Lastly, I will call Mr. William Herapath, of Bristol, probably the most eminent chemical analyst in this country, who also utterly rejects the theory. All of those gentlemen contend that if not only half a grain of strychnine, but even 1-50th part or less has once entered into the human frame, it can and must be discovered by the tests known to chymists. They will tell you this, not as the result of a few experiments, for ever regretted, upon five rabbits, but from a large experience as to the operation of the poison upon the inferior animals, created, as you know, for the benefit of mankind, and many of them from their experience as to its effects upon the human system. I will satisfy you from their evidence, that if you admit the correctness of the tests which were used, the only safe conclusion at which you can arrive is that strychnine not having been found in the body, it could never have been there. They all agree, too, that no degree of putrefaction or fermentation in the human system could so decompose strychnine that it should no longer possess those qualities which cause it, in its undecomposed state to respond to chemical tests. I will now apply myself to a question which in my judgment is of equal, if not greater, importance—the question whether, in the second week of November, 1855, the prisoner had a motive for the commission of this murder—a strong reason for desiring that Cook should die. I never will believe that unless it were made clear that it was his interest to destroy Cook, you would come to the conclusion that he had committed such a crime. It seems to me abundantly clear upon the evidence that not only was it not the interest of Palmer that Cook should die, but that the death of Cook was the very worst calamity that could befall him, and that he could not possibly be ignorant that it would be followed by his own ruin. That it was followed by his immediate ruin we know. We know that at the time when it is said he commenced to plot Cook’s death he was in a condition of the greatest embarrassment—an embarrassment which in its extreme intensity had come upon him but recently—an embarrassment, too, in some degree mitigated by the circumstance that the acceptances he is said to have forged were those of his mother—a lady of large fortune living in the town. My learned friend’s hypothesis is, that not until he was in a state of the greatest embarrassment did he wish to destroy Cook. My learned friend stated to you “That, being in desperate circumstances, with ruin, disgrace, and punishment staring him in the face, which could only be averted by means of money, he took advantage of his intimacy with Cook, when Cook had become the winner of a considerable sum, to destroy him, in order to obtain possession of his money.” Let us test this theory. Let us relieve our minds for a moment from the anxiety we must always feel when the life of a fellow-creature is at stake, and, looking at it as a mere matter of business, let us ask ourselves whether in the second week of November Palmer had any motive to commit this crime.
When a long correspondence is read to a jury, who are without the same means of testing its importance as the judge or the counsel, they frequently do not attach that weight to it which it deserves. But I watched the correspondence which was read to you yesterday with an anxiety which no words can express, because I firmly believed that in it the innocence of the prisoner lay concealed; that it proved not only that the prisoner had no motive to kill Cook, but that Cook’s death was ruin to him. Allow me to call your attention to the relation in which these men stood to each other. They had been intimate as racing friends for two or three years; they had had many transactions together; they were jointly interested in at least one racehorse, Pyrrhine; they generally stayed at the same hotels; they were seen together upon almost all the race courses in the kingdom; they were known to be connected in adventures upon the same horses at the same races; and although, Cook being dead, the mouth of the prisoner being sealed, and transactions of this kind not being recorded in regular books, it is impossible to give you positive evidence as to their relations to one another, it is abundantly clear that they were very closely connected. In August, 1855, money was wanted either by Cook or Palmer, and Palmer applied to Pratt for it. He seems to have wanted £200, to make up a larger sum, having already £190 in Pratt’s hands; and he offered as security for the advance his friend Mr. Cook, whom he described as a gentleman of respectability and substance. We do not know the exact state of Cook’s affairs at that time. Such a fortune as he had might have been thrown down in a week with the life he was leading; but a young man who is reckless as to the mode in which he employs his money and has only £13,000 may for a year or two pass before the world for a man of considerable means. It is not every one who will go to Doctors’ Commons to ascertain the precise amount of the property he has inherited. Mr. Cook, of Lutterworth, kept his racehorses, lived expensively, was known to have inherited a fortune, and was altogether a person whose friendship was of considerable importance to a man like Palmer. Recollect that I am not now defending Palmer against the crime of forgery, nor am I defending him against the imputation of reckless improvidence in obtaining money at an enormous discount. But as early as May, 1855, Palmer and Cook were thus circumstanced. What was their position in November?
The evidence of Pratt, and the correspondence which he proved, can leave no doubt on our minds upon that subject. Among a mass of bills, amounting altogether to £11,500, there were two, of £2,000 each, due the last week in October, two others, amounting to £1,500, having become due some time before, but being held over from month to month upon payment by Palmer, who was liable for them, of what was called interest at the rate of 60 per cent. These three sums—£2,000, £2,000, and £1,500—were the embarrassments which were pressing upon him in the second week in November, and, be it observed, they were pressed upon him by a man who, although he would, doubtless, have been glad to get his principal, would also, upon anything like security, have been very well pleased to continue to receive interest. How can capital, if well secured, be better employed than in returning 40 or 60 per cent.? In this state of things Palmer, in answer to an urgent demand for money, came up to town on the 27th of October. Pratt then insisted that if Palmer could not pay one of the £2,000 bills which had just become due he should pay instalments, in addition to the enormous interest charged upon it, and it was agreed that £250 should be paid down, £250 upon the 31st of October, and a further sum of £300 as soon afterwards as possible, making a total payment on account of that bill of £800, to “quiet” Pratt or his client, and to induce him to let the bill stand over. On the ninth of November the £300 was paid, and then a letter was written, to which I beg your particular attention. On the thirteenth of November, the day that Polestar won the race, Pratt wrote to Palmer that the case (“Palmer v. the Prince of Wales Insurance Company”) had been laid before Sir F. Kelly, that in the opinion of several secretaries of insurance offices the company had not a leg to stand upon, and that the mere fact of the enormous premium would go a great way to get a verdict. The letter concluded—“I count most positively on seeing you on Saturday. Do, for both our sakes, try and make up the amount to £1,000, for without it I shall be unable to renew the £1,500 due on the ninth.” Pratt had threatened to issue a writ against Palmer’s mother. Palmer had almost gone upon his knees to beg him not to do so, and this letter really meant, “Unless you give me £200 more and make up £1,000, a writ shall be served upon your mother.” That letter is written on the thirteenth of November. Palmer gets it at Rugeley, whither he had gone from the racecourse on the day that Polestar won. What does he do? He instantly returns to Shrewsbury, gets there on Wednesday, sees Cook. They say he doses him. We will see how probable that is presently. Cook goes to bed in a state I will not describe, gets up next morning much more sensible than he went to bed, goes upon the racecourse, returns with Palmer to Rugeley on the Thursday, goes to bed, gets up next morning still uncomfortable, but able to go and dine with Palmer on that day (Friday). On that day, the sixteenth of November, Palmer writes to Pratt—
“I am obliged to come to Tattersall’s on Monday to the settling, so that I shall not call and see you before Monday, but a friend of mine will call and leave you £200 to-morrow, and I will give you the remainder on Monday.”
The person who ordinarily settled Cook’s accounts was a person named Fisher, a wine-merchant in Shoe-lane, who was called first in this case; and on that very day (the day on which Cook dined with Palmer), Cook writes to him:—
“It is of great importance, both to Mr. Palmer and myself, that a sum of £500 should be paid to a Mr. Pratt, of 5, Queen-street, May-fair, to-morrow, without fail. £300 has been sent up to-night, and, if you will be kind enough to pay the other £200 to-morrow, on the receipt of this, you will greatly oblige me, and I will give it to you on Monday at Tattersall’s.”
There is a postscript, which I will read, but upon which I will at present make no observation—“I am much better.” What is the fair inference from these letters? I submit that the inference is, that at that date Cook was making himself very useful to Palmer. Pratt was pressing for an additional sum of £200. Palmer communicated his difficulty to Cook, who at once wrote to his agent to pay the £200. More than this,—the £300 referred to in the letter as having been paid “to-night” [The Attorney-General.—“The other day”] means one of these things—it either means the £300 which had been sent up on the 9th of November (and if it did, then Cook knew all about it—probably had an interest in Palmer’s transactions with Pratt); or it was a false representation, put forward merely for the purpose of putting a good face upon the matter to Fisher; or it means that on that day £300 had somehow or other come to their hands, and had been by Cook made applicable to the convenience of Palmer. Whichever way you take it it proves to demonstration that Palmer and Cook were playing into each other’s hands with respect to that heavy encumbrance upon Palmer, and that Palmer could rely upon Cook as his fast friend in any such difficulties. Although, when we take the sum total of £11,500, his difficulties sound large, yet the difficulty of the day was nothing like that, because, in the reckless spendthrift way in which they were living, putting on bills from month to month, and paying an enormous interest per annum, the actual outlay upon the day of putting on was not considerable. I submit that this letter shows that on the day on which it is said that Palmer was poisoning Cook, the 16th of November, Cook was acting towards him in a most friendly manner, was acquainted with his circumstances, and willing to relieve his embarrassments, and actually did devote a portion of his earnings to Palmer’s purposes. I will, however, make this plainer. Part of the case of my learned friend is that Palmer, leaving Cook ill in bed at Rugeley, ran up to town on the Monday, and intending to despatch Cook that night, obtained possession of his Shrewsbury winnings by telling Herring, who was not Cook’s usual agent, that he was authorized by Cook to settle his Shrewsbury transactions at Tattersall’s. On the Monday, as on the Tuesday, Cook, though generally indisposed, was during the greater part of the day quite well. He got up and saw his trainer and two jockeys. The theory of the case for the prosecution is that he was quite well, because Palmer was not there to dose him. You will see how grossly and contemptibly absurd that is presently. Being well on Monday and Tuesday, do not you think that, had not Cook known that Palmer did not intend to go to his regular agent, Fisher, he would have been very much surprised that he on Tuesday morning received no letter from that gentleman, informing him of the settlement of his transactions? And could Palmer, as a man of business, have relied upon an absence of such surprise and alarm on the part of Cook?
We have the evidence of Fisher, that he, at Cook’s request, contained in the letter of the 17th November, advanced the £200, which he would, had he settled Cook’s affairs, have been entitled to deduct from the money he would have received at Tattersall’s on the Monday. He did not settle those affairs, and the money has never been paid. That explains the whole transaction. Cook and Palmer understood each other perfectly well. It was the interest of both of them that Palmer should be relieved from the pressure of Pratt. Accordingly, Cook said, “This settlement shall not go through Fisher’s hands. We have got him to pay the £200 to Pratt, but it shall not be repaid to him on Monday. I will let Palmer go to London and settle the whole thing through Herring.” That was done, and accordingly Fisher has never been paid. There is a letter to which I will particularly call your attention. It is one sent by Palmer to Pratt on the 19th November, 1855:—“You will place the £50 which I have just paid you and the £450 you will receive by Mr. Herring—together £500—and the £200 you received on Saturday” [That is the £200 which Fisher paid to Pratt at the express request of Cook,] “towards payment of my mother’s acceptance for £2,000 due on the 25th of October, making paid to this day the sum of £1,300.” Taking that letter with the one which Cook wrote to Fisher on Friday, the 16th, can you doubt that on that day Cook was a most convenient friend to Palmer, who could not by possibility do without him? It does not end there. Cook died at 1 o’clock on the morning of Wednesday the 21st of November. If we want to know what influence that death had upon Palmer, we must take it from the letters. On the 22d of November—and I am sure you will make some allowance for a day having elapsed from the death of Cook—Palmer writes to Pratt, “Ever since I saw you I have been fully engaged with Cook and not able to leave home.” Unless he murdered Cook, that is the truest sentence that ever was penned. He watched the bedside of his friend. He was with him night and day. He attended him as a brother. He called his friends around him. He did all that the most affectionate solicitude could do for a friend, unless he was plotting his death.
“Ever since I saw you I have been fully engaged with Cook, and not able to leave home. I am sorry to say, after all, he died this day. So you had better write to Saunders; but, mind you, I must have Polestar, if it can be so arranged; and, should any one call upon you to know what money or moneys Cook ever had from you, don’t answer the question till I have seen you.”
“I will send you the £75 to-morrow, and as soon as I have been to Manchester you shall hear about other moneys. I sat up two full nights with Cook, and am very much tired out.”