Lord _Coke_, (12 _Rep._ 37.) Sir _M. Hale_ in his Summary,[626] and _Hawkins P. C._ say that there must be both _penetratio_ and _emissio seminis_, and this appears to be the law of the present day, as decided by _Skynner_, C. B. _Gould_, _Willis_, _Ashhurst_, _Nares_, _Eyre_, and _Hotham_, against Lord _Loughborough_, _Buller_, and _Heath_, Lord _Mansfield_, though present, having given no opinion of his own; (a circumstance from which we might infer that he agreed with the minority). The argument is stated to have turned on the words _carnal knowledge_, to which the majority contended that _emissio seminis_ was absolutely necessary; if therefore it be true that certain Eunuchs[627] have power of erection, and consequently of penetration, they may morally ravish without incurring the punishment of Rape; for it is certain that they can have no _emissio seminis_;[628] or a man may have perpetrated all the more atrocious parts of his crime, and yet being interrupted in the least voluntary constituent of it, (_Hill’s_ case)[629] escape the well-merited vengeance of the law; while it is evident on the other hand, that the innocent victim has suffered, in body, mind, and reputation, as much, as if the crime had been legally completed. But admitting the fact of emission to be necessary to the constitution of this crime, it remains to enquire whether the proof of this fact must be specifically made out in evidence, or whether it shall be presumed. In _Matthew Cave’s_ case (Oct. 1747) Chief Justice _Willes_ directed the prisoner to be acquitted for want of proof; but on the other hand, Mr. Justice _Foster_, _Clive_, J. (in _Blomfield’s_ case, A.D. 1758) _Bathurst_, J. and Baron _Smythe_ (in _Sheridan’s_ case, 8 _Geo._ 3) and _Buller_, J. (in _Harmwood’s_ case, Winchester Spring assizes, A.D. 1787) held the contrary; the latter case is the more worthy of consideration, as it was subsequent to the decision in _Hill’s_ case, and tried by one of the judges present at the discussion: “He said, in giving judgment, that he recollected a case where a man had been indicted for a Rape, and the woman had sworn that she did not perceive any thing come from him; but she had had many children, and was never in her life sensible of emission from a man:[630] and that was ruled not to invalidate the evidence which she gave of a Rape having been committed upon her.” 1 _East. P. C._ 440.