3:885.] Conducting Chemical Examinations. 29 
had been administered, it would rarely happen that the 
mistake could be disproved. 
That mistakes have occurred there is great reason for 
fearing ; that iron-rust stains have been mistaken for blood 
stains is known : in one case, I remember well, the accused 
— who was charged with poisoning by phosphorus — was 
acquitted owing to the skilful cross-examination the analyst 
underwent by the counsel employed on behalf of the ac- 
cused, and this was due to the faCt that this lawyer had 
studied Chemistry. And although the notorious Palmer 
was no doubt guilty, it was proved more from the symptoms 
produced by the poison on the dying man than from any 
poison being found in his body. If the records of the trials 
for poisoning were gone through they would fully prove, I 
believe, the necessity for the additional precautions for pro- 
tecting the innocent I advocate. The alterations I would 
suggest are : — 
1st. There should be a medical as well as a chemical 
expert employed, and each separate division — England, 
Ireland, and Scotland — of the United Kingdom should have 
its own two experts, and in each case they should be spe- 
cially selected by the political chief of the proper Govern- 
ment department. No local authority — as corporations, 
grand juries, &c. — ought to be allowed to seleCt an analyst 
even for a preliminary enquiry. The laboratory of a general 
analyst is not suitable for carrying out these serious and deli- 
cate analytical examinations ; nor is the commercial analyst, 
with his speedy and sometimes not very delicate methods, in 
all cases exaCtlv in training for these more exaCt and refined 
investigations. No other analytical work ought to be con- 
ducted in the laboratory in which the poison cases are 
carried on ; the laboratory should not be entered by an 
assistant, or other persons, except when the expert was 
present ; and the expert, when leaving the laboratory, should 
lock it up, and keep the key in his own possession. 
2nd. The chemical expert should confine himself entirely, 
in his examination in the court, to the question whether he 
had found poison or not, and the methods he employed in 
the examination. He should invariably bring his note-book, 
containing a full report of the examination, into court, so 
that it might be examined by all the parties concerned in 
the case. It is usual at present for the analyst to give, 
with his chemical evidence, medical opinions : this must 
necessarily render his evidence most confusing both to the 
judge and the jury, especially as, in at least ninety-nine 
cases out of every hundred, both the judge and the jury will 
