to maintain his credit as a skilful analyst. For if they destroyed it, the fact that he did not discover strychnia went for nothing. This dilemma was fatal. To admit his skill was to admit their client’s guilt; to deny it, was to destroy the value of nearly all their own evidence. The only possible way was to admit his skill and deny his good faith; but this too was useless for the reason just assigned.”—History of Criminal Law in England. Vol. III., 418.

[59] Roberts, Theory and Practice of Medicine, 1877, Vol. II., 23, gives the following symptoms of angina pectoris:—“Abrupt suddenness—intense præcordial pain—oppression and constriction of the chest—suffocation, no cyanosis—tenderness of chest rare—face pale, sweat—expression of intense anxiety—pulse mostly feeble, flickering occasionally—vomiting and eructation. Conscious at first, but, if prolonged, may be syncope. Spasmodic movements, and even general convulsions may be observed. Usually several brief paroxysms with intermissions. Tendency to rave under slight exciting causes.” Dr. Bristow, Theory and Practice of Medicine, agrees with this, and adds, “After death various lesions—most important the calcification of the coronary vessels—fatty and other degenerations of the muscular tissue of the heart. In other cases the heart perfectly healthy.”

[60] In the Appendix, p. xxi., to the letter to Lord Campbell, is a letter from a Mr. Lacy, a hatter of Nottingham, dated June 2, to the Morning News, giving a very unfavourable account of the earlier years of this witness. He appears to have got out of the way after the trial, and to have evaded the search made for him by the prisoner’s friends.

[61] In cross-examination, after admitting that he attested the proposal to the Prince of Wales office for £13,000 on Walter Palmer’s life, and saying that he did not recollect attesting another proposal on the same life to the Universal, the proposal to that office was put into his hand, and he was asked if the “Jeremiah Smith” attesting it was his signature. “It is very like my signature,” he said, “but I have a doubt of it.” (After a pause) “I believe it is not my handwriting; I swear it is not. I think it a very good imitation. I did not receive the document from Pratt; I might from W. Palmer. I don’t recollect.” (After some hesitation) “No doubt he did give it to me. I got it before it was signed.”

Attorney-General.—“Do you now say it is not your signature?”

Witness.—“I do.” (He then admitted getting appointed agent to the Midland County office in order to get a policy for £10,000 on Bate’s life.)

Attorney-General.—“I will refresh your memory with regard to these proposals. Look at that, and tell me whether it is your handwriting?”

Witness.—“Yes.”

Attorney-General.—“Now, refreshing your memory with that document, were you applied to in December, 1854, to attest a proposal of Walter Palmer to the Solicitors’ and General office for £13,000?”

Witness.—“That is my signature, certainly.”

Attorney-General repeats the question.

Witness.—“I don’t recollect.”

Attorney-General.—“What, with your signature staring you in the face?”

Witness.—“I might have been a witness to it. I am speaking from memory.”

Attorney-General.—“Have you any doubt, after looking at that document?”

Witness.—“I have no doubt.”

Attorney-General.—“At last we have got at it from you. Now look to that document, and see if another month afterwards—in January, 1855—you were asked to attest another proposal for £13,000 to the Prince of Wales office?”

Witness (hesitating).—“That is my signature. (A pause.) Perhaps if I saw the paper I could answer.”

Attorney-General.—“There is the paper.”

Witness (after a pause).—“I might have signed it in blank. I have some doubt whether I did not sign some of these in blank. The body of the papers is in the handwriting of William Palmer.”

Attorney-General.—“Upon your oath, don’t you believe that William Palmer applied to you to attest the proposal on his brother’s life for £13,000?”

Witness.—“He did apply to me.”

Attorney-General.—“Was it not to attest the proposal for £13,000 on his brother’s life?”

Witness.—“One of them was for £13,000. I don’t think I was present when Walter Palmer signed the assignment. I believe Jeremiah Smith’s (another witness of that name) handwriting is very like mine.”

After much fencing with the question, the witness saying he might or he might not have attested Walter Palmer’s signature to a deed of assignment, the Attorney-General put a cheque for £5 into the witness’s hand, and asked him if it was William Palmer’s signature to it.

Answer.—“It is.”

Question.—“Did you take that piece of paper to the bank and get £5 for it, and that for attesting the signature of Walter Palmer to the deed of assignment?”

Answer.—“I may have got the £5 at the bank; but upon my honour I do not know what for. (Laughter.) Cook, with reference to the £200 bill, gave Palmer £10 for the accommodation, and he took the money to Shrewsbury races. I cannot say who saw me on the Monday night when I went up to Cook’s room at the ‘Talbot Arms.’ I did not notice. I believe that either the chambermaid, the waitress, or the cook saw me go into the hotel. I don’t know who drove the fly to Stafford.”

This witness was also severely cross-examined as to his relations with Mrs. Palmer, replying with the same caution as to their impropriety, and could not get further than “that there ought not to be any truth” in the imputation.

Mr. Justice Stephen, who was present at the trial, gives the following graphic sketch of the demeanour of this witness:—“No abbreviation can give the effect of this cross-examination. The witness’s efforts to gain time, and his distress as the various answers were extorted from him by degrees, may be faintly traced in the report. His face was covered with sweat, and the papers put into his hands shook and rattled.”—Hist. Criminal Law of England. Vol. III., p. 399, note. “And yet, after all,” as the learned judge adds, “he was right as to the time according to the inspector at Euston. If Smith spoke the truth, Newton could not have seen Palmer at all that night, and Mills, if at all, must have seen him in Smith’s company. Mills never mentioned Smith” (and was never asked by the defence if he came with Palmer), “and Smith would not swear that she or anyone else had seen him at the ‘Talbot’ that night.”

[62] Smith (not Jeremiah, subsequently examined, pp. 185-6), when called for the defence, said that he sent the soup to Cook by Rowley, but not to Palmer’s on the way.

[63] Palmer’s brother, in the letter to Lord Campbell, states that Sanders, the trainer, if called (who had been examined before the coroner), could have proved that Cook excused his not giving him more than £10 when he came to see him, on the plea “that he had given all his money to Palmer to take with him to London to settle his affairs,” and that he was in court at the trial, and when not called by the prosecution, was sent out of the way to prevent his being called for the defence.—Letter to Lord Campbell, pp. 18, 19.

He was called on his subpœna at the close of the evidence for the defence (tenth day), and when he did not answer, the Attorney-General said, “I should be deeply grieved if it could be possibly thought that the absence of any witness could in any way prejudice the prisoner’s case, and if my learned friend makes any application on that ground it shall not be resisted by me.” No application was made.

[64] It was an acknowledgment that certain bills, of which the dates and amounts were set out, were all for Cook’s benefit, and signed either J.P. or I.P. Cook. Cheshire was under Palmer’s influence, and a few days after opened Dr. Taylor’s letter to Mr. Gardner with the account of the results of the analytical examination, and disclosed them to Palmer, for which he was prosecuted and punished.

[65] Whilst Palmer was in Stafford jail, inquests were held on the bodies of his wife and his brother Walter. In the first case there was no manner of doubt that she had been gradually dosed to death by antimony. In that of the brother, the analysis failed to detect any poison, a fact probably accounted for by the length of time that had elapsed since the death and the action of the lead coffin, if prussic acid was the poison used. In both cases, however, verdicts of wilful murder against Palmer were returned. On the 21st of January Palmer was brought up from jail as a witness in an action on one of the £2000 bills purported to be signed by his mother, the signature of which was denied by her; clerks in banks and others who knew her handwriting well also agreeing that it was a forgery. At last Palmer was produced in custody. He entered in a perfectly cool and collected manner, nodded familiarly to his friends in the crowded court, and gave the following evidence in a low, yet firm and distinct voice, without a sign of trepidation:—

Mr. Edwin James (putting the disputed bill into his hand).—“Is the signature of William Palmer, as drawer of this bill, in your handwriting?”

Palmer.—“Yes.”

Mr. James.—“And did you apply to Mr. Padwick to advance you money on it?”

Palmer.—“I did.”

Mr. James.—“Who wrote Sarah Palmer’s acceptance on it?”

Palmer.—“Anne Palmer.”

Question.—“Who is she?”

Palmer.—“She is dead.”

Question.—“Do you mean your wife?”

Palmer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“Did you see her write it?”

Palmer.—“Yes.”

The action was, of course, at once abandoned, and no further proceedings taken on the other bills bearing the mother’s name.

[66] See Lord Campbell’s correction of this.—Judge’s charge, post.

[67] Ante, pp. 185 and 186, note.

[68] See the suggestion of Dr. Guy, that the death was probably due to morphia, and the remarks thereon in Chapter V., post.

[69] On this point, which was also put very strongly by Lord Campbell in his charge, the prisoner’s brother, in his letter to that judge, accuses the prosecution of cunningly keeping back a witness of the name of Cockayne, who had been examined before the coroner and whose deposition was before the Court, who would have explained the use for which the strychnia was bought. “Had he been, as he ought to have been called, he would have proved that he kept a gun loaded in the stable, by order of my brother, to shoot the dogs that worried his brood mares, and that he also threatened to poison them, and that the strychnia was purchased for that object, and that he had missed dogs since then, which had been in the habit of prowling about the pastures and hunting the mares.” He also accounts for the non-production of poisoned dogs, by the “medical fact that they go away to die in secret, concealed and quiet places, where they die undiscovered, and would be mortally attacked in so short a time that they could not get to their own home.” He further accuses them of sending this witness, and Sanders the trainer, who would have proved that Cook told him he had given Palmer all his money, out of the way, so that the prisoner’s solicitor could not call them for the defence.—Letter to Lord Campbell, pp. 17, 19. But see ante, p. 188, note.

[70] See ante, p. 216, note, on the evidence of a witness, Cockayne, who was called before the coroner.

[71] The prisoner’s brother, on the contrary, says that he distinctly, in a most solemn interview, declared his “perfect guiltlessness of blood.” The same writer unfortunately lessens the value of his other statements by a coarse attack on Lord Campbell as a worthy successor of Jeffries, and imputes to him and Baron Alderson a deliberate intention to force the jury to a conviction. As I had not the advantage of being present at the trial, I can only say nothing of this appears in any of the reports of the trial which I have collated, and whilst on the contrary we now have the evidence of an experienced criminal lawyer, who saw and heard all. Still, however, remains the great difficulty that strychnia, as every analytical chemist will testify, ought to have been found, if it had been given, though the failure to discover it does not conclusively negative the probability of it having been administered. Dr. Guy has suggested that morphia might have been the cause, introduced into the pills, a point of which would seem to be made in Serjeant Shee’s speech, and which would account for Palmer’s statement that Cook was not killed by strychnia, and with his wish for a further examination of the body by Mr. Herapath.—Hist. of Crim. Law of England. Vol. III., pp. 423-4. See on this point Chapter V.

[72] For the report of this trial I have relied on the apparently verbatim report in the Times (probably from the pen of the late Mr. Campbell Forster), collated with that in the Annual Register of 1856, and with the Summary by Mr. Justice Stephen based on the notes of the presiding judge.

[73] Mrs. Mary Wood. Mr. Overend objected to this witness being asked as to her opinion of Dove’s state of mind, on the ground that she was not a skilled witness. The objection was allowed by Mr. Baron Bramwell, but on the suggestion of the judge, not persevered in by the prosecution.

[74] Charles Harrison.

[75] These strong expressions were not supported by any specific proof worth reporting. Mr. H. admitted he used to flog him, but added, “I flogged him till I was satisfied there was a want of reason, but not after.” He admitted that he flogged him slightly (perhaps a stroke or two) the day before he left.—Stephens’ Summary. Vol. III., p. 430.

[76] He used to point loaded fire-arms at his servants, and threaten to shoot unoffending persons: tell strange stories of being followed by robbers: wander about his fields without an object.

[77] Evidence of his nurse, Mrs. Wood, Mr. Highley, Mr. C. Harrison, Mr. Lord, and the servants at Whitwell Farm (James Shaw, Mary Peek, Robert and William Tomlinson, Emma Spence, and Emma and Fanny Wilson) called for the defence, and cross-examination of Elizabeth Fisher, who had been his servant at Normanton and Leeds, Mrs. Thornhill, charwoman, generally employed at the house at Leeds, and Mary Hicks.

[78] In his second confession he fixes the date of this as Sunday, February 24, and that he took then about ten grains.

[79] On the Monday he wrote the following letter to his mother:—“My dear Mother,—I am sorry to tell you that my wife is very ill indeed. She came down as I thought this morning much better, took a nice breakfast for her, and then she commenced to play (the piano). After that she told Mrs. Fisher (who is with us) that she would help her to make the beds, but instead of that she was seized in her limbs and could not stand, neither could she take anything. I went to Mr. Morley, and I am sure I did not expect to see her alive when I came back; but thank God she was alive, and that was all; she was entirely prostrated. Mother has been to see her. If you would like to see her you had better come by London for three and sixpence. Harriet would like to see her, but she thinks of the expense. My dear wife’s love to you and all at home, and accept the same from your affectionate son, William Dove. P.S.—I hope Mary will not make fun of this small bit of paper; it would be over-heavy if I had not torn it off.” [This was one of the letters referred to by Baron Bramwell as disproof of his imputed idiotcy.]

[80] This witness and Mr. Morley, the surgeon, were called in Palmer’s trial to state the symptoms observed in the course of Mrs. Dove’s illness and death, without mentioning her name, and Mr. Morley also related the results of the analytical examination of her body in conjunction with Mr. Nunneley, who was called on behalf of Palmer, and maintained that if it had been given, strychnia must have been found by analysis six days after death (pp. 124-8).

[81] “He told me,” said Harrison, “that he was afflicted by devils, but that I had more power over them, and could send them to frighten his wife from her bed to sleep with him—believed they were in his house, and attributed thunder and lightning to them. I attributed this to delirium tremens. Told me he had sold his soul to the devil. I did not encourage him to think I could rule devils; it was his own fancy. I told him I would cast his nativity, but when I saw the state of his mind I did not finish it.”—Harrison’s evidence—cross-examination. But see Dove’s account of Harrison in his confession, post.

[82] In this case Baron Alderson also decided that if the witnesses were called by the defence, the person calling them made them his own witnesses, 2 C. & K. p. 520. Baron Parke, Justice Cresswell, and Lord Campbell agreed with this. See R. v. Cassidy, F. &. F. p. 79.

[83] To the schoolmaster at Abeford—conjuring tricks!

[84] Should not this be “at some times.”

[85] “That would be moral insanity.”—Judge’s Notes—Stephen.

[86] I cannot find in the reports to what particular act this question refers.

[87] “The suggestion of Dr. Williams,” says Judge Stephen, “that Dove had allowed his mind to dwell on his wife’s death till at last he became the victim of an uncontrollable propensity to kill her, if correct, would not prove that his act was not voluntary. It is setting and keeping the mind in motion towards an object plainly conceived that constitutes the mental part of an act. Every act becomes irrevocable before it is consummated. If a man, for example, strikes another, he may repent while his arm is falling; but there is a point at which he can no more deprive his arm of the impetus with which he has animated it, than he can divert from its course a bullet which has been fired from a rifle. Suppose he deals with his mind in this manner at an earlier stage of the proceeding, and so fills himself with a passionate, intense longing for the forbidden object or result, that he becomes, as it were, a mere machine in his own hands. Is not the case precisely similar, and does not the action continue to be voluntary and wilful, although the act of volition which made it irrevocable preceded its completion by a longer interval than usual?

“It must, however, be remembered, that the proof that Dove’s propensity was uncontrollable was very defective. An uncontrollable propensity, which accidental difficulties or the fear of detection constantly control and divert for a time, is an inconceivable state of mind. Is there the smallest reason to suppose that, if Mrs. Dove had met with a fatal accident, and had been lying in bed dying before her husband gave her any poison, his uncontrollable propensity to kill her would have induced him to give her poison nevertheless? If not, the propensity was like any other wicked feeling. It was certainly uncontrolled, and it may probably have been strong, but that is different to uncontrollable.”—History of the Criminal Law of England, by Mr. Justice Stephen. Vol. III., p. 435-6.

[88] Baron Bramwell especially called attention to the letter of the prisoner to his mother of the 25th of February, describing his wife’s first attack (see ante, note p. 237), and that to the Witchman, Harrison, asking him, in replying about his nativity, to “write in milk, or lemon, or anything else that would not show till put to the fire.”

[89] This was proved at the trial by the Fishers.

[90] Mr. Morley’s pupil had shown it to him; proved at the trial.

[91] That would be February the 23rd, when Fisher’s mother come to Dove’s to take her daughter’s place, and the first attack was when Mrs. Dove fell whilst helping to make the beds on the following Monday. Throughout his statement Dove is very confused as to dates. The tasting by Mrs. Witham was several days after this.

[92] Mrs. Witham states (see her evidence) that she gave her medicine at 3.30 P.M., and she seemed better for it.

[93] In his comments on this extraordinary case, Mr. Justice Stephen—after noting Dove’s predisposition to madness in his infancy; the fact that the symptoms of the disease exhibited themselves at frequent intervals, yet never reached such a pitch as to induce his friends to treat him as a madman; the prurience with which he dwelt on the prospect of his wife’s death; the forming of the design of putting her to death, and the deliberate contrivance and precaution with which he carried it out—says:—“In this state of things can he be said to have known, in the wider sense of the words, that his act was wrong? He obviously knew that it was wrong in the sense that people generally consider it so; but was he capable of thinking, like an ordinary man, of the reasons why murder is wrong, and of applying these reasons to his conduct? There was evidence both ways. His irrationality, however, was occasional, and he appears to have acted rationally enough as a rule, and to have transacted all the common affairs of life. Did, then, this act belong to the rational or irrational part of his conduct? Every circumstance connected with it referred it to the former. It was a continued series of deliberate and repeated attempts, fully completed at last.”—History of the Criminal Law. Vol. III., pp. 435-6.

[94] This is probably an error of the reporter—rigid(?)

[95] The pills were produced at the inquest, and seen there by Dr. Lees, but not submitted for analysis, either to him or Dr. Bernays.

[96] In this the presence of strychnia was very distinct.

[97] The important evidence of this witness is given very briefly on the report of the trial. From the notes of the analyses made at the time in the laboratory I have been enabled to give it in greater detail.

[98] Morphia gives with nitric acid a deep orange unchanged by stannous chloride.

[99] See also case of Agnes Sennett, p. 121.

[100] A striking case of cure by chloroform is given in the London Med. Gazette for 1850, p. 187, quoted from the Boston Med. Journal, July, 1850.

[101] Palmer administered to Cook so few pills, that unless these consisted of solid morphia, which is impossible, they could not much affect the above conclusion.

[102] The words “causing to be administered” were struck out on the objection of Mr. Young that “they were not covered by the major part of the indictment, and not material in any way.”

[103] This was distinctly denied by Miss Giubilei, who had been a pupil teacher at the school.

[104] Mr. Minnoch, on the contrary, said, “She accepted me on the 28th of January, and then she and I arranged it on the 12th of March. From the 28th of January to the end of March there was nothing to suggest to my mind a doubt as to the engagement continuing. I had no idea she was engaged to any other. When the marriage was fixed in March it was to take place on the 18th of June.”

[105] “But surely,” said the Lord Justice Clerk, “had such been the case, she would never have wished to be ‘clasped to the heart,’ as she expresses it in her letter, of a man whom she had to inform that she was engaged to another, and that all relations must be broken off between them.”

[106] On this latter matter and the identification of the envelopes for the respective letters much time was occupied. In his charge the Lord Justice Clark said, that “though the procedure adopted had been loose and slovenly, it did not appear that the panel had suffered any prejudice from the want of any of them. As to each letter being in its proper envelope, in the first part of the correspondence, it did not much signify whether such were the case; because there was no doubt that those passionate letters written by the prisoner, declaring such strong love for L’Angelier, and some of them expressed in very licentious terms, were written by her at some time or other.”