A Rape may have been committed on a child too young, or rather too incompetent, to be sworn; yet all the circumstances except this, may be proved by other witnesses; the infant alone could prove _emissio in vaginam_, for no subsequent examination, however immediate, would demonstrate the fact; or when a woman has fainted from the violence committed on her, or has been dishonoured in her sleep,[631] and through the agency of soporific drugs, or has died before the trial,[632] or been murdered by her ravisher, or has been driven to suicide by mental distraction; in all these cases of increased atrocity, this mode of proof becomes impossible. But emission, it is said, may be presumed from penetration, _Duffin’s_ case, _June_, 1821,[633] but this is not physiologically true in all cases, and as we have stated, that it may be prevented by accident or interruption, so also emission is said to be evidence of penetration; but this is still less reasonable; for it is obvious that it may easily occur in the mere attempt; yet if reliance can be placed on the authorities already quoted,[634] emission alone without any material penetration, but only by injection _inter labia_, will be sufficient to impregnate, and therefore ought in reason to be considered sufficient to constitute the crime of Rape. When it has been clearly proved that coition has actually taken place between the parties charged[635], the next point to be determined is, whether the woman consented or not. It is not necessary that we should here enter into a detail of all the circumstances which may throw light on this question; but one extraordinary dictum of the more ancient lawyers is worthy of observation, though there is little fear that the error will ever be sanctioned by any tribunal; yet as it is one of the evils of this crime that an unmerited stigma too frequently attaches to the sufferer by it, we are the more anxious to expose the vulgar idea, from which some ignorant persons might still infer that a woman had consented, because she had proved pregnant. “It is said by Mr. _Dalton_, that if a woman at the time of the supposed Rape do conceive with child by the ravisher, this is no rape; for (he says) a woman cannot conceive unless she doth consent. And this he hath from _Stamford_ and _Britton_, and _Finch. Dalt. c._ 160. see also 2 _Inst._ 190.[636] But Mr. _Hawkins_ (_P. C. c._ 41. _s._ 2), observes that this opinion seems very questionable: not only because the previous violence is in no way extenuated by such a subsequent consent; but also, because if it were necessary to shew that the woman did not conceive,[637] the offender could not be tried till such time as it might appear whether she did or not; and likewise because the philosophy of this notion may be very well doubted of. 1 _Hawk._ 108. And Lord _Hale_ says this opinion in _Dalton_ seems to be no law. 1 _H.H._ 131. (see also _Mss. Sum._ 334). That so