The Sun.
London, England, 1864-11-17 00:00:00

the clause in the articles of
.some other bank, and was op-
posed by the directors at a general meeting, and was struck
out of the articles, In another clause the plaintiff stated
that the dividend which had been recommended and paid
was paid out of the paid-up capital of the bank, and not out
of the profits, the directors well knowing there were no pro-
fits, in consequence of the very serious loss which occurred
which had been before mentioned. There were other
clauses which Mr Metcalfe said were equally false, and
which he said he should submit was the matter which the
defendant threatened to publish.
Ile then called Mr Ralph Walters, who said he lived at
Eaton-square, and had property in Newcastle. He was a
magistrate in the county of Middlesex, and was nominally
a member of the bar, but had considerable ',property. He
was one of the directors of the London and Northern Bank,
and Mr E. Briggs, Mr Thos, Collins, Mr Robert B, Hay,
Mr Ivie Mackie, Mr Chas. Poppleton, Mr Wm. Dallison
Starling, and Mr B. T. Wood were also directors, Most of
those whose names were mentioned had been directors from
the first, At the first meeting of the bank there was a reso-
lution passed to do away with clause 79, enabling the direc-
tors to divide a sum of money between them. It was ex-
punged upon the motion of the directors, and as the articles
then stood the directors had no power to divide a fraction.
Mr Lewis suggested that it might not have been ex-
punged by the defendant's knowledge.
Witness continued—Ho could not tell the exact date, but
it was at the first general meeting. The bank was opened
in 1862, and the general meeting was held within the year.
Mr Alderman Stone—There would be a minute on the
book of that nature.
Examination continued—Witness had no doubt of it.
The articles were published without that clause. The
directors had not divided amongst them a single shilling,
directly or indirectly. They had taken nothing for salary or
anything else. Up to September last he had no doubt but
the bank was in a flourishing condition, and at the present
time he had no doubt but that the bank was perfectly solvent.
The sum of £lO,OOO was paid to the original promoters, Mr
Clench and Mr Kintien, who had expended a largo sum of
money. It was paid to them by the articles of association,
and except that sum, no other had been paid to anyone in
way of gift or remuneration. In the articles issued after the
meeting there was a clause which stipulated that the direc-
tors were to take nothing except what the shareholders might
vote from time to time: Mr Symons was a large shareholder.
Some time in October he went to him at the bank. Witness
thought it was about the middle. He did not know the de-
fendant before then ; but in consequence of what a clerk told
him, he spoke to Mr. Symons. lie first spoke about several
things, and then said that ho bad been a shareholder in
another bank, and he took the course of calling a meeting of
the shareholders at the London Tavern, and ho would do the
same with this bank unless his shares were taken at par.
Witness said any such meeting would be extremely daniag•
ing to Mr Symons' own property as well as to the bank
generally, to which Mr Symons replied that he and the
directors had plenty of money, and must take the shares off
his hands. or he would call the meeting. Defendant then
put his hand in his pocket and pulled out a paper, which he
said was a draft of a circular to call the meeting. The draft,
he said, was to be printed and circulated amongst the share-
holders. Witness said he would be no party to any compro-
mise in the matter; defendant must take his own course.
Witness did not have the paper in his hand. Defendant
read a few lines of it. It was not a printed paper. (Two
letters were shown to the witness, but he could not say
which of the two it was,) This was the only time that he
recollected seeing Mr Symons upon the matter referred to.
On being cross.examined, witness said bills before they
were discounted were not taken before him or any of the
directors to his knowledge. He was not aware that any busi
ness was being done in London in discounting bills except
occasionally. He found that the manager had discounted
very considerably; but he was not aware of it at the time.
He had never seen any exact account, and he did not know
what the amount was. He had not looked into the books of
the bank since the bill had been filed in Chancery to see the
amount of discount in London. He had asked the accountant
but he had not beard from him what the amount was.
Mr Lewis (to witness)—Did the manager discount bills
in London contrary to your direction ?
Witness said his sanction was not asked. He frequently
saw the manager, and he did not tell him he was discount.
ing in London. He did not know how much the manager
.had discounted for Emanuel and Brillman. He formed his
opinion of the solvency of the bank by the statement of the
accountant. He had not seen any statement which showed
the losses at Leeds. He could not tell how much Messrs
Emanuel and Brillman owed. Emanuel and Brillman were
bankrupts. At present the debt was not proved. The ac-
counts were not made up. No doubt the books would show.
He understood it was about £20,009. Ho had never refer-
red to the books, but he understood it was that amount. He
did not understand it was £26,000. He would not swear it
was not that amount. He had examined the ledger as to
certain amounts, but not that particular one. He declined
to name any particular account, Ile did not know how
much there was owing to the bank in London in bad bills,
but he understood the total losses must be covered by the
£30,000, without considering any dividends which might be
received. That included the losses at Leeds. He could not
say the amount of the bank's acceptances out at that mo-
ment. He did not know they were upwards of £200,000.
He presumed the business could not be carried on without
accep:ances. There was a director named Denton, who
retired in the early part of the present year. Ile had
never heard that he had given acceptances. There was a
customer of the bank at Leeds named Denton, by whom
there was a loss. Ile did not know that Mr Denton had
acceptances of the bank to a largo amount. He did not
know what Mr Denton owed. He never heard of any ap-
prehended for the London and Northern Bank. Ile was
present at the meeting when the dividend was declared. At
that meeting the directors issued new shares at £2 pre'eium.
He did not know how long after that meeting the shares
were at a discount, as he was from town. In the middle of
September on his return from the country, they were at £5
discount, with a call of £5 to pay. He spoke to Mr Turner,
the manager, about it, and he then informed him of the loss
the bank had sustained. He was very much surprised to
find they were discounting.
Mr Lewis—So were we. Have you the same confidence
in the manager which you had ?
Witness said in one sense he certainly had not. He was
far too easy—people had imposed upon his good nature. He
understood that a person named Sterne had transactions
with Mr Turner, and it was stated at the last mooting that
he owed the sum of £l,OOO unsecured. He did not know
that Mr Sterne was indebted to sither the Unity or London
and Middlesex, which had failed, and had no knowledge that
he was a customer of either bank, Ho had heard that Mr
Turner, the manager, was in the Loudon and Middlesex, and
Le had heard that he was in the Unity Bank, He had no
knowledge of how long he had been at the Unity. He wes not
a party to publishing to the shareholders that Mr Turner
was late of the London and Westminster. He was not one
who voted the £lO,OOO to the promoters. He was first aware
that sum had been voted very early after the commencement
of the bank. He did not see how much of the £lO,OOO was
outlay. He asked to see, and it was generally given, It
was laid upon the table at one of the meetings, but he did
not know who laid it before them. The shareholders, he
understood, went with the full knowledge of the fact. Mr
Symons was not a shareholder at that time, but he would
have a better chance of knowing than the others. The sum
was included in the preliminary expenses. The preliminary
expenses were not put down as assets. They were put down
in the balance• sheet as a payment. It did not appear ly the
balance what was duo to the bank's acceptances. There
was £ll,OOO as outstanding liabilities. He did not know
they were acceptances. He supposed it was the item of
drafts on which the bank was to receive payment of the cus-
tomers. He did not know that it was for acceptances of the
bank given to cuatomers. He did not understand that it
was a liability upon which the bank had no security. He
did not know how much the Leeds Bank, which had failed,
held of their acceptances. He was not aware they had any.
The bank had branches at Leeds, Huddersfield, Sheffield,
and Newcastle. The directors held their meetings at the
offices in London. He had never attended a meeting at any
of the branches, The branches weie under the superinten-
dence of the manaffers. There was no board to regulate the
management. The directors had reports sent up every week.
The managers of the branches ought not to discount bills
without the sanction of the board in London.
Mr Lewis—Why did you not come to this court and make
the complaint on the 15th October ?
Witness said because necessity did not seem to regaire it.
He did not know the day he first saw the hill in Chancery.
He know there was notice of motion for an injunction to
restrain an amalgamation. He gave the instructions for his
own answer. Ile did not swear any affidavit. He wrote
down instructions for that purpose. He did not make the
complaint because the injunction was made. The bill charged
him with neglect, and sought to make him personally liable.
It was not proposed to amalgamate with the Midland Bank-
ing Company within the last month. He was not aware that
they were restrained by Mr Symons from amalgamating.
The shareholders had not pledged them not to amalgamate.
The terms proposed that the Midland Company was to give
their £6O shares fer the £lOO shares of the London and
Northern, and they were indebted to Mr Symons for coming
over to that. That was the proposition made by the Mid-
land Bank.
Mr Lewis--Up to that time had Mr Symons taken any
legal steps against the bank
Witness said he was not aware that he had. The shares
had gone down previous to: 1r Symons going to the bank.
He did not atlributo the fall to the defendant, He attri-
buted the subsequent fall to the defendant's proceedings.
He did not know any ono to whom the defendant had com-
municated his intention. Witness was at the Leeds meeting
on Monday the 14th, which was called to carry out the
amalgamation. Mr Symons was there. The chairman, in
opening the meeting; said a summons had been granted
against defendant for attempting to extort money. The
letter produced (one of the two alluded to before) appeared to
be like the one defendant produced when he called at the
bank. The letter was dated 14th October, 1864, and signed
by Mr Symons, and was as follows:
" Sir,—l beg to request your attendance at a meeting to
be held at the London Tavern, on Monday the 23d instant,
for the purpose of considering the present position of the
London and Northern Bank. lam a holder of 100 shares,
and think it most desirable that we should meet prior to
paying the call last made."
He did not recollect whether defendant asked him whether
the call of £5 had been made to pay the looses of the bank

or to extend the business c f the tank. no had no recollec-
tion of defendant speaking of the rumoured losses the bank
had had to a large amount. Ho did not say that a friend
of his, Dr Cook, end Mr Chatteris, the accountant, had
cautioned their manager against Mr Stern and Emanuel and
Brillman, The defendant referred to the downward move-
ment of the shares. That was the ground on which he was
to issue the circular. He expressed his dissatisfaction of the
general management of the bank, but not of the directors.
Mr Lewis—Did he not say before he paid his call he would
call a meeting of shareholders and know how the bank stood
and that he would make the directors liable for every shil-
ling the shares had cost him ?

Witness said not that ho was aware of, The defoadan

did not read the whole of the letter. What he said was to
the effect that he was going to call a meeting. Defendant
did not read the whole of the letter. Witness only gathered
ho intended to call a meeting of shareholders, and when he
pointed out the damage it would do defendant said ho must
take his shares at par.

Mr Lewis—Will you swear that ho did not say that he
would make the directors liable for every shilling he had
paid for his shares ?
Witness said he would. He did not recollect that defen-
dant asked what amount of losses the bank had sustained.
He had no doubt he told him. he was not in a position to tell
him. A dividend was declared on June 30, 1864. The
balance was prepared by the three auditors of the bank, and
is signed by them. Witness did not recollect what the pro-
fit was up to that time. He thought it was about £4,000.
Mr Lewis—Do you not know that you had sustained a loss
of £15,000 by Messrs Emanuel and Brillman at that time ?
Witness said the loss was not sustained at that time. Ho
did not believe any of the bills were dishonoured at that
time. He did not think it likely that the £4,000 profit was
formed partly from the interest on the bills by which the
bank had sustained the loss. Witness did not know that
Dr Cook and Mr Chatterie, before June 30, cautioned the
manager with respect to the debts of Mr Stern, and Messrs
Emanuel and Brillman.

Ite-examined by Mr ➢letcalfe--Ile had not heard that Dr
Cook had applied for accommodation on bills of Mr Symons,
ang was refused.

Mr Lewia said he was instructed that that was quite un-
true. His client was well known to be a man of extensive
property.

Witness's re-examination continued—An accountant had
been employed to go through the accounts. He had reserved
his answers to the charges in the bill by the advice of his
solicitor. The day for the cross-examination of the defendant
was fixed. Ho thought Dr Cook and another gentleman
were present at the time defendant made his throat.

Mr Lewis said Dr Cook was the gentleman who had
cautioned Mr Symons.

Witness in answer to Mr. Metcalfe, said—The chairman
at the meeting at Leeds informed the shareholders that a
bill had been filed charging the directors with negligence,
and that a summons had been taken out against Mr Symons
for attempting to extort money. The feeling of the share-
holders was, with the exception of Mr Symons and another
gentleman, one of confidence in the directors, and strong
against the defendant.

John Peacock Turner said he was manager to the London
and Northern Bank, and prior to occupying that position
was 21 years in the London and Westminster. He was
cashier in the Unity Bank for four years, and was after that
manager to a branch bank of the London and Middlesex.
He had been manager to the London and Northern Bank
since the formation in. 1862 The loss of the bank was, in
his opinion, about £20,000 or £30,000, and the bank was at
the present time quite solvent, and up to September was
making large profits. He knew Mr Symons. He had seen
him at the bank several times. He went immediately after
the losses were discovered to get some information respect-
ing the losses. Witness could not give him any information
and he demanded to see the books, which witness would
not allow without an order from the board. Defendant said
that unless ho had his shares taken off his hands at par he
would bring down that bank the same as he had another
bank, and he intended to call a meeting immediately. Wit-
ness told him he could not take his shares at par, but if ho
heard of anyone wanting to purchase ho would let him
know. He did hear of some one wishing to purchase 50
shares at £5 discount, and told the defendant, but ho said,
"No ; he must take his shares at par." On another occa-
sion defendant said witness must give him a cheque for
£l,OOO, as he had then a circular prepared and in his pocket
to call a meeting, and he must have £l,OOO, and he would
give a month for the remainder. Ho told defendant he would
see what he could do, and communicate with him by five
o'clock. He mentioned the matter to some of the directors,
who would not allow him to pay any money, and he did not
pay it. Dr Cook went with the defendant on some occa-
sions, and was present at some of the interviews, and heard
what was said. Witness had refused to discount for Dr
Cook Mr Symons's acceptance for £1,500. That was in
July. After the bill was filed it was taken to him by Mr
Lewis. Witness had seen the circular produced before, not
in the defendant's hands.

This was the case on the part of the complainant.
Mr Alderman Stone said the threat must bo positive and
defined—not inferred as it appeared to him it was in this
Case ; and he did not think there was sufficient in the evi-
dence to establish the threat within the act of Parliament.
Mr Metcalfe contended that he had threatened to issue
the circular with intent to extort the money.
SAno slight discussion ensued, Mr Metcalfe contending
that the threat to publish anything touching another with
a view to obtain money came within the meaning of the
act equally as if the matter contained in it were libel.
Mr Alderman Steno said no doubt the statute was in-
tended to punish where an attempt was made to extort
motley ; but he did not think that this case came within
the term to extort money ; and moreover it would be wrong
in him, while a suit was pending in the Court et Chancery
charging the directors with certain things, to put that aside
by deciding the case upon a summons in that Court, and ho
was not of opinion that the matter published was cc such a
character as canto within the meaning of the statute, and
he should therefore dismiss the summons.
Summons dismissed accordingly,
The case occupied nearly five hours.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

THE TIMES AND DR. SMETIIURST,—We cannot
arnyd should have seized
thhi ma ts le
)l
rf. oSvme re tahguarisnt
affect to be in the least surprised
shouldbharavoef
htihsoouwgnhtopfiitnioton,t
an opportunity to publish thevezdict in our columns.
What does surprise us, and, indeed, fills us with
amazement, is that he should venture to represent
lye,
our passing allusion to him in connection with Mut-
wlere'net C:lasnadasth‘ep alike `
..r
lee must presume that Dr.
Smethurst understands his own interests better than
y,,injurious
ll ton elf the Govern.
any one else, though we are at a loss to conceive how
they can be advanced by obtruding himself on the
,
public, but we emphatically decline to identify them
with those of the Government or of " the peepi,.,,
If our remarks were injurious
to himself at must
have been the fault of the facts, f .
or we simply dirs.
claimed any intention to question "the justice of the
final decision," and confined ourselves to censuring
the particular method in which the sentence was
reviewed by Sir G. C. Lewis. Dr Smethurst, it is
true, demands something more than neutrality and
suspension of judgment; he claims the expression
of a judgment in his own favour. We take the
liberty of informing him that such 3 &aim will never
be recognised by us. We find nothing in the Come
mon Law which gives a pardon the
effect which he
ff 0
attributes to it. It makes the
ender " a new
man," it relieves him from ‘, all. corporal penalties
and forfeitures," it gives him a right of action
against any one who shall call him felon or traitor,
but that is all. It leaves his character where it
found it, except so far as it is granted upon
proofs
of innocence which carry conviction to
the public
mind. Not only may the i recill.ent of it have been
guilty of crimes as odious as the • h
one to which it
applies; be may have been proved guilty of that
very crime in the opinion of the Home Secretary
himself, but under circumstances different from
those inferred by the jury from
evidence.
We
cannot suppose that the the
Lord Chief Baron meant
to lay down a doctrine Which would conflict with
this in the passages quoted bya Dr
y Smethurst—as-
suming, of course, that the
ecorrectly quoted.
We have may say that we
searchedr our owu law
reports for them in vain under the dates specified
by Dr Smethurst, and have referred with equal ill
success to the pages of
the Law Journal. If the
words in question were really uttered by the Lord
Chief Baron, which we by no means deny, we pre•
sume they were used in reference to the case of Mr
Hatch; but, whatever their immediate purport, they
are far from justifying the construction put upon
them by Dr Smethurst. They imply no more than
this—which is matter of common notoriety—that a
pardoned man must b 0 taken to - have been wrongly
convicted—that is, either convicted of a crime which
he did not commit, or on inadequate evidence of a
crime which he did commit, and that in either case
he is thenceforth "innocent" of that crime in the eye of
the law. But Dr Smethurst isnot content with mak.
ing a demand which we have shown to be exorbi-
-1 tant. Ho insists on going into the details of his
own trial, with a view to show that the jury would
have been wrong in convicting him of murder upon
any theory whatever. It is doubtless with the same
object that ho fortifies himself with the high authqs
rity of the German Legal Protection Society, who
state explicitly that " the accusation was found to
be false," and that " no one ever since doubted that
he was wrongfully convicted of the crime of which
he was adjudged to death." IVe have not the least
wish to undertake the duty which Dr. Smethurst
imposes upon us, but we cannot allow him to mis-
lead the public by his own version of the facts. A
very short summary of them will suffice for the pre-
sent purpose. Dr. Smethurst was indic'ed for and
convicted of the murder of Miss Bankes, and the
ease for the prosecution was directed to show that
he administered poison to her with intent to pros
duce death. All the evidence with respect to his
alleged interest in the lady's death, the execution
of her will, and so forth, was adduced in support of
that hypothesis, and would lose much of its signifi,
canoe on the supposition that he administered poison

Sir George Lewis said—

rITE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY INVIWING, NOVEMBER 17, 1864.

with intent to procure abortion. This was the sug-
gestion made by the Lord Chief Baron after n c ire-
ful examination of the materials submitted to biro
by Sir G. C. Lewis, some of which were then pro-
duced for the first time. It is to this that Dr.
Smethurst now addresses himself, volunteering to
demonstrate its absurdity. The arguments, and the
only arguments, upon which he relies, are, first, the
improbability of his having attempted to procure
abortion at so very Early a stage of pregnancy as
that supposed; secondly, the improbability of his
having employed poison in preference to instru-
ments. Now it is no doubt true that, according to
the testimony of medical witnesses for the prose-
cation, the pregnancy of Miss Bankes must 'have
begun about the same time as her illness, and it is
very probable that it would never have been sus.
'pc.cted by a medical man not cognizant of Miss
Bankes's seduction. It may also be true, for aught
we know that "a stiletto would have done the busi-
ness in the course of an hour or so ;" but these, after
all, are but a priori reasons, and a tar more solid
kind of proof was laid before the jury. Dr Smethurst
alludes to it himself when he ridicules the idea of
his having administered "arsenic and antimony" to
effect abortion. Of this, so far as we are aware, he
was not accused, but of administering some irritant
poison, and probably either arsenic or antimony.
The chief grounds upon which he was accused re-
main to be stated. When Miss Bankes'i body was
examined appearances of a highly abnormal charac-
ter presented themselves. One scientific witness
after another swore that they were such as might
have resulted from poison, and could hardly have
resulted, if at all, from the action of any known dis-
ease: This conclusion was identical with that to
which three medical men were led independently by
an observation of the symptoms during life. At the
same time, distinct though slight,traces of antimony
were detected by Dr. Taylor in certain organs, and
it happened that a letter of the prisoner toDr Julius
referred to a prescription containing antimony, al-
though no such prescription had been given. Waiv-
ing the more doubtful questions,sueh as that relating
to the symptoms of poisoning by arsenic, and that
concerning the relative eminence of the chemists and
doctors called for the prosecution and defence, there
is surely enough here, coupled with Dr Smethurst's
relation to the deceased and his conduct during the
illness, to raise a presumption of his guilt. We say
a presumption, for it was of course capable of being
rebutted by evidence of equal weight,and an attempt
was made to do so. The discovery of the antimony
was never disproved or explained, but the quantity,
being small the inference founded on it was dis-
credited. It was urged that no poison was found in
the prisoner's possession, though he had easy means
of gating access to it; discrepancies were pointed out
between the symptoms noticed and those consequent
up)n antimonial poisoning, and the former were
ascribed to dysentery supervening on pregnancy.
It would be equally futile and improper for us to
strike a balance between these considerations, but
we have no hesitation in stating our opinion that
unless the jury were satisfied with this part of the
case for the prosecution their verdict was unwar-
ran table. The Chief Baron's view of it vas clearly
indicated, and has never been retracted, and the sub-
sequent statement of his opinion that "the prisoner
ought not to be hanged" is a very different thing,
as Dr Smethurst must well know, from a testimonial
to his innocence. Such a testimonial, however, if
Dr Smethurst is correct, was furnished by Sir G. C.
Lewis in his place in Parliament. As the passage
alleged to contain it is quoted in the letter at length,
we need only draw attention to the concluding Bens
tence :—" That was the hypothesis which a consi-
deration of all the evidence had suggested to him
(the Chief Baron), but it was an hypothesis wholly
different from that which was adopted by the pro-
secution at the trial, or from that which was sub-
mitted by the judge to the jury, and it is impossible
for me to say whether, if that view of the evidence
had been submitted to them, they would have found
a verdict of guilty." If this is what Dr Smethurst
calls "settling the question" of any doubt as to his
innocence, he is very welcome to it. To us, so far
from settling the question, it appears to leave it
open in express terms, and this is exactly what was
done by Sir B. Brodie's report. A perusal of that
report, temperate and impartial as it is, will cer-
tainly not weaken any objection to the course pur.
sued by Sir G. C. Lewis. It embraces topics far
beyond the province of a physician, however emi-
nent, and by acting avowedly upon it, instead of
consulting Sir B. Brodie privately to inform his own
judgment, the Ilome Secretary constituted a single
arbitrator into a Court of Criminal Appeal. It was
against this that we protested ; it is against this
that we still protest, in the fixed belief—which we
regret to find is not shared by Dr Smethurst—that
no " danger to the life of the people" arising from
erroneous convictions is half so great as that which
would arise from increased uncertainty in the
punishment of the guilty.

The following is the latter alluded to above :
Sir,—My notice has just been called to some injurious
observations to myself, made by you in reference to the
German Legal Protection Society's memorial in favour of
Muller, in which my name becomes very prominent. 1 read
in the Times of Friday, Nov. 11:._
" Muller was condemned by public opinion before ho was
brought to England at all, in the same way as, but in a
stronger degree than, Dr Smethurst was. This gentleman
was convicted of poisoning before the Lord Chief Baron
Pollock, who expressed himself satisfied with the verdict,
and gave him no hope; yet when, on a memorial like this,
he was respited,:t he accusation was found to be false, and no
one ever since doubted that he was wrongfully convicted of
the crime for which h© was adjudged to death. It is confi-
dently hoped that a similar result would follow the respite
prayed for in this case."--Memorial of the German Legal
Protection Society.

nen follow ybur cwn comments on the above, which in
my opinion are alike injurious to myself, the Government,
and the people. You say, in the same paper—
" We believe that if Mr Beard had been consulted about

the composition of this address so unfortunate an illustra-
Hon would not have been introduced. Dr Smethurst's case
is the very last which ought to be quoted as a precedent for
the interference of the Horne Secretary. With the justice
of the final decision we have nothing to do; it is enough
to fay that while the circumstances under which a pardon
was granted were peculiar in the extreme, the reference of
the matter to one eminent surgeon, afters solemn investiga-

tion in court, has been reprobated ever since by the whole
legal profession."
The question of any doubt as to my innocence in this case
has been fully settled, if not by the entire public opinion,
at all events by the late Home Secretary, Sir Gaol ge Lewis,
who possessed every ready moans at command to assist him
before coming to a determinate conclusion, and the follows
ing is his explanation of the aff dr before the House of
Commons.

In the 1 imes, January; 28, 18G0, Mr Edwin James, Q.O
is reported to have said that—
" He wished to bring under the notice of the Seorotary of
State for the Home Department one or two facts connected
with the case of Dr Smethurst, who was lately convicted of
murder and pardoned by the Crown. The case was a most
important one, had engaged a large share of public atten-
tion, and was likely to
.affect very seriously the criminal
jurisprudence of the country."

his further observations referred to the overruling of the
verdict of the jury and the sentence of the judge, and called
for an inquiry.

"With regard to tho particular case of Dr Smethurst, the
course which I adopted was to call for the shorthand writer's
notes of the trial, to hear everything which could be alleged
on the part of the prisoner by his friends or legal advisers,
and to refer all the papers which were brought before me to
the learned judge (Pollock) who tried the case. Tho learned
Chief Baron, after long consideration of the subject, made
a very full report, in which ho recommended that the mat-
ter should be referred to some eminent medical practitioner,
and I accordingly placed his report in the hands of Sir
Benjamin Brodie, whose eminence and fitness will, I think,
be universally admitted. In a conversation which I had
with him in order to obtain his permission to the reference,
he assured me that he had but a superficial knowledge of
the subject, and had formed no opinion whatever with re,.
gard to the case ; and therefore, I believe that it would be
impossible for me to find a more impartial referee. After
full consideration given, I can assure the house, with the
utmost attention of which I was master, and after hearing
a variety of opinions from different persons, I came to
the conclusion that the proper course for me to adopt was
to advise the Crown to grant a free pardon ; and I can only
say that nothing which has occurred since I gave that ad-
vice has made me entertain any doubt as to its rectitude.
(Hear, hear.) I think it ;right to state that the Chief
Baron expressed en opinion ' that the prisoner ought
not to be hanged ;' and ho subsequently made the sugges-
tion that Dr. Smethurst did not administer drugs to Miss
Isabella Bankes with the view of taking her life, but pos-
sibly with a view of procuring abortion," That was the
hypothesis which a consideration of all the evidence had
suggested to him, but it was an hypothesis wholly different
from that which was adopted by the prosecution at the trial,
or from that which was submitted by the judge to the jury
—and it is impossible for me to say whether, if that view
of the evidence bad been submitted to them, they would
have found a verdict of guilty.' "
It is in evidence that tho deceased fell ill on Sunday, the
27th of March, 1859, and died on the 3d of May, making the
duration of her illness five weeks and two days; and that
Messrs. Palmer and Barwell, who performed the post mor-
tem examination, deposed on oath that she was advanced in
pregnancy from five to seven weeks. Now, according to the
Chief Baron's statement, I must have begun to administer
arsenic and antimony with a view t 9" effect abortion, but
not to kill," on the instant impregnation occurred, for the
sickness and dysentery commenced about the same time—
five weeks before death. I challenge the whole medical
profession to say that I, or any one, could know of her
pregnancy at this early period—and would ask the question
is it likely that such deadly mineral poisons would be used
for such a purpose by a medical man of many years' expo-
riMoe, Whell is is generally known ill the pretenieh that a