CHEMICAL TRUTH. 
49 
observations: “ We have been now employed in the exami- 
nation, during two days, of a great number of the most 
intelligent persons that this country or Europe can produce. 
I am myself, more or less, acquainted with all the writings of 
every one of these gentlemen. From this I know their infor- 
mation, I know their talents ; and whether my time has been 
well or ill employed, I will not say, but I am proud to 
acknowledge, that from their labours I have received at times 
a considerable degree of pleasure. But I must add, that these 
two days, thus employed, are not days of triumph, but days 
of humiliation, for science ; for when I find that their science 
ends in this degree of uncertainty and doubt, and when I 
observe they are drawn up in martial and hostile array against 
each other, how is it possible for me to form, at a moment, 
an opinion upon such contradictory evidence? You will not, 
therefore, expect any opinion upon this part of the case from 
me; I can form none. Volumes have been spoken upon it, 
and I foresee, without being blessed with the spirit of pro- 
phecy, that volumes will be written upon it ; and so they 
ought, for the elucidation of science, and the enlightening of 
mankind.” 
It has often been remarked, that on trials of this description 
little or no reliance is to be placed on chemical evidence, 
because the witnesses on each side flatly contradict those on 
the other, and there are, unfortunately, too many instances 
on record which afford a ground for the allegation, to admit 
of its being refuted. At the same time, the incongruity would 
appear much less striking if chemical evidence were taken at 
what it is worth, instead of being interpreted literally, without 
making the necessary allowance for theoretical convention- 
alities and the abstruse nature of the questions at issue. 
We think the system now in force in trials of this nature 
is radically at fault. Scientific men ought not to be retained by 
each party, and called to the witness-box under circumstances 
in which it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them 
to avoid feeling to some extent as partisans, and thus uncon- 
sciously deviating from that strict impartiality which ought 
to be maintained in questions relating to scientific truth. 
This liability to divergence would be removed, and the ends 
of justice more effectively promoted, by the appointment of a 
scientific commission, to whom reference should be made 
when chemical or other scientific evidence is required. The 
parties selected to investigate and give evidence upon any 
particular subject, not being retained on either side, and not 
being either directly or indirectly interested in the result, 
would have their minds concentrated on the facts before them, 
xxvii. 7 
