The importance as to Charles Newton's testimony in procuring a conviction for the Crown cannot be over- rated. Newton said he sold strychnia to the prisoner on the Monday night before Cook's death; and upon that night Cook was first seized with symptoms of illness. The medical evidence for the Crown pronounced this illness to have been connected with the administration of strychnia; but there was sufficient in Charles Newton's evidence to render him a witness unworthy of belief. The hour which he fixed for the delivery of the poison was incompatible with the hour when the prisoner was seen at Stafford on the same night. The suppression of this incident (if it took place) before the Coroner; the consultation relative to the effects of strychnia, which he said had occurred between Palmer and himself; and the unfeigned joy with which he represented Palmer to have been seized when he lent him his boyish knowledge of the powers of strychnia—all these circumstances and incidents rendered his evidence at the trial such that even the consummate ability of the Attorney-General could not deal with it as he wished. Yet the jury gave implicit faith to this witness.
I have now, Sir, to tell you that the same Charles Newton has been twice in custody for theft at Nottingham; and that some of his more recent acts are under investigation by the Police. Ought this man then to be relied upon in a case of life and death, under the circumstances I have narrated?
As to the witness Mills, she swore at the trial that she slept with Mrs Dutton, when lodging at the house of Mrs Dutton's son. I assert, upon most unimpeachable testimony, that Mrs Dutton lives four miles from her son's residence, and has not been in his house for over nine months. It may be said that perjury by a witness to conceal the offence of fornication is venal, and that the rest of the testimony of such a witness can be perfectly relied upon. My belief is that any person who departs from the paths of virtue, and then perjures herself to cover her shame, may also commit perjury for motives not more honest. Again, let me ask whether life should be sacrificed on such evidence?
I now, Sir, approach a most important part of the case—which is medical and chemical testimony. So much has been written, spoken, and laid before the world on this head, that it requires but a few words from me. Sir, the point upon which so much doubt exists has created a universal and wide-spread feeling relative to the justice of the verdict. No man ought ever to ascend a scaffold with a doubt attached to his guilt. Let not that ill-fated man, William Palmer, whom prejudice has long since consigned to the gallows, do so!
Dr Letheby and Professor Herapath, two most eminent toxicologists of this day, declared upon their solemn oaths that they could discover the fifty-thousandth part of a grain of strychnia in the body of a dead man; and that, if Cook died from that poison, they could now find it. Their opinions were confirmed by almost equally distinguished members of the schools of London, Leeds, Edinburgh, and Dublin. Yet the body of Cook did not yield to the manipulations of Drs Taylor and Rees the smaUest particle of strychnia. Since the unfortunate end of the trial, my table has been laden with letters from scientific men in support of Dr Letheby and his party. If you honour me by your commands, I shall be proud to place these letters before you. Yet I hope that the new light thrown on the characters of Newton and Mills alone justify me in the strong assurance that a respite, for the object of further inquiry, and for the consequent elucidation of truth, will be granted.
Upon the last point which I am calling to your attention, I must, to a certain extent, be mute—I mean the Lord Chief Justice's charge to the jury. As an officer of his Court, I owe him every respect and duty, so that nothing but the dearer interests of my client would induce me to criticize his conduct of the trial. I cannot, however, refrain from saying that if a similar rule existed in the criminal law as in civil law, my Lord Chief Justice's charge would be open to the complaint of misdirection. The voice of the public has unanimously condemned it as one-sided and mistaken. Upon this point I pray your earnest thought.
I sincerely trust that I have given sufficient reasons to postpone the hour of death, and that the 14th inst.—a day which will witness the nation's common celebration of joy with our brave allies, the French, in the baptism of the future Napoleon IV—may not bathe in tears
of bitterness, sorrow, and resentment all the numerous relatives and friends of the unfortunate William Palmer.
May I seek as early an answer as is compatible with the consideration of this sincere plea?
I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, John Smith
John Smith had his answer on the next evening:
Whitehall, June 12, 1856
Sir,
Secretary Sir George Grey has received and considered your letters of the 10th and 11th inst., in behalf of William Palmer. He directs me to inform you that he can see nothing in any of the points that you have pressed upon his attention which would justify him in interfering with the due course of law in this case.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, H. Waddington
By the same post he received a letter from Dr Palmer himself:
Stafford, June 11th, 1856
My dear John,
The governor has been kind enough to allow me to write to you, as I am anxious to see you, and shall be glad if you will come as soon as you can. Thank God, I am very well in health and spirits. Write to me immediately.
I am, my dear John, yours ever, here and hereafter,
William Palmer
THE EXECUTION
MR JOHN SMITH, since he could not catch the express that evening, took train to Wolverhampton, and went thence by fly, reaching Stafford Gaol at about eleven o'clock. Dr Palmer had just parted from his brothers, among them Joseph (now somewhat paralytic), and his sister Sarah, in an affecting farewell. When Mr Smith told him that Sir George Grey had refused a last-minute stay of execution, his face suddenly paled, his mouth twitched, and he did not recover his usual florid looks for some little while.
Major Fulford, the Governor, was present at this interview. Because Dr Palmer had waited up to a late hour until Smith came, the prison officers supposed he had something important to tell him; but when the Governor informed the Doctor that whatever private disclosure he might make, on family matters, to Mr Smith would be kept secret, he simply thanked Mr Smith for his great exertions and the prison officers for their kindness—and reaffirmed that Cook had not died from strychnine.
The Governor then expressed a hope that Dr Palmer was not quibbling with the question, and urged him to say plainly whether or not he had committed murder.
Dr Palmer answered: 'Lord Campbell summed up for poisoning by strychnine, and I never gave Cook any of that.'
'How the deed was done,' retorted the Governor, 'is of scant importance. Pray give me a plain yes or no to my question!'
'I have nothing more to add,' said he. 'I am quite easy in my conscience, and happy in my mind.'
Immediately after leaving the Gaol, Smith wrote to a friend as follows:
My interview ended in Palmer's making me pledge myself that Cook's body should be exhumed, and asserting that he was never poisoned by strychnine. Palmer—God help him!—remained as cool as though any ordinary question had been discussed. Then he presented me with a book, inscribed in a fair hand: 'The gift of Wm Palmer, June 13, 1856/ It is titled
