This brief of Messrs. Lumley & Lumley, characterized in the preceding letter of Secretary Blaine as “very able” and “unanswerable,” is too long for reproduction in these pages in its entirety, and hence only the main points are given. The document was prepared at the instance of Lord Russell of Killowen for submission to himself and three other Queen’s Counsel, with a view of obtaining a new trial. It may interest the reader to know that the money required to make this searching analysis by Messrs. Lumley & Lumley was raised by a popular subscription in America, through the good offices of the New York _World_. The eminent Queen’s counsel, after a full consideration of the analysis of the case, submitted the following opinion: OPINION--RE F. E. MAYBRICK “Having carefully considered the facts stated in the elaborate case submitted to us by Messrs. Lumley & Lumley, and the law applicable to the matter, we are clearly of opinion that there is no mode by which in this case a new trial or a ‘_venire de novo_’ can be obtained, nor can the prisoner be brought up on a ‘habeas corpus,’ with the view to retrying the issue of her innocence or guilt. “We say this notwithstanding the case of Regina _vs._ Scarfe (17 Q. B., 238, 5; Cox, C. C., 243; 2 Den., C. C., 281). “We are of opinion that in English criminal procedure there is no possibility of procuring a rehearing in the case of felony where a verdict has been found by a properly constituted jury upon an indictment which is correct in form. This rule is, in our opinion, absolute, unless circumstances have transpired, and have been entered upon the record, which, when there appearing, would invalidate the tribunal and reduce the trial to a nullity by reason of its not having been before a properly constituted tribunal. None of the matters proposed to be proved go to this length. “We think it right to add that there are many matters stated in the case, not merely with reference to the evidence at and the incidents of the trial, but suggesting new facts, which would be _matters proper for the grave consideration of a Court of Criminal Appeal_, if such a tribunal existed in this country. (Signed) “CHARLES RUSSELL, Q.C. “I. FLETCHER MOULTON, Q.C. “HARRY BOOKIN POLAND, Q.C. “REGINALD SMITH, Q.C. “LINCOLN’S INN, 12th April, 1892.” * * * * * This opinion was based upon the following points, presented by Messrs. Lumley & Lumley: JUSTICE STEPHEN’S MISDIRECTIONS The _misdirections_ which are selected for consideration may be conveniently classed, among others, under these headings: 1. As to the facts disclosed in the evidence of the procuring and possession of arsenic by Mrs. Maybrick and of her administering it. 2. As to the cause of death.