Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 09.pdf/218

 The Legal Aspect of the Maybrick Case.

191

attaches undue weight to the opinions of his with it, do so without allowing the prisoner predecessor and his subordinates. A strong all reasonable facilities for defending herself protest from the members of the legal pro against the new charge, both by evidence fession on both sides of the Atlantic would and argument? And did she receive the perhaps open his eyes to the quagmire into benefit of every reasonable doubt that could which his adherence to officialism and routine be raised in relation to it, as a second jury has in this instance led him; but even if it would have been bound to give her, if she were certain that such a protest would fail had been tried upon such new charge, not to procure life and liberty for this victim of withstanding her previous conviction upon Home Office mismanagement and obstinacy, 'the charge of murder? it is imperatively required for the honor and 4. Was the minor crime or crimes, thus dignity of the legal profession itself. What conclusively proved, of such a nature as to will posterity think of its members if they make it certain that the presiding judge permit the intended judicial murder to be would in the event of a conviction have im perpetrated, without once raising their voices posed the maximum sentence of penal ser in the interests of justice and humanity? vitude for life? And, if not, did the Home While I think Mrs. Maybrick ought to Secretary consult any, and what judges, as have been liberated at once, that is not now to the proper sentence to be imposed for the question. The questions that now arise such crime or crimes? Had Mrs. Maybrick when we consider the case in its purely legal been convicted by a jury of any crime not punishable by penal servitude for life she aspect are these : — would now be free. Had she been con 1. Can we, after finding the crime of mur der proved, spell out of the verdict of the jury victed by a jury of a crime punishable by penal servitude for life she would very prob any minor crime punishable by penal servi tude for life, and, if so, was the sentence of ably be free also; for the sentence might not exceed ten years' penal servitude, and penal servitude for life, passed on the prison er for this minor crime, the distinct act of good conduct would in that case have pro the judge, as the law requires, and not that cured a release in somewhat less than seven. of the Home Secretary? (With regard to Lastly, the ambiguous utterances of Mr. all such minor offenses the presiding judge Asquith and Sir M. W. Ridley suggest exercises the widest discretion under the Eng another question. lish system, but his sentence, if too severe, 5. After the Home Secretary, with the may be moderated by the Home Secretary, concurrence of the presiding judge and the who cannot, however, increase it.) premier, has declared that the crime of which 2. If so, can we, inconsistency, reject the the prisoner was convicted has not been finding of the jury as to the crime of mur proved beyond reasonable doubt, is a- new der, while retaining it as to the minor crime Home Secretary justified (without any new in question? In other words, is this minor evidence against the prisoner, and in spite crime established by satisfactory independent of any new evidence in her favor) in punish evidence? ing the prisoner for the very crime which 3. Is there in the evidence given at the had been publicly declared to be unproved? trial such conclusive proofs of a minor offense Sir M. W. Ridley's language, though evasive, punishable by penal servitude for life, and went far to show that he regarded the crime not included in the verdict of the jury, as to of murder as completely established. Other justify the Home Secretary in dealing with wise, indeed, the strength of his declarations the charge himself, instead of submitting it on the subject is inexplicable. If the only to a second jury? And did he, in so dealing crime that was proved against the prisoner