1884.] 
“ Technical Trials .” 
347 
examination. The analysts— and to a certain degree the 
physicans also — would be able to judge whether the best 
known processes had been employed for the isolation and 
recognition of the poison, whether all necessary precautions 
ad been taken, and whether the reactions obtained were 
conclusive. But the engineers, architects, and geologists 
would have little or no advantage over an equal number of 
country gentlemen, bankers, merchants, or even retail 
tradesmen. They would not understand the technicalities 
o the case ; they would not know the meaning of symptoms 
and reactions. Hence this portion of the jury would be 
open to be led astray by the statements of experts and the 
appeals of counsel, and on retiring to consider the verdict 
they would need to be put right by their specially-qualified 
colleagues. 
I shall not, I hope, be accused of hypercriticism if I go a 
little further.. It is commonly supposed that a qualified 
medical man. is competent to give an authoritative opinion 
on any question falling within the wide and somewhat ill- 
defined boundaries of “ medical science.” This, however, is 
by no means the case. A professional man of standing, 
summoned on such a jury as I have been supposing, might 
happen to be a specialist in mental alienation, in gynaecology, 
m affections of the eyes, or he might be what is technically 
called a “ pure surgeon,” skilful and experienced in opera- 
tions. Such physicians or surgeons might easily happen to 
have had absolutely no experience at all in cases of poisoning, 
whilst their chemistry may have been allowed to rust in 
peace since the day when they passed their examination. 
Such men, I submit, will be of no special use in the trial of 
a poisoning case. 
I may go still further : Among analytical chemists of 
recognised learning and ability, there are many who never 
have concerned themselves with toxicology. They may 
have,, e.g., extensive experience in metallurgy, in the 
chemistry of dyes and colours, or in that of fermentation, 
but they would be unable to decide, without “ reading up,” 
whether certain reactions described by an expert witness 
weie conclusive evidence of the presence of strychnine in an 
organic mixture or not. 
Thus as we examine more closely the benefits to be 
derived from a technical jury they seem to become fine by 
degrees and beautifully less. 
There is yet another difficulty, perhaps the most serious 
of all. I refer to professional jealously, which would here 
come seriously into play. This element, I admit, is not 
2 a 2 
