The Northern Daily Times. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-05-26 00:00:00

attorney at Rugeley. I am acquainted with the prisoner's family, and also with the late Mr. Qook. I remember 'lr. Cook at the Talbot Arms, at Rugeley, on the 16th of 4 : lov ember. On the morning of that day he had breakfast 14 bed, He had tea and a wine glass full of brandy ; ' af terward s We _ on that day, I dined with him at Palmer's . had three b o ttl es o f w i ne . Th e di n ner was over at ft`flaast two. We rose from table at six. Cook and myself ;left the house together, and went to the Albion 41 1 CA 1 e `. We had a glass of brandy each. We left together. Wok said h e felt cold. He borrowed a book, and said he f a go home Ind read it in bed. On that day I had a j elliersat ion with Cook about racing ; that was at Palmer's 4aasked hitt for .£5O, and said " Cook, can you pay me all ?" g e '4ia no, there is only £4l 10s due to you. k o r e me £5, and said he would give me the rest on the -- a3' following. He said he had paid Palmer some the 3 ' Which h e owe d hi m . [The witness here described 1 1 ; e , Illnes s of Cook at the Talbot from the Satarday before oteath . e On the Monday night following, in consequence b " a letter f rom the prisoner's mother, asking if he had i Striv ed," I went to enquire. Sometime afterwards I saw 1, 41 I n a car com i ng from the direction of Stafford. He toed m e if I had seen Cook, and I replied that I had. e o w ent to th e T a lb ot t oget h er . C oo k sa id ' You are late to night doctor, I did not expect you to lcok in. I have , th n th e medicine sent me by Dr. Bamford." He added h e thou g h t h e wou ld no t h ave • taken t h em if h e h a d that u °ti ght Palmer would have come. Cook said he had been tPa tal king to Saunders, and Palmer said he ought not to y e done so. Palmer stud I then went to Palmer's tooth then house, where we , eemained for half an hour. I aft - went with Palmer to his house, where I left him soon erwards. The next flay I invited Palmer and Cook to 1 ) 111 0 , Wi th me. He did not come. I sent Palmer some th em r " 4 b Y a charwomeTi from the Albion, where I invited tio, oto.dine with me. In May last I borrowed £2OO, v fit from M , es. Palmer, and £lOO from Palmer, and ieg°cia'zed 45V,0 for him with Mr. Pratt. I know that 4ra s er and Cook were connected together as re oneaptudf,- horse, and that they were in the habit of ( at t - O . ' ita on together. I never acted for Cook as an .„, -114 1 . in reference to any writ served upon him he lett ers put in were read b y Mr. S tra i g ht, th e Cl er k the e‘ z Arraigns. The first was without date, and signed lette r Pa rsons Cook , " Monday. The following is a copy of 15 ` e l , r DEAR SIR : I have been in a devil of a fix about the bill , but t have at last settled it at the cost of an extra e ° . guineas, for the discounter had issued a writ against am very much disgusted at it." The lett er was sent to me, b ut i ts envelope was destroyed• w it e h n elt letter bore the date, 25th June, 1855 ; it was also h ijo oll t address, but witness stated that it had been sent to a A and he had destrned the envelope. The following is ll of the letter : 0 11 / B :ka JERRY : should like to have the bill renewed ha ‘wn months. Can it be done ? Let me know by return• scratched Polestar for the Nottinghamshire and ht tt d erlialn Pt on Stakes. I shall be down on Friday or b e i La Y. Fred. tells me Arabas will win the Northum ,r"nd .stakes." te l d 4la memorandum put in and read was signed J. P. Cook the following is a copy : b:`,l3olestar three years, Sirius two years ; by way of mort ' secure £2OO advanced upon a bill of exchange for °°, dat e d 2 9th August , 1855, p a y a bl e a b ou t th ree months after date." el° ss - examined by the Attorney-General : I am the tie k tl rs 'n who t oo k Mr. Myatt to Stafford Gaol. I have „ (11°11 Palme r l o ng and intimately, and have been - I zplo yed a good deal as attorney for him and his family , ITh "ot recoll e ct that be applied to me in December, 1804 , "p„ atte 't a proposal for insurance on the life of "Walter ,Ctner for £13 , 000 i n th e S o licitors' and General Assur ance a fi b . e. I will not swear that I wag not applied to on the t, J ee t• Ido not recollect that an application was made t rue to attest a proposal for £13,000 in the Prince of n al es on W a lt er P a l mer ' s life, in January, 1855. I ot"? that W a lt er Palmer had been a bankrupt, but Dears that h e was an uncertificated bankrupt. In the at 1854 an d 1855, I lived at Rugeley, sometimes has house, and sometimes at his mother's. There as 110 improper intimacy between myself and Palmer's teth ' e l% I slept at her house frequently, perhaps two !- D t hree times a week, having my own place of abode at u geley. ‘ ttl it 'w long did this habit continue of sleeping two or l ee times k at Mrs. Palmer's house ? Several e ars. a wee Y es. ld you your own lodgings and chambers at Rugeley ? ,s°w far was your l o d g i ngs f rom Mrs. Palmer's house ? at lY a qu ar t er o f a mile. pia w 11l You be so good as to explain why, having your own fie~ eef abode, and your own bedroom so near to 111 rs. Pal l' e ' Yell were still in the habit of sleeping two or three a week for several years at the house of Mrs. Palmer ? g ' e onletimes there were members of Mrs, Palmer's family W 4 f ? You went to see the members of Palmer's family , lod" late when you separated to return to your own lv at ' e in g" We used to stop very late drinking gin a nd t ' sro okino• and sometimes afterwards playing at cards. ion kt thei, ever stay at Mrs. Palmer's house all night when w ere no members of the family visiting ? Yes, fre '°'-itl 9. 4 3 w oft en ? A s many as two or three times a week. ) e,s il ell there were none of Mrs Palmer's sons there ? Were the there was no else in the house but the lady ? Thera the mother, daughter, and servants. (3 P 311 mean, then, to swear solemnly, that no improper Kt, 1 / 1 40 7 subsisted between you and Palmer's mother ? I 14SE i etSati011). I) e i r , "l I Will turn to another subject ; do you remembe r r an -4 applied to by Palmer to attest a proposal for an insu - N ce of £lO,OOO on the life of Walter Palmer in the lvetsal Life Office ? Ido not remember it ; if you have p er ',.' 4(l eunient which will show it I shall be able to recollect, qap a. I ..\i" of ktt e . ' do you remember getting a five pound note for bi b st ing the signature of Walter Palmer's assignment of Pci lluY to his brother ? Ido not. 1 : 1 that your signature (handing a document to witness) ? ' 7 ery similar to it. lz it not yours ? Ido not know [sensation]. tr o „., - 11 te r " Your oath, sir, is not that your signature ? Witness it kt i ng x a ,• Neh„''k "'ale the document, and then tell me, on your oa th, eth er that is not your signature. (Witness examined the ) ti nt °" " You have perused it, tell me. is not that you r sig thia ? Witness (hesitating) : I have some doubts wheth er 13 l laY handwriting [sensation.] gav e you read the whole of the document ? I have not. Pa 'N Dr tll do so. (Witness again perused the whole of the It *) Now, was that document prepared in your office? as not. It o e You ever seen it before ? It is very much like my uw riting, y n i : liat is not what I asked you. Upon your oath have hes ever seen that document before ? Witness (with tiontjtion) •• It is very much like my handwriting [sensa will h %it i a h ave an answer to my question . U p on your oath, balm no t that you r handwriting ? I think it i s not in my tie!, writi ng. I think it is a very clev er imitation of it Antion Win ' 3 it i s You swear it is not your handwriting ? I w ill swear not t aY handwriting [renewed sensation.] he At torney -General : Will your lordships please to take 1‘ ;` ... e . U ., f that answer . tktio` B aron Alderson : Did you ever make such an attes toras that i n your h an d ? Ido not remember. Wmta A ttorney -General : Now is that the signature of to be. P almer (handing a paper to witness) ? I believe it Is t hat the signature of Pratt ? Ido not know. did You not receive that paper from Pratt ? I believe I b i - , °t • I think William Palmer gave it me. William Palmer give you that document ? Most 1 1 k el), a ° t did he give it you. I will have an answer? I have eubt he d'd Well th 1 • - -en, if that document bears the signature of Wal fer Palmer, and was given to you by William Palmer, can't you tell whether it bears your own signature or not? Attorney— Don't " Mr. Attorney" me, answer my question. Upon your oath is not that your handwriting ? I believe it not to be. Will you swear it is not ? I believe it not to be [great sensation]. Now, did you apply to the Midland Counties Insurance office to be appointed agent to the company at Rugeley ? I did. When was it ? Was it in October, 1855 ? I think it Did you send up a proposal for an insurance of £lO,OOO on the life of Bates ? I did. Did *William Palmer ask you to make 'that proposal ? Bates and Palmer came together to my office with a pro• spectus, and asked me if I knew whether there was an agent for the Midland Counties office in. Rugeley. I told him I never heard of one. He asked me afterwards if I would write to get the appointment, because Bates wanted to raise some money. Did you sand to the Midland Counties Office to get the appointment of agent, in order that you might be enabled to effect this insurance on Bates's life ? I did, Upon the life of Bates for £10,000? I did [sensation]. Bates was at that time superintending William Palmer's stud and stables. I afterwards went to the widow of Walter Palmer to get her to give up her claim on the policy of her husband'. She was then at Liverpool. William Pal mer gave me a letter for Pratt to take to her to sign. Mrs . Palmer said she would like to see her solicitor about it. I brought the document back with me because she did not sign it. Do you know whether Walter Palmer received anything on executing the assignment of his policy to William Pal mer ? I believe he ultimately had something. Is that document in your handwriting? [document handed 'n]. It is. Now, having seen that document with your signature, I ask you whether you were applied to to affect an insurance on the life of Walter Palmer ? Ido not recollect. Not recollect ! when your own signature is staring you in the face ? No, Ido not. Now 1 ask you again, were you applied to on the subject ? I I may have been. Look at that document and see whether you were not applied to to affect the insurance I have named ? That is my signature. I ask you have you any doubt that in the month of Janu ary, 1815, you were called upon to attest another proposal for £13,000 on the life of Walter Palmer ? - Witness (with hesitation) : I may have signed that paper in blank. Did you sign this proposal in blank ? I cannot swear I did or did not. I have some doubt whether I did not sign several of these proposals in blank. [Sensation.] Upon yonr oath do you not know that William Palmer applied to you to effect an insurance for £13,000 on the life of his brother? Ido not remember. Will you swear :that when Walter Palmer executed the deed of assignment of his policy to William Palmer, that you were not present ? Now, be careful, for you will cer tainly hear of this on some future day if you are not care ful.—l cannot say that I was. Upon your oath, did you not attest the deed of assign ment of Walter to his brother of his interest in a policy of insurance for £13,000 cannot say. I believe the sig nature " Jeremiah Smith" is very much like my hand writing. Why, did you not receive a check for £5 for attesting it ? —I think I did receive a check for £5. Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Shee: 1 have known Mrs. Palmer for twenty years. I knew her before her husband's death. I should say she is sixty years of age. William Palmer is not her eldest son. Joseph is the eldest. He resides at Liverpool. He is 45 or 46 years of age, I think George is the next son. He lives at Rugeley. He was frequently at his mother's house. There is another son, a clergyman of the Church of England. He resided with his mother until within the last two years, except when he was at college. There is a daughter. She lives with her mother. There are three servants. Mrs. Palmer's family does not visit much in the neighbourhood of Rugeley. Her house is a large one. I slept in a room nearest the Old Church. Mr. Sergeant Shee : Is there any pretence for saying you have ever been charged with any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer? Witness : I hope not. Mr. Sergeant Shee ? Is there any pretence for saying so ? - Witness : There ought not to be. Mr. Sergeant Shee : Is there any truth in the statement or suggestion that you have had any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer ? Witness : They might have said so, but there is no reason. Mr. Sergeant Shee : Is there any truth in the statement ? Witness: I should say not. The court then adjourned for about twenty minutes, when the proceedings were resumed. W. Joseph Saunders was then called upon his subpoena, but did not appear. The Attornev-General said he should be extremely sorry to commence his reply if there was any chance of the wit ness making his appearance. Mr. Sergeant Shee put in a letter from Cook to Palmer, dated " Lutterworth, January 4th, 1855." The letter, which was read by the officer of the court, referred to some money transactions between Cook and Pulmer. This letter closed the case on behalf of the prisoner. Mr. Sergeant Shee submitted that he was entitled to reply on a part of the evidence. The course taken by the Attorney General on getting at the contents of the check, the contents of an assignment of the policy on Welter Palmer's life, and the contents of the proposals to various offices for the insurance, he submitted entitled him to a reply on those points. The Lord Chief Justice : We are of opinion that you have no right to reply. Mr. Baron A'derson : That is quite clear. The Attorney-General said he had been taken somewhat by surprise yesterday by the evidence of Dr. Rich ar d son , with respect to angina pectoris. Dr. Richardson adve r t e d to several books and authorities. He had now those book s in his possession, and was desirous of putting some ques. tions arising out of that part of the evidence. The court decided against the application. The case for the defence having been concluded, The learned Attorney-General left the court for a few minutes, and having returned he commenced his reply, amidst a dead silence, exactly at three o'clock. Just before commencing his reply, a number of ladies. of high family made their appearance in court.. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPLY. The Attorney-General said : May it please your lord ships, and gentlemen of the jury, the case for the prosecution and the case for the defence are now before you, and it now becomes my duty to address to you such observations upon the whole of the evidence as suggest themselves to my mind. I feel that I have a moral, solemn, and important duty to perform: I wish I could have answered the appeal made to me the other day by my learned friend (Sergeant Shee), and say that I am satisfied with the case which he submitted to you for the defence. But, standing here as the instru ment of public justice, I feel that I should be wanting in the duty that I have to perform, if I did not ask at your hands for a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. 1 approach the consideration of tho case in, I hope, what I may term a spirit of fairness and moderation. Gentlemen, in the mass of evidence which has been brought before you, two main questions present themselves prominently for your consideration. Did the deceased man, into whose death we are now inquiring, die a natural death, or was be taken off by the foul means of poison ? And if the latter proposi tion be sanctioned by the evidence, then comes the impor tant question, whether the prisoner at the bar was the author of the death ? Did John Parsons Cook die by poison ? I assert and contend the affirmative of that proposition. The case which is submitted to you on behalf of the crown is this —that, having been first practised upon by antimony, Cook was at last killed by strychnine. The first question to be considered is—what was the immediate and proximate cause of his death. The witnesses for the prosecution have told you, one and all, that, in their judgment, he died of tetanus, which signifies a convulsive spasmodic action of the muscles of the body. Of course it does not follow that, because he died of tetanus, it must be the tetanus of strychnia. That is a matter for after consideration. But, inasmuch as strychnine produces death by tetanus, we must see, in the first place, whe the it admits of doubt that he did die of tetanus. I assert de liberately that no case, either in the human subject or in the animal, has been brought under your notice in which the symptoms of tetanus have been so marked as in this case. From the moment the paroxysms came on, of which the unhappy man died, the symptoms were of the most marked and of the most striking character. Every muscle, says the witness, the medical man who was present at the time—every muscle of his body was convulsed—he expressed the most intense dread of suffocation —he entreafs them to lift him up lest he should be suffoc ited—and every muscle of his body, from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet, was so stricken—the flexibility of the trunk and the limbs was gone—and you could only have raised him up as you would have raised a corpse. In order that he might escape from the dread of suffocation they turned him over, and then, is the midst of that fearful paroxysm, one mighty spasm seemed to have seized his heart, to have pressed from it the life blood, and the result was—death. And when be died his body exhibited the most marked symptoms of this fearful disease. He was convulsed from head to foot. You could have rested him on his head and heels—bis hands were clasped with a grasp that it required force to overcome, and his feet assumed an arched appearance. Then, if it THE NORTHERN TIMES.---LIVERPOOL, MONDAY. was a case of tetanus, the question arises, was it a case of tetanus produced by strychnine ;' Tetanus may proceed from natural causes as well as front the administration 01 poisons, and while the symptoms last they are the Same. But in the course of the symptoms, and before the disease reaches its consummation in the death of the patient, the distinction beteeeen the two is marked by characteristics which enable any one conversant with the subject to dis tinguish between them. We have been told on the highest authority that the distinctions are these—natural tetanus is a disease not of minutes, not of hours, hut of days. It takes-sesay several other witnesses from three to four days ; and will extend to a period of even three weeks before the patient dies. Upon that point we have the most abundant and conclusive evidence. We have the evidence of Dr. Curling, of r. Brodie. of Dr. Daniel, a gentleman who had seen something like 25 or 30 cases; we have the evidence of a gentleman wna has practised 25 years in India, where these cases, arising from cold, are infinitely more frequent ; and he gives exactly the same description of the course which this disease invariably takes. Idiopathic or traumatic tetanus is therefore out of the question, upon the evidence which has been given. Traumatic tetanus is brought on by the lesion of some part of the body. But what was there in this case to show that there was anything like a lesion at all. It seems that, in the spring of the year 1055, Cook, having found certain small spots manifest themselves in one Or ltwo rants of his body, and having something of an ulcerated tongue and a sore throat, considered that he was labouring under symptoms of a particular character. He addressed himself to Dr. Savage, who enjoined the discontinuance of mercury. His injunction was obeyed, and the result was that the patient was suffering neitlabr from disease no wrong treatment, Dr. Savage says that long before the summer advanced, every unsatisfactory symptom had entire ly gone, except that affection of the throat, to which thou- Sands of people are subject. On the very day that he leaves London to go into the country, a fortnight before the races, his stepfather, who accompanied him to the station, congra tulated him unon his healthy and vigorous appearan ce , and the young man, conscious of a restored state of health, struck his breast, and said "He was well, very well." It is said that he had exhibited his tongue to witnesses, and applied for a mercurial wash, but it is clear that, although he had at one time adopted that course, he had, under the recommendation of br. Savage, got rid of it, and there is no pretence for saying he was suf fering under any syphilitic affection of any kind. The fact has been negatived by a man of the highest authority and eminence. There was nothing about the man which would warrant the supposition that there was anything of that character in any part of his body when the tetanus set in. Bat then it is suggested that this may be a case of idiopathic tetanus proceeding from—what ? They say that Cook was a man of a delicate constitution, subject to excitement ; that he had something the matter with his chest; that in addition to having something the matter with his chest, he had the diseased condition of throat; and putting all these things together, they sa y th a t if th e man t oo k co ld h e m i g ht ge t idiopathic tetanus. Dr. Nunneley, who comes here for the purpose of inducing you to believe there was something like idiopathictetanus, goes through supposed infirmities, and talks about his excitability, hi s d e li cacy o f c h est, hi s affection of the throat, and he says these things would predispose to idiopathic tetanus if he took colds. But what evidence is there that he did take cold ? Not the slightest in the world. There is not the smallest pretence that he ever complained of a cold, or was treated for a cold. Dr. Nunneley talked to you about certain excitements being the occasion of idiopathic tetanus. You remember the sort of excitement of which he spoke. They are unworthy of your notice. They were topics discreditable to be put forward by a witness as worthy of your consideration. But, suppose for a single moment that excitement at the time could produce any such effect, where is the excitement manifested by Cook as leading to the supposed disease ? They say that the man when he won his money at Shrewsbury was for a moment excited. I will not deny that he was overpowered with emotions of joy. But those emotions subsided, and we have no further trace of them from that time to: the moment of his death. He is taken ill. lie goes to Rugelev.y He is taken ill there again. When he is ill, like most people, he is low sp"rled: As soon as he gets a little better, ho is cheerful and happy. He invites his friends and con verses with them. On the night of his death his conversa tion is cheerful. LI eis mirthful and happy, little thinking poor fellow, of the fate that was depending over him. He is cheerful, and talks of the future, but not in language of excitement. What pretence is there for this idle story about excitement ? None whatever. But even if there were ex citement or depression—if these things were capable of pro ducing idiopathic tetanus, the character of the disease is so eQsentially different that it is impossible to mistake the two. What are the cases which they attempt to set up against us ? They brought forward a Mary Watson, who, with a gentle man, came all the way from some place in Scotland to tell us that a girl had been ill all day, that she is taken worse at night, that she gets well in a short time, and goes about her business. That is a case which they brought here to be compared with the death agony of this man. These are the sort of cases with which they attempt to meet such a case as is spoken to hr re. You have, upon this point, the evidence of men of the highest competency and most unquestionable integrity, and upon their evidence, I am satisfied, you can come to no other conclusion than that this was not a case of either idiopathic or traumatic tetanus. But, then, various attempts have been made to set up different causes as capable of producing this tetanic disease. And first, we have the theory of general convulsions ; and Dr. Nunneley having gone through the beadroll of the supposed infirmities of Cook, says, "Oh, this may have been a case of general convulsions—l have known general convulsions assuming a tetanic character !" I said to him, " Have you ever seen one single case in which death arising from general convul• sions, accompanied with tetanic symptoms, has not ended in the unconsciousness of the patient ?" He says, " No I never heard of such a case, not one ; but in some book or other, I am told, there is some such case reported," and he cites, for that purpose, as an authority for general convulsions being accompanied with tetanic symptoms, Dr. Copland. Now, Dr. Copland might have been called, but was not called, notwithstanding the challenge which I threw out, because it is, unfortunately, easier for the case to gather together from the east and from the west practitioners of more or less celebrity, than to bring to bear on the subject the light of science as treasured in the books of the eminent practitioners whom you have seen. But ,I say, as regards general convulsions, the distinction is plain. If they des troy the patient they destroy consciousness. But here, un questionably, at the very last moment, until Cook's heart ceased to beat, his consciousness remained. But then comes another supposed condition, from which death in this form is said to have resulted, and that is the cause intended to be set up by a very eminent practitioner, Dr. Partridge. it seems that in the post mortem examination of Cook, when the spinal marrow was investigated, some granules were found, and it is said these may have occasioned tetanic convulsions similar to those found in Cook. He is called to prove that this was a case of what is called arachnitis, arising from granules. I called his attention to the symptoms in Cook's case, and I asked him in simple terms whether looking at these symptoms, he would pledge his reputation in the face of the medical world, and in the face of this court, that this was a case of arachnitis. He would not do so, and the case of arachnitis went. Then we have a gen tleman who comes all the way from Scotland to inform us, as the next proposition, that Cock's was a case of epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications. Well, I asked him the question, " Did you ever know of epilepsy, with or without tetanic complication, in which consciousness was not destroyed before the patient died ? His reply was, " No, I cannot say that I ever did, but I have read in some book that such a case has occurred." "Is there anything to make you think this was epilepsey ?"—" It may have been epilepsey, because I don't know what else it was." " But you must admit that epilepsy is characterised generally by loss of conscious nes, ? what difference would the tetanic complications have made." That he was unable to explain. Having gone through ' these three sets of diseases—general convulsions, arachnitis epilepsy proper, and epilepsy with tetanic complications, I supposed we had pretty nearly exhausted the whole of these scientific theories. But we are destined to have another, and that assumed the formidable name of angina pectoris. The gentleman who was called yesterday, and who talked of angina pectoris, would not have escaped so easily if I had been in possession of the books to which he referred, for I should have been able to expose the ignorance, the presumption of the assertions he dared to make. I say ignorance and presumption, and what is worse, an in tention to deceive. I assert it in the face of the whole medical profession, and lam sure I can prove it. These medical witnesses, one and all, differ in the views they take on the subject; but there is a remarkable coincidence between the views of some of them and the views of those who have been examined on the other side. Dr. Partridge, Dr. Robinson, and Dr. Letheby, the most eminent of the witnesses whom my learned friend has called, ag r eed with the statements of Dr. Brodie and other witne sses , th a t in the whole of their experience, and in the whole r ange of th e i r learning and observations they know of no known disease to which the symptoms in Cook's case can be referred. If it be the fact that there is no known disease which can account for such symptoms as those in Cook's case, and that they are re fera b le to poison alone, can you have any doubt that that poison is strychnia ? I think, I may say that the witnesses called for the defence admit this, that, from the time the p aro y xsm set in, of which Cook died, until the time of his death, the symptoms are pre cisely similar to that of tetanus by strychnine. But then, they say, that the period which elapsed between the supposed administration of the poison and the first appearance of the symptoms is longer than they have observed in the animals on which which arises they is havethis —that T a h e known first observationdifference between animal and human life, in the power with which certain specific things acted upon . their organisation. It may well be that poison administered to a ra bbit will produce its effect in a given time. It by no same means m e thaton an n t will animal o produce t. athe differentsam effect ee s e ri i p n t t o h n e . Still less does it follow that it will exercise its baneful influence in the same time on a human subject. But it is perfectly notoriou s th a t the rapidity with which the poison begins to work depends mainly upon the mode of its administration. If it i s a d m inistered in a fluid state, it acts with greater rapidity. If it is given in a solid state, its effects Come on more slowly, If it is given in an indurated sub stance It will act with still greater tardiness. Then what was the period at which this poison began td act after its admini stration, assuming it to have been poison. It seems, from Mr. Jones's statement, that the pills were administered somewhere about eleven o'clook. They were not admini stered on his first arrival,for the patient, as if with an intui tive sense of the death that aw..ited him, strongly resisted the attempts to make him take them; and no doubt these remonstrances, and the endeavours to overcome them, occu pe i some period of time. The pills were at last given. Assuming, which I only do for the sake of argument, that the pills contained strychnine, how soon did they begin to °aerate ? Mr. Jones says he came back again alioht twelve o"cloeic. Upon his return to the room, after a word or two of conversation with Cock, he proceeded to undress and go to bed, and had not been in bed ten minutes before a warning came that another of the paroxysms was to take place. The maid servant puts it still earlier, and it appears that so early as ten minutes before twelve the first alarm was given, which would make the interval little more than a quarter of an hour. I find in some of the e:xperis meats that have been Made that the duration of time, before the poison begins to work, has been little; if any thing, less than an hour. In the case of the girl at Glas; gow, it was stated that it was three quarters of an hour. 1 cannot bring myself to believe that, if in all other respects you are perfectly satisfied, that the symptoms, the conse quences, the effects were analogous, and similar in all respects to those produced by strychnine, it is not because the pills have been taken only a qt arier of an hour that you will say the'.t strychnine was not administered in this case. hut they say there were no premonitory symptoms in Cook's case, I say there were premonitory symptoms of the in ast marked character. He is lying in his bed; he suddenly starts up in agony of alarm. *hat made him do that ? Was there nothing premonitory—nothing that warned him the paroxysm was comiag on ? He jumps up, says '6 Go and fetch Palmer—fetch me help—l am going to be ill as I was last night." What was that but a knowledge that the symptoms of the previous night were returning, and a warning of what he might expect unless relief were obtained P He sits up, and prays to have his neck rubbed. What was the feeling about his neck but a promonitory symptom; which was to precede the paroxysms which were b supervene ? But here they say this Could not have been tetanus from strychnia, because animals cannot bear to be toualled, for a touch brings on a paroxysm. Now in two cases of death from strychnine we have shown that the patient has endured the rubbing of his limbs, and received satisfaction from that rubbing. In Miss. Smith's case, when her legs were distorted she prayed and entreated that she might have them straight ened. The lady at Leeds, in the case which Dr. Nunueley himself attended, implored her husband, between the spasms, to rub her legs and arms in order to orercorrie the rigidity. But there is a third nase—the case of Clutterbuck. And, , therefore, say that the continued endeavour to persuade a jury that the fact of Cook's having had his neck rubbed proves that this is not tetanus by strychnine, shows nothing but the dishonesty and insincerity of the witnesses who have so dared to pervert the facts. But they go further, and say that Cook was able to swallow. So he was before the paroxysms came on. But he swallowed the pills, and, what is very curious, and illustrates part of the theory, is this—that it was the act of sivallOwing the pills, a sort of movement in raising his head which brought on the violent paroxysm in which he died. So far from militating against the supposition that this was a case of strychnine, the fact strongly confirms it. Then they call our attention to the appearances after death, and they say, the limbs became rigid either at the time of death or immediately after, and that ought not to be foand in a case of stryChnine. Dr. Nunneley says, " I have always found the limbs of animals become flaccid before death, and I have not found them become rigid after death." The very next witness told us that he hal made two experiments noon cats, and killed them both, and he described them as indurated and contracted when he found them some hours after death. And yet the presence of rigidity in the body immediately after death is put forth by Dr. Nunneley as one of his reasons for saying this is not a death by scrychnine, although Dr. Taylor told us that, in the case of one of the eats, the rigidty of the body was so great that he could hold it out by the leg in a horizontal position. Notwithstanding that evidence, Dr. Nunneley has the audacity to say that he does not believe this is a ease of strychnine, because there was rigidity of the limbs, be cause the feet were distorted, and the hands clenched, and the muscles were rigid. The next thing that is said is that the heart was empty, and that in the animals operated upon by Dr. Nunneley and Dr. Letheby, the heart was full. I don't think that applies to all cases. Why, in two cases which have been mentioned—that of Mrs. Smith and the Glasgow girl—the heart was congested and empty. But this is brought forward as a conclusive fact against death by strychnine, and yet these men who make this state ment under the sanction of scientific authority, have heard both cases spoken to by the gentlemen who examined the bodies. Then with regard to congestion of the brain and other vessels, the same observation app'ies. In s t e ad of being killed by action on the respiratory muscles of the heart, death is the result of a long series of paroxysms, and you expect to find the brain and other vessels congested by that series of convulsive spasms. Looking at the symp toms which attended this unhappy man, setting aside the the theory of convulsions, of epilepsy, of arachnitis, and angina pectoris, and excluding idiopathic and traumatic tetanus—what remains ? The tetanus of strychnine, and the tetanus of strychnine alone. And I pray your atten tion to the cases in which there was no question as to strychnine having been administered, in which the symptoms were so similar—the symptoms so analogous—that I think you cannot hesitate to come to the conclusion that this death was caused by strychnine. Several witnesses of the highest eminence, both on the part of the crown and for the defence, agree that in the whole range of their experience, observa tion and knowledge, they have known of no natural disease to which these remarkable symptoms can be attributed. That being so, and there being a known poison which will produce them, how strong, how cogent, how irresistible is the conclusion that it is thatlpoison, and that poison alone, to which they are to be attributed. On the other hand, the case is not without its difficulties. Strychnia was not found in this body, and we have it no doubt, upon strong evidence, that in a great variety of experiments upon the bodies of animals killed by strychnia, strychnia has been detected by tests which science placed at the disposal of scientific men. The question fur your consideration is whether the absence of its detection leads conclusively to the view that this death was not caused by the administration of strychnia. Now, in the first place, under what circumstances was the examination made by Dr. Taylor and Dr, Rees. They told us that the stomach of the man was brought to them for analyzation under the most unfavourable circumstances. It is true that they who put the portions of the body into the jar make statements samewhat different. But there is the most undeniable evi dence of considerable bungling in the way in which the stomach had been cut and placed in the jar. It is very true that Dr. Nunneley, Mr. Herapath, and Dr. Sotheby say thr,t whatever impurities there may have been, if strychnia had been in the stomach they would have found strychnia there. I should have had every confidence in the testimony cf Mr. Herapath, if he had not confessed a fact which had come to my knowledge, that he had asserted that this was a case of poisoning, but that they did not go the right way to find it out. I reverence the man who, from a sense of justice and love of truth, will come forward in favour of any man for the purpose of stating what he believes to be true ; but I abhor the traf f icked testimony which I regret to eve men of science sometimes advance. But, assuming all they say to be true as to the case of detecting strychnine, is it certain that it can be found in all cases ? Dr. Taylor says no, and it would be a most mischievous and dangerous proposition to assert that it is necessarily so, for it enables many a guilty man to escape, who, by administering the smallest quantity necess ary to destroy life, might prevent its detection in the stomach. What have these gentlemen done ? They have given large doses in the experiments they h ive made for the purposes of this cass, in which they have been retained—l use the word retained, for it is the pro per word. In all these cases, I say, they have given doses large enough to he detected. My learned friend said that he would contest the case for the prosecution step by step. Alas! we are now upon ground upon which my friervel has not even ventured a word in explanation. 'Was the prisoner at the bar possessed of the poison of strychnine ? The prisoner obtained possession of strychnine on the Monday night. It is true that the evidence of the man who sold the strychnine to Palmer, must be received with care and attention. Now, Newton said that on the night when Palmer came back from London, he obtained three grains of that poison, the symptoms and effects of which are precisely similar to those which are stated to have occurred in the case of this poor man. You have heard the reason assigned by the witness why he did not state the fact of his having sold the strychnine to the prisoner on the previous evening, before the coroner, and you will judge of the value of the explanation which he gave. Upon the other hand, there is the consideration, what conceivable motive could this young man have had for now coming forward and deposing to the fact of his having sold this poison to the prisoner, except a sense of truth. Hideous though may be the crime of taking away life by poison, it is probably not so horrible to contemplate as the motive of a judicial mur der effected by a false witness against a man's life. Can you suppose that this young man Newton could have the shadow of any such motive in coming forward in a court like this to take away the life of the prisoner at the bar, as alas ! his evidence must do, if you believe him. If you believe the witness that, on the Monday night, for no other conceivable and assignable purpose except the deed of dark ness to be committed that night, the prisoner at the bar obtained from him the fatal means and instrument whereby Cook was to be destroyed, it is impossible that you can come to any other conclusion than that the prisoner is guilty of the foul deed with which he stands charged at the bar. My learned friend says that Newton did not speak truth, because, first, he did not make this statement before the coroner ; and, secondly, because Newton laid the time of Palmer's arrival at nine o'clock, whereas he did not arrive until ten o'clock. My learned friend has sought to meet this part of the case. He has produced a witness; all I can say of whom is, that for 4 the sake of the prisoner at the bar, I trust you will not allow him to be affected by anything which that most disreputable witness Jeremiah Smith, has stated. Certainly such a tifSerat:le spectacle as that witness in e the box, I have never seen surpassed it, a court of justice. There was not one who heard his evidence who was not satisfied that the man came here to tell a falsehood—not one who was not con vinced that he was not mixed up in many of the villanies which, if not perpetrated, were, at all events, contemplated, and that he care here to save the life of his companion and friend, ann the son of the woman with whom he had that intimacy the nature of which he sought in vain to disguise. I cannot but think that, looking to the whole of this part of the case, you must believe the evidence of Newton, and if you do so believe it, then that evidence is conelusiee of the ease. But the case does not stop there, because we have the meet ihditputable evidence that on the following day Palmer purchased moill strychnine at the shop of Mr. Hawkins. You remember the circum*nCe con nected with that purchase, Palmer's first asking for some prussic acid, and then ordering some strychnine to be pnt tip for him, Newton coming in, and the prisoner calling him out of the shop to speak to him of the most unimportant matters. Why did the prisoner take Newton out of the shop Evidently because he wished to avoid exciting sus pieione which would very naturally be raised in the mind of Newton, from the fact of the prisoner having purchased strychnie on two occasions. and who would very naturally enquire for what purpose it was that the prisoner wanted nine . grains of strchntne. Why did the prisoner go to Ilaw kins's shop to purchase the poison ? The reason was clear. If he had gone to Thirlby's, who was his former assistant, he would naterally have asked Palmer for whom the strych nine was intended. Why the prisoner shduld have gone On two successive days and pitroliastcl the pole m is one of those mysteries attending tithe case which I cannot explain. But if there is some difficulty in this part of the case, there is, on the other hand, a still greater difficulty arising from the use to which this poison was put. My learned friend passed over this part of the case in mysterious but signifi cant silence. Account for that six grains of strychnia Throw a doubt, if you please, on the purchase of the strych nine on the Monday night, but upon Tuesday it is unques tionably true that six grains were purchased. If these six grains were required for the use of any patients, why were they not produced, and if for tiny other purpose why was it not explained ? Has there been the slightest shadow of attempt to show the use to which the poison was applied ? Alas ! No. Soniething was said at the out set about dogs which were tfoublesome in the paddock to the prisoner's mares and foals, but that was proved to have been in September. If it were used for the purpose of destroying dogs some one must have assisted him in the act. Why were not these persons called ? they were not even named: I ask you what you can draw from these circumstances, except this bee, that the death of Cook took place with all the symptoms of poison by strychnine—death in all the convulsions and throes which the deadly poison produces in the frame of man. Well, then, it has been said, that the fact of the prisoner having called in two medical men was strong presumptive evidence to negative his guilt. It is true that he called in Dr. Bamford, and wrote to Dr. Jones to come and see Cook. Now, as medical men, they would be very likely to know the sym toms of death by strychnine. But there is one point in this part of the ease which deserves notice. If these symptoms exhibited were not those resulting from strychnine, but were referrible to that multiform variety of diseases to which the witnesses have referred, there is no reason why the prisoner should have any credit for sending for these medical gentlemen. It is quite true that he called on old Dr, Bamford. I speak of that gentleman in no terms of die_ respect; but I dd net think he was a person likely to make any very shrewd observations as td the eatise of the death of Cook, and the best proof of this is to be found in what he did and in what he wrote on the sahject. As regards Mr. Jones, these observations do not apply, for he was a man in the possession of the full powere of mind. The prisoner selected Jones, and the result showed how wise he was in making that selection. The death of Cock occurred in the presence of Jones with all those painful symptoms which you have heard described, and yet Jones suspected nothing, and if the prisoner had succeeded in introducing Cook's body into that " strong oak coffin which he had had made for him, the body would have been consigned to the grave and nobody would have known anything of these proceed ings, while the presence of Jones and Dr. Bamford would have been used to prevefit lanes suspicion. On the other hand, it is not at all improbable that the prisoner may have thought that the best mode of disarming all suspicions would be to take care that some medical Men should be called in, and should be present at the time of death. There is nothing to show that the prisoner entertained the Most distant notion that ,Tones would have to sleep in the same room as Cook, and if this had not been, the case. Cook would have been found dead the next morning, and the old man would have said he died of apoplexy, and the young man that he died of epilepsy; and had any suspicion been awakened, it would have been urged in reply, as it has been by my learned friend, that two medical men were called in by the prisoner previous to his death. Bat the case does not end here. We have had a great many witnesses who have told us a great deal about strychnia, but none that have said a ward about antimony. On the Wednesday night, at Shrewsbury, when Cook drank a glass of brandy and water, he said that there was something in it which burned his throat, and was afterwards seized with vomit ing, which lasted for several hours. On that same night Mrs. Brooks saw the prisoner shaking something in a glass. It is a remarkable fact that, when Cook drank that brandy and water he was taken ill a few minutes after. There were, it is true, other persons taken ill at Shrews bury about the same time, but still you will have to bear in mind that scene of the shaking up of the fluid in the glass in the passage, the fact that Cook was somewhat in liquor, and in that state he ought not to have been told by the prisoner that he would not drink any more unless he finished his glass. Pass on, however, to Rugeley. You still find that Cook was under the influence of the same symptoms as those which he suffered at Shrewsbury. You have the fact of the prisoner sending him over toast and water, and broth, and that no sooner had the poor man taken these things, than he is seized with incessant vomitings of the most painful character. Then, too, there was the broth, said to have been sent by Smith, from the Albion, which was sent, however, not to the Tal bot Inn, but to the prisoner's kitchen. The broth was taken over to the Talbot by the prisoner himself, and, as soon as it was touched by Cook, vomitings followed; there is, too, the fact that the servant at the Talbot, after taking two spoonfuls of the broth, was ill for several hours, and vomited something like twenty times. Then, again, on the Monday when the prisoner was absent, Cook was found to be better, but upon the Tuesday, when he returned to Rugeley, the vomitings again returned. Now the important fact is that antimony was found in the tissues of the poor man's body and in his blood, and the presence of the antimony in the blood, shows that it must have been taken within the last 48 hours before death. Something has been said about Cook having taken the antimonylin " James's Powder,' but not a tittle of evidence has been given that he ever took any of these powders, while the presence of the antimony in the blood proved that it had been administered within 43 hours of death. I believe you will feel that antimony had been administered to Cook in a mode and in quantities which showed that it could have been given for no legitimate object; and further, that it must have been administered by the prisoner. But let us take into consideration the conduct of the prisoner in the after-stages of the case, and let us look at what took place on the day of Cook's death. On the preceding night he had suffered from what was indisputably a most severe attack. Dr. Bamford sees Palmer on the Tuesday morn ing, and not a word is said to him about that attack. The prisoner manifests an anxiety that he should not see the deceased ; he states that Cook is quiet, and is dozing, and that he does not wish to have him disturbed. If Dr. Bamford had seen Cook in the morning, Cook would, in all probability, have made known to him his frightful sufferings of the night before, as they must then have formed the subject which was, of all others, the most present to his memory. Dr. Bamford, however, did not see the deceased until seven o'clock on the Tuesday evening, wheu he was much better. Palmer had then talked of his having suffered from a billions affection ; and it is a remarkable fact that he had more than once represented the illness of Cook as one arising from a bilious attack, both to Dr. Bamford and Dr. Jones, although the patient had exhibited none of the symptoms which ordinarily accompanied a bilious constitution. The moment Dr. Jones saw him he made the observation that his "tongue was not that of a bilious patient," and the answer he got from Palmer was, " Oh, you should have seen him before." But not one word did Palmer say to Dr. Jones about the fit of Cook on the night before. Well, the three medical men consulted together, by the bed side of the patient, and then Cook turned round and said, " Mind, I will have no more pills and medicine to-night," remembering, as he no doubt did at the time, his illness of the preceding night. No observations was made even then by Palmer as to what had been the nature of Cook's attack on the night before; but, the medical men having withdrawn into the adjoining room or lobby, Palmer immediately proposed that Cook should again take the same pills he had taken on the previous night; but he desired Jones not to say anything to him about what they contained lest he might object to take them. It was then arranged that the pills should be made up, and Palmer proposed that they should be compounded by Dr. Bamford, although it was then early in the evening, and he might easily have prepared them on his own premises. He accompanied Dr. Bamford to the surgery of the latter; and after the pills had been made up there, he asked Dr. Bamford to write the address on them, and the address was so written. An interval occurred of an hour or two, during which the prisoner had abundant opportunities of going to his surgery, and doing what he pleased in the way of changing the pills. He returned to the hotel, and before he gave the pills to Palmer he took care to call the attention of Jones, who was present at the time, to the remarkable hand-writing of an old gentleman like Dr. Bamford, by whom the direction of the medicine had been written. What necessity was there for that ? Might it not have been a preconceived design to save himself from any subsequent suspicion by his being able to state that the pills had been prepared by Dr. Bamford'? and might it not have been done for the purpose of disarming any immediate suspicion on the part of Dr. Jones himself? 1 will now pass over for a moment the remainder of the history of the Tuesday night, and I will take you to the circumstances which immediately followed Cook's death. On the Thursday, Mr. Strevens, the stepfather of the deceased, went over to Rugeley, on receiving intelligence of the sad event. Be applied' to Palmer for information upon the subject of Cook's affairs ; and in the course of • he communications which passed between them, Stevens said, "rich or poor, the poor fellow should be burled." Palmer then observed that he would undertake to bury him: himself, but Mr. Streveus declined, in a decisive manner, to avail himself of that offer. I admit that there may be nothing suspicious in the proposal of Palmer to bury his friend, but there is this somewhat remarkable circumstance, that when Mr. Stevens had said that he could not have the funeral for a few days, Palmer observed that " the body ought to be put into a coffin immediately ; " and when, after an absence of about half an hour, he returned, and was asked by Mr. Strevens for the name of an undertaker to whom he should give directions about the funeral, the prisoner stated, much to the surprise of the gentlemen whom he was addressing, that, " he had himself ordered a shell and a strong oak coffin." Why should he have so hurriedly interfered in the business of another man, unless he had made up his mind that the body should be consigned to its last resting:place, and removed from the sight of man with the utmost possible rapidity ? It appears that at that time Mr. Strevens had noticed the strange attituati of the deceased—hie clenched hands, and the unusual appearance of his face—and being a man of natural shrewdness and sagac ity, h e felt a lurking suspi cion which he could not unravel, that there must have been foul play in the cas e . H e ma d e kn ow n to the prisoner his intention of having the body opened before it was consigned to the grave. It is true that the prisoner did not flinch from that tryiag ordeal, and that he met with firmness the trying gaze of Mr. Strevens, when the report of the post mortem examinatiel was first mentioned. But finding that there was to be a post mortem examina tion, he was anxious to know who was to perform it. Then we have on the Sunday that remarkable conversa tion between the prisoner and Newton, which has been for some time known to the crown. It is true that Newton did not mention the conversation in the course of his examination before the coroner. He was called at the inquest, solely for the purpose of corroborating the evieenee of Roberts with respect to Palmer's appearance in Ele. Hawkin's shop o't the Tues day • morning ; and to that point his evidence before the coroner was confined. He has since deposed that during a conversation with Palmer on the Sunday. the latter suddenly asked him "what quantity of strychnine would you give if you wanted to kill a doe ?" The reply was, "from half a grain to a grain." The prisoner then asked, " would you expect to find any traces of it in the stomach after death ? " Newton answered "No ; " and, on his doing so, he observed the prisoner make a movement conveying an intimation of his delight. But my learned friend has contended that the prisoner had no motive for taking away the life of his friend Cook. Now, if I convince you, upon unimpeachable evidence, that the death of Cook had been caused by strychnine, and that that strychnine could only have been adminis tered by the prisoner, then the question of motive must become a mere secondary consideration. I believe 1 can perfectly satisfy your minds that in this case the prisoner had a motive, and a v( ry-ebvious motive for taking away the life of Cook. He was at :- he time reduced to a con dition of the direst embarrassment: . ; it spears that in the month of November last he owed on bills :_m ) t less than £19,000, of which £12,500 worth was in the hanu: or Pratt, and out of that latter sum £5,500 was pressing for immediate payment. By the death of Cook he was enabled to obtain possession of £1,020, due to the latter in the shape of bets ; he was enabled to obtain possession of the money which Cook must have had about him on his arrival at Rugeley, and which according to one of the witnesses, must have amounted to £7OO or £800; and he attempted to obtain possession of the £350 which the Messrs. Weatherby were to have received as the amount of the stakes of the Shrewsbury handicap. The order forwarded by Palmer to the Messrs. Weatherby for the £350, and purporting to bear the signature of Cook, had been sent back by them to the prisoner ; and if that signature was not a forgery, why had it not been produced on the part of the defendant. Cook had no means of assisting him, unless he were to appropriate to kis use the money which he had won at Shrewsbury, which was all the 'property he then poss sessed ; and can anyone believe that the deceased would have parted with that money, and would have left himself wholly without resources for the approaching winter ? The only transaction with Pratt, in which Palmer and Cook were both: interested, was that relating to the bill for £5OO, and in which Cook had assigned big horse as a collateral security. It is very easy to see that he must have felt particularly anxious that that claim should at once be settled, and that his horses should come into his own undisputed possession, one of these ,horses being a very valuable one, namely, Polestar, which had just won the Shrewsbury race. He accordingly, I haVe no doubt, gave Palmer .4'300 to be sent up to London on account of that bill ; but that. sum was never applied by the prisoner to the purpose for which it had been placed in his hands. I will not ask you to direct your attention to the request addressed by the prisoner to Cheshire, the postmaster, that he should bear his witness to the genuineness of Cook's signature to the order on the Messrs. Weatherby for the sum of £350. That request was made 48 hours after Cook's death ; and if the signature was not a forgery, why was that extraor dinary demand made of Cheshire, and why had not the document been since produced ? It is impossible to forget that, if Cheshire had testified to the genuineness of that document, the prisoner would have been enabled to exercise over him the most fatal control, and that he might then have compelled him to sign another paper, transfer ring, as the prisoner had sought to do in the course of one of his conversations with Mr. Strevens, to the deceased the liability for £4OOO or £5OOO due on bills to Pratt, and outstanding in his own name. All these facts show ail'efra gably, as I contend, that the death of Cook had, in the opinion of the prisoner, become most desirable for his own relief. There is another part of his conduct as tending to throw light on this matter, and that is with reference to Cook's betting book. On the night when Cook died— ere the breath had hardly parted from that poor man's body—the prisoner was found there, rummaging his pockets, and searching for his papers. When, aubse qaently, Stevens asked for the betting book, the prisoner said, " Oh, it is of no use, for a dead man's bets are void." True it is that a dead man's bets are void, but not when they are paid during his life. Who received the bets? The prisoner at the bar. Who was answerable for them ? The prisoner at the bar. Who had an interest in conceal ing the amount of those debts ? The prisoner at the bar. If Strevens had seen that book, he would have seen that Cook was entitled to a sum of £1,020 ; he would have seen that Fisher was his agent, and from him that Herring, ana not Fisher, had calculated his bets. But there is still more yet to be accounted for. The learned Attorney-General then proceeded to refer to the arrival of Dr. Harland in the town of Rugeley, for the purpose of making the examination, his conversation with Palmer, when the latter said that Cook had died of epileptic fits, and that traces of old disease would be found in the head and heart, none of which were, however, found on the ex amination of the body ; the removal of the jar contain ing the stomach and intestines of Cook, the slits cut in the covering probably for the purpose of introducing something into the jar which would neutralise the poison if it were present, the restlessness and uneasiness of the prisoner while the examination was going on, his remons trating with Dr. Bamford for letting the jars be sent away, and his attempt to bribe the post-boy to upset the chaise and break the jar. The hon. and learned gentle man then concluded as follows :—lt is for you to say, under these circumstances, whether or not the death of the deceased was caused by the prisoner at the bar. You have indeed had introduced into this case one other ele ment which I cannot help thinking might well have been omitted. You have heard from my learned friend an unusual, I think I may even say an unprecedented expres sion of the innocence of his client. What would he think of me, if, imitating his example, I should at this moment declare to you, on my honour, as he did, what is the inter nal conviction which has followed from my conscientious consideration of this case. My learned friend has, with a full display of his great ability also adopted another course, which, although sometimes resorted to by mem bers of our profession, involves in my mind a species of insult to the good sense and the good feeling of the jury ; he has endeavoured to intimidate you by evoking your own conscientious scruples for the purpose of preventing you from adopting the only honest mode of discharging the great duty you are called upon to perform. My learned friend told you that if your verdict. in this case should be guilty, the innocence of the prisoner will one day or other be made manifest, and you would never cease to regret the verdict you had given. If my learned friend was sincere in that—and I know that he was, for there is no man who is more alive than he is to the claims of truth and honour—but if he said what he believed, all I can state in answer is that I can only attribute the conviction he has expressed to that strong bias which his mind easily, perhaps, received in directing all his energies to the defence of a man charged with this frightful crime. But I still think he would have done well to have abstained from any assurance of the innocence of the prisoner at the bar ; I go further and say that I think he ought in justice and in consideration to you have abstained from telling you that the voice of the country would not sanction the verdict you might give. In ence to my learned friend I have only this to say to you. Pay no regard to the voice of the country , whether it be for condemnation or for acquittal ; pay no regard to anything but to the internal voice of your own consciences ; trust to the sense of that duty to God and man which you are about to discharge on this occasion, seeking no reward excepting the comforting assurance that when you shall look back at the events of this trial you have discharged, to the best of your ability, and to the utmost of your power, the duty you have been called upon to fulfil. If, on a re view of the whole case, comp te a fhia r gel i h n rie g naognn t l e td rueis e ani o v s ton i h d ne e ao n ber c vle e te h n de : nsuicbaaotnl one side tense, justice,t o d r even you o t u h e ecna o tn t e h r e ct r at and ethtao w t ecg:fivaoecnttsot oa h ny i d m oua t lr h is a etl t lvi b ee e s neat. But if, on the other guilt, of which . the accused . is entitled to the benefit, in hwG/on.tdhds,s satisfaction s t f h e a ev to id t e h n e ce ca l a ea c d las y io o n ur af minds his guilt, then—but, then only—l ask for a verdict of guilty at your hands. For th e p rotect i on of the goo d, f or th e re pression of the wi c k e d , I then ask for t h a t ver di c t by which alone, as it seems to me, the safety of society can be secured, and th e d eman d s—t h e i m p er ious demands—of Public justice can be satisfied. Lord Campbell then addressed the jury as follows : The cause of public justice imperatively requires that the court should now adjourn. I shall feel it my duty, in this important case, to bring before you the whole of the evidence on the one side and on the other, accompanying the reading of it with such remarks as I may think it proper to make. It is impossible to enter on that duty at this hour, and I am, therefore, under the painful necessity of ordering that you again be sequestered from your families and friends during another Sabbath. The court then adjourned, at twenty-five minutes to seven o'clock, until ten o'clock on Monday (this day). It is now confidently believed that the verdict will not Tuesday evenin g a t t h e soonest, b ut mos t be given before T . probably not before Wednesday morning. Lord. Camp bell (I understand) has intimated to the sheriffs, that the summing up will occupy him the whole of Monday and Tuesday.