59 
often pitiable, even if he has a’ good case; for an ignorant and 
uneducated man: has the greatest difficulty in collecting his ideas, 
and seeing the bearing of the facts alleged. ‘To a man,” says Sir 
James Stephen, ‘ who has sense, spirit, and, above all, plenty of 
money, the présent’ protection afforded is considerable, but it is 
not possible to prevent'a:good deal of injustice where these con- 
ditions: fail.” 
I have elsewhere, z.¢., in the Lancet, October 18, 1889, expressed my views 
as to expert medical evidence, and just allude to the subject in order to repeat 
the opinion there stated, that an ordinary medical practitioner is not competent 
to deal with intricate chemical analyses of stains on clothing, and obscure or 
questionable injuries on the human body. 
CourT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. 
It is a characteristic feature in English criminal procedure that 
it admits of no appeal, properly so called, upon matters of fact, 
although there is a Court for Crown Cases Reserved, which can 
determine questions of law arising at a trial, yet it cannot take 
notice of questions of fact. No provision whatever has been made 
for questioning the decision of a jury on matters of fact. 
However unsatisfactory such verdict may be, whatever facts may 
be discovered after the trial, which, if known at the trial, would 
have altered the result, no means are at present provided by law 
by which a verdict can be reversed. All that can be done is to 
apply to the Queen for a pardon for a person believed to have 
been wrongly convicted ; the evil is notorious, but it is far from 
easy to find a satisfactory remedy. 
I will endeavour to put the difficulties before you. If every 
convicted prisoner had a right of appeal, in all probability an 
appeal for a new trial would be made whenever a prisoner could 
afford it, and thus appeal would be rather for the well-to-do 
prisoners than for the needy. Thus there would be a verification 
of the old saying, “there is one law for the rich and another for 
the poor.” 
If the question whether or not there should be an appeal, rested 
with the judge who had tried the case, the new trial would depend 
upon whether the judge thought that the jury had been harsh 
