Produced by Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
=The Stauntons.= Edited by J. B. Atlay, M.A., Barrister-at-Law.
=Franz Muller.= Edited by H. B. Irving, M.A.(Oxon).
=Lord Lovat.= Edited by David N. Mackay, Solicitor.
=William Palmer.= Edited by Geo. H. Knott, Barrister-at-Law.
=The Annesley Case.= Edited by Andrew Lang.
=Mrs. Maybrick.= Edited by H. B. Irving, M.A.(Oxon).
EDINBURGH AND LONDON WILLIAM HODGE & COMPANY
PRINTED BY WILLIAM HODGE AND COMPANY GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH 1912
WHO BEARS THE NAME, AND HAS CONTINUED THE REPUTATION, OF ONE OF THE DISTINGUISHED COUNSEL IN THE TRIAL HEREIN CONTAINED, AND WHO ALSO FOR MANY YEARS WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE FIGURE IN THE COURT WHERE THAT TRIAL WAS HELD, THIS BOOK IS, BY HIS KIND PERMISSION, RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY THE EDITOR.
In preparing this report of a trial more than half a century ago, the chief difficulty one might expect would be to obtain an accurate contemporary account. A State trial one knows where to find; but how could newspaper reports of a trial lasting twelve days, and involving the most technical evidence on anatomy, physiology, and toxicology, be relied upon for anything like accuracy? Fortunately, if this trial was not a State trial in the ordinary sense, it so seized the minds of the country at the time that a complete record is to be found in the “Verbatim Report of the Trial of William Palmer, Transcribed from the Shorthand Notes of Mr. Angelo Bennett, of Rolls Chambers, Chancery Lane,” and published in 1856. A copy is not easily met with now-a-days. Official verbatim reports of criminal trials, that is made by an officer of the Court itself, were not then known. I suppose, though it is not so stated, that Mr. Bennett’s notes were taken by him on the instructions of the Treasury for reference each day by the Court and Counsel. They are the basis of the following report. Medical and medico-chemical evidence constitutes the greater part of this trial; it is also far the most important part; and in dealing with it I have had the benefit of the professional skill of Dr. William Robertson, of Leith, who has read the proofs. Some of the evidence, as it stood, showed that it had been a little too much for the erudition of the shorthand writer, and needed editing. I hope that, with the aid of Dr. Robertson, this appears now as it was intended to be by the experts who gave it.