i88 3 .] 
last Half-Century. 
525 
their own professional honour, and for Science should dictate ? 
To neither of these questions can we reply in the affirm- 
ative. 
We refer here to the admission of no less distinguished a 
chemist than Prof. Brande, that in applying Reinsch’s test 
for arsenic he generally used a halfpenny rolled down as 
“pure enough for the purpose.” Dr. Taylor, also, seems 
for twenty years to have used untested and possibly arseni- 
ferous copper for the same test. Dr. Herapath, even, in a 
letter to the “ Times” in reference to Dr. Smethurst’s case, 
though not written until after his conviction, pronounced 
the whole set of operations in that case a “ bungle.” 
“ Taylor must have known that Reinsch’s test was inappli- 
cable in presence of nitrates or chlorates.” Leaving these 
instances of something closely bordering upon carelessness, 
we cannot close our eyes to the personalities contained in 
Herapath’s comments on Taylor, — strictures so unworthy of 
a gentleman and a man of Science that we could almost 
suspeCt some old grievance to have existed between the two. 
The verbal communications made by Dr. Taylor to one Mr. 
Augustus Mayhew, of the “ Illustrated Times,” who suc- 
ceeded in “ interviewing ” him, professing to be employed 
by some insurance company, were, to say the least, highly 
indiscreet, and became unpleasantly notorious. Nor did 
Dr. Taylor’s subsequent letter to the “ Lancet ” greatly 
improve his position. It contained a passage from which 
counsel sought to extract the meaning that the conviction 
of Palmer was necessary for the public welfare. 
We now come to our last question, and ask whether the 
English method of dealing with the testimony of experts is 
well adapted for eliciting the truth and eliminating errors 
due to possible ignorance, carelessness, or bias on the part 
of the witness ? Legal authorities, in this country, we 
believe, uphold the present system, or did at least until quite 
lately. Thus Mr. Justice Stephen, in his “ History of Cri- 
minal Law in England,” writes, with reference to Palmer’s 
case, “A study of the case will show . . . that the subjec- 
tion of all the witnesses, and especially the scientific wit- 
nesses, to the most rigorous cross-examination is absolutely 
essential to the trustworthiness of their evidence.” 
We shall perhaps understand Mr. Justice Stephen’s 
point of view the better if we quote some observations 
made by him at the Leeds Assizes, late in 1880 or early in 
1881. The learned judge is reported to have said that 
“ Leeds was the only town where he never heard those un- 
seemly disputes between the legal and medical professions 
