have just seen, to degenerate into dictation, and to something very like what the law deems conspiracy. It may be said, too, in their excuse, that large classes in possession of privileges or monopolies opposed to the public weal, can never be brought to give them up by mere argument; and that when these classes have great influence in Parliament, no Minister will willingly move in the matter; so that, in Burke's language, when bad men [our opponents] combine, good men [ourselves] must unite. This excuse, however, does not apply to several attempts at dictatorial interference with the administration of the law, of which the case of 'Doctor' Smethurst is the most glaring instance. Essentially, indeed, it is a transfer of Lynch law to England, the difference being merely one of mode. America, they operate by the flesh; in England, through the spirit. In America, a gang of armed ruffians breaks open a prison, and takes the accused out of custody in order to hang him before trial. In England, a band of mostly anonymous, and always irresponsible persons work together' to prevent a man from being executed after he has been duly convicted by a jury, with the full approval of the judge. Concede that the American who is hanged is guilty, and that the Englishman who is respited is innocent, the political result is the same. Autho In rity in both countries is defied or coerced, the law is superseded or overridden; and that portion of the Government which relates to home administration may in time become subjected to the control of unknown or of (constitutionally) unrecognised and obscure rioters or agitators. If * it were not for the frequency of Lynch law constituting a custom, Lynch law would be the less mischievous of the two practices. The sudden outbreak of a mob may be a mere tumult, an accidental surprise of the authorities. A pressure on the Executive by means of a got-up agency and press agitation is likely to grow into a regular practice. Undoubtedly petition or representation is a proper mode of proceeding (though rather for the mitigation of a sentence than to override a verdict); and it is the duty of the Executive to consider any solid argument or any new evidence that could not have been discovered up to the time of the trial. But a minister of justice should be very careful how he allows private representations, without sufficient means of testing them, or any form of examination, to supersede public testimony. It is not meant to assert that murderers whose guilt was more demonstratively established than Smethurst's have not formerly been allowed by the Home Office to escape. Indeed, previous cases seem to show that in the arcana of that office 'influence,' and a sentimental philanthropy, or want of firmness to resist pressure, hold too much sway; while there is no doubt but that an oversensitive conscientiousness induced Smethurst's reprieve. These remarks are not so much directed to a particular case as to combinations to override law and authority in the spirit of American Lynch law-a thing as dangerous to true freedom as the worst form of autocracy; a state, by the bye, which democratic tyranny generally ends in.* In fact, strictly speaking, the two Although the guilt or innocence of Smethurst does not affect the argument in the text, which is not directed to the respite itself, but to the political considerations involved in the mode of obtaining it, the guilt or innocence of the convicted is a very important matter as regards that respite. That guilt seems to be as clearly established as any case of skilled slow poisoning well can be, when the poisoner has every facility for administering the poison, and removing the traces of it. 1. The preponderance of the medical testimony is in favour of death by poison; and by this preponderance is not meant mere numbers, or practical professional position, but also opportunity. The Doctors Julius, Bird, and Todd all saw the patient during life, and drew their conclusion from living appearances, apart from the dead post-mortem facts. They were also disinterested witnesses, in fact, men whose sense of duty alone guided their conduct and extorted their testimony (for the public may depend upon it that charges of poisoning do not 1859.] Identity of Autocracy and Democracy. are in principle the same thing. The resemblance between the court sycophant and the democratic leader, was long since pointed out by Aristotle, and the likeness passes from the actors to actions. Autocracy and democracy both proceed by force, nor can they be resisted by the community otherwise than by force. The essence of the respective governments is mere self-will, and supposed self-interest, in opposition to what is reasonable, and to the rights of others. It may seem a national prejudice to claim for public men bred up under a constitutional government, a loftier and more scrupulous public morality than is found elsewhere, but beyond all doubt, moderation of character, and a disposition to recognise the rights of an opponent, are 641 induced by the necessity of compromise which the strength of minorities occasions in a well-balanced constitution. The old nobility of an old despotism may have little legal power, but it mostly has some prescriptive privileges, and it must always possess some influence over the government; the old public bodies that are found in all established despotisms may be formal, sluggish, bureaucratic, but they offer some resistance to the mere sic volo, sic jubeo of the satirist's slave-commanding power; practically the two influences interpose some time for delay, and some consideration for the minorities affected, even if these minorities are little regarded in themselves. In a pure autocracy like that of France, or a pure democracy like that of Ame advance the interests of a medical man who makes them, and only a strong conviction will generally lead to their being made). Dr. Taylor and his coadjutors do not occupy this high moral ground, though they stand in the character of umpires. The medical witnesses for the defence are in the position of advocates paid for a definite purpose, and brought forward to carry out a predetermined object. The prosecution must call the medical men in attendance upon the deceased, and those who have been engaged on the post-mortem examinations, be their testimony what it may. The defence can canvas the whole profession till they get practitioners to suit their purpose. There seems to be a regular class of medical advocates, in the guise of witnesses, growing up, who appear in one capacity, while they act in another. Such testimony is not to be set aside; though jurors will be quite justified in regarding it with a caution amounting to suspicion. 2. The motives of the prisoner were palpable. If Miss Bankes lived he was exposed to a conviction for bigamy, and would doubtless have been subjected to penal servitude for a term of years, and might have been for life, which it seems is the utmost that can practically be inflicted now. Her death released him from this danger, and would have put into his possession a considerable amount of money, which he had taken the most questionable means to obtain. 3. The whole of his conduct was consistent with guilt, but scarcely reconcilable with innocence. The jury seem to have returned their verdict, as they would be undoubtedly right in doing, upon the whole case. The canting commonplace that is always put forward on occasions similar to the present, about a doubt' being given in favour of the accused, is unworthy of regard. The doubt must be a reasonable doubt, and the jury are the judges of the doubt. The newspaper discussions on the subject have revived an often proposed improvement of our criminal procedure, namely the establishment of a criminal court of appeal. Such a course might be a benefit if the grounds of the appeal, as well as the mode of obtaining it, were strictly defined, to prevent a crop of speculative appeals by criminals with command of money. It is difficult to see what end it could have answered in Smethurst's case. We believe no evidence unknown at the time of trial has come to light. Indeed, it is scarcely to be expected that new evidence of importance should turn up. If Miss Bankes died of poison, it is not disputed that Smethurst was the poisoner. The only question is the cause of death. Medical witnesses who had attended the patient during life, or who had afterwards examined the body and analysed the necessary parts, deposed that death was caused by poison. Other medical witnesses, who had not these advantages, were in favour of death from natural causes. It was a question of testimony. The jury decided on crediting what they believed to be the most conclusive. Another trial could merely have been a speculation for an acquittal. The nature of the evidence could not have been changed, though the number of theoretical witnesses might have been indefinitely multiplied on both sides. rica, sit pro ratione voluntas is the compendious maxim in home administration, and in foreign affairs when dealing with the weak. This cursory glance at the past and the present, does not lead to such satisfactory conclusions on all points of the world's political progress as we are in the habit of drawing. It is not at present clear how the destruction of the germs of constitutional freedom in Spain, Germany, and France will create a new and better state of things in those countries than the natural development of the old would have produced; or what constitutional, almost what civil, freedom Frenchmen have gained by their Revolution of 1789, however much the personal condition of the lower classes may be improved; or how the hurried and premature extinction of slavery in the British West Indies has benefited the negro race at large, seeing that the increased demand for the tropical productions (consequent in part upon abolition) of other places has not only rendered slavery more permanent in the Spanish colonies and the United States, but extended the slave trade in those, and possibly in other countries; still less is it apparent in what way the coarseness and recklessness of the American democracy is to be ripened into orderly and regardful freedom. But if the prospect is not flattering as regards the present, and almost threatening as respects the immediate future, Englishmen atall events need not despond. If we do well, so much the better; besides the advantage to ourselves, we shall hasten the progress of the world. If we do ill, our follies or wickedness will contribute in some way to the same end. But it is not a course wise or manly to follow the present fashion of accepting the laissez-faire, even if we are satisfied that our evil will be overruled for good. We should apply ourselves as best we may to overcome the surrounding tendencies to ill. The best mode of meeting popular (if we may not call it rabble) dictation is by determined resistance; though unfortunately the softness of the age, that gives so much power to a pseudo-philanthropy, tends to discourage the formation of that strength of character in public men which is best fitted to defy outery or agitation. The school of resolute statesmen, who having once decided on their course pursued it without regard to clamour or pressure, has passed away, and there are slender prospects of seeing any successors to them. There are two modes of meeting the more respectable kind of combination, as illustrated by the AntiSlavery and similar associations. One is by enlarging or multiplying the regular channels of opinion. The other, and practically perhaps the more effective mode, is to destroy such societies in the bud, by considering the grievances they are started to remove, and applying a fitting remedy. Envy, disappointment, sourness of nature, the agitator's necessity of keeping himself continually before the public to keep himself alive, and the sordid motives that can be enlisted in almost any cause, are insufficient to support an association that has not some solid foundation to rest upon. The success of the three great combinations of this century—the Roman Catholic, Anti-Slavery, and AntiCorn-law societies-shows that they had a base in necessity or right of some kind; and that however bad in themselves, like diseases, they were further, like diseases, a sign of disordered health that must be dealt with if greater evils are to be averted. W. W. FRASER'S MAGAZINE. DECEMBER, 1859. OF THE NATIONAL our great national questions, few were until late years considered more absolutely settled than that of the liability of this country to invasion. A virtual immunity from this scourge for nearly eight hundred years might well a brave people, conscious of its strength, into a sense of security. Within that period, the efforts of two great empires, each at the zenith of its power and foremost in Europe, had broken before the difficulties of the attempt. The Spanish Armada and the preparations of Napoleon had alike come to nought. What wonder, then, if, after the destruction of all the great navies of Europe during the wars of the Revolution and the Empire, the English people should for the next half century at least consider itself safe from any hostile attempt upon its shores ? In the midst of this security we are suddenly called upon to consider whether modern science, of which we ourselves have been to the world the practical expositors, has not done more against us than for us as regards this life-or-death matter. Strange, indeed, if it should be so. May it not be fairly argued that if the best engineers and the best machinery belong to this country, and if the amount of its productions in each kind, personal and material, be beyond measure greater than any other nation can boast of, modern inventions must rather help to strengthen the foundations of our Empire than lend a hand to pull it down? Most true. Under the influence of science freely developed, coupled with freedom of commerce and that absolute personal freedom of which we are so justly proud, the resources of this country VOL. LX. NO. CCCLX. DEFENCES. our have increased to an extent unparalleled in history. But there is this difference between our doings and those of the great military nations of the Continent: labours are mostly commercial, the result of individual enterprise, and based upon a state of peace; theirs are more or less governmental, and have habitually in view a state of war. Thus, though lagging far behind us in manufactures and manufacturing power generally, France is at this moment our equal in naval steam machinery, and to a formidable degree our superior in the producing power of her dockyards. It is true that after some years of war our energies also would take that direction, and our enor mous resources would in all probability give us, as heretofore, the ultimate advantage. But the Crimean war demonstrated that such a change of direction in the energies of an industrial people requires time. All our past wars lead us to a similar conclusion. We have in nearly all cases been unprepared at first, and only succeeded in the end by reason of our great mercantile and monetary resources. We might be content to accept this result as typical of our future wars, could we be assured that this want of instant preparation would not some day lead to a catastrophe for which no amount of previous money-saving could be any compensation. The advantages resulting to the great Continental Powers at the outbreak of war from the maintenance of enormous armaments are very dearly purchased at the cost of national progress during peace. But it may well be doubted whether, in actual presence of those UU armaments we have not gone too much to the other extreme, and whether we sufficiently realize our position as now more than ever continental in its character by the virtual subjugation of winds and waves which has been effected by steam. In the inquiry into the subject before us, we must, once for all, disclaim any animosity towards the great nation which it unavoidably concerns more than any other, any doubt of its good faith towards us, or any idea of monopolising for this country a greater degree of maritime supremacy than belongs to it by the mere fact of its commercial superiority. Our argument will be throughout based on facts, not on motives. We shall assume no more than that in the complication of European matters war may at any moment overtake us; that when the appeal is made to arms, nations at once take the side which seems most to favour their immediate security and interests; that we might thus very possibly find ourselves with our great neighbour as an opponent, and with no friend to stand by us; nay, that we might even find a coalition of maritime States arrayed against us. The question, then, how far our position with respect to France, in the event of war, would be altered by the new agency introduced by modern science, requires a very careful consideration. There are some points on which no doubt can exist, and with these it will be best to begin. It cannot be questioned that if the command of the Channel were secured by our present Allies for any lengthened period, not only would the passage of as many troops as they had ships for be secured, but also their communications would be as rapid and as certain as if there were no sea intervening. Now this could not be said of any past epoch. Not only have the best laid plans been over and over again baffled by contrary winds, even when the command of the Channel was in the enemy's hands; but also it cannot be doubted that the danger of having the communications of the invading army interrupted by the violence of the winds and waves, as well as by the opposition of our fleet, must have been always a matter of serious consideration, although perhaps not of decisive importance. Next, it is capable of demonstration that should the enemy be content to invade us without regard for his subsequent communications, his means of doing so are vastly facilitated by steam. Instead of 1200 flat-bottomed boats, collected at a single point which could be easily watched, he would have the means of embarking his troops in magnificent steam frigates or steam transports, each carrying 2000 men, besides horses and guns, from each military port, with the certainty of being able to unite them at any given point and at any given time, so soon as the attention of our fleet should be for a moment, by accident or stratagem, withdrawn from them. The passage from Cherbourg to Torbay would be infinitely more secure in such ships than that from Boulogne to the coast of Kent in the flotilla prepared by the first Napoleon. To many persons, indeed, it may appear wild to suppose that an invasion will ever take place for which the invader had not previously secured the absolute command of the Channel. Doubtless he would greatly desire to obtain such superiority; but we must recollect that the first Napoleon stipulated for no more than twenty-four hours to enable him merely to effect his passage, and that he expressed the utmost confidence both at the time and subsequently that with 150,000 of such troops as soon after conquered at Ulm and Austerlitz, he would speedily have reached London and cut the knot,' as he expressed it, of all coalitions.' That the conqueror of Europe would have reached London, had his great naval manoeuvre been successful, is indeed but too probable; that England would then have sued for peace, we need not believe; and that, on the contrary, the English people would in the end have shaken off their invaders, we need not wound our national pride by disputing. But this could only have been effected by enor mous sacrifices, and after lengthened sufferings. All that we are at pre |