“SIR: May I call attention to the two articles in the Liverpool _Post_ of August 13 and 14, in which the utter incompetence of the judge at the Maybrick trial is strongly asserted? The writer is distinctly hostile to the prisoner, and writes without any intention of raising the question whether the trial was not null and void; but as the English system consists of trial by judge and jury, the total incompetence of either element should clearly vitiate it. Moreover, Mr. Ruggles-Brise, on the occasion of a visit to America in 1897, stated that the reason of the steadfast refusal of _the Home Secretary to release the prisoner was his desire to uphold the wholesome authority of the English justiciary_. That authority can not be regarded as wholesome if the judge was insane. Lord Russell, who was present throughout the trial, was of different opinion from that of the judge. He was undoubtedly sane. If Sir J. F. Stephen was insane, the public will, I think, be of opinion that the sane judge should have had the most influence with the executive.” NEED OF COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL Lord Esher, in _The Times_ of August 17, 1889, strongly advocated a court of criminal appeal, and _The Times_, in an article of the same date, supported the views expressed by Lord Esher and by Lord Fitzgerald, as follows: “A court of appeal, as Lord Esher sketches it, would not be open to the objections which can be fairly urged against our present informal method of procedure. The Home Secretary, as a quasi court of appeal, is, as Lord Fitzgerald remarks, not a judge and has not the power of a judge.... The judgment pronounced by a strong court of criminal appeal, such as Lord Esher’s letter suggests, would do more to satisfy the public mind than the best efforts of the Home Secretary could possibly do. The reform which Lord Esher advocates has been long called for, and Lord Fitzgerald did well to press it on the Government.... What the public feel is that they would rather have the fallibility of trained judges than the fallibility of an individual sitting without any of the apparatus with which a court of law is enabled to detect truth from falsehood, and perhaps unconsciously confusing the prerogative of mercy with justice.” FOOTNOTE: [5] The jury was composed of three plumbers, two farmers, one milliner, one wood-turner, one provision dealer, one grocer, one ironmonger, one house-painter, and one baker. THE BRIEF OF MESSRS. LUMLEY & LUMLEY