Frederic Harrison to GE, London, [26 May 1866]
Title
Frederic Harrison to GE, London, [26 May 1866]
Title
Frederic Harrison to GE, London, [26 May 1866]
Sender
Frederic Harrison
Recipient
George Eliot
Date(s)
- 1866-05-26
Place
London
Letter Content
Frederic Harrison to GE, London, [26 May 1866]
MS: Tinker Collection, Yale. Hitherto unpublished.
New Sq: | Saturday.
My dear Mrs. Lewes,
I have been looking in to the Trial and have been talking with a man experienced in criminal practice.
The indictments for the riot and the Manslaughter, the evidence etc. ought strictly to be separate. Felix must I think be indicted and tried for the Manslaughter and the evidence as to riot would be admissible as giving the character of the act.
The prisoner had no right of 2nd speech till last year. Nor could new witnesses for the prosecution be called after the case for the prisoner was closed, unless some totally new case (such as alibi) had been set up in the defence. The course of things would be this -- (a) Speech of prosecutor. (b) witnesses against prisoner. (c) Speech of prisoner. (d) witnesses for prisoner, to character last. (e) reply of prosecutor. There could be no witnesses to bad character. The only way of rebutting good character is by proof of previous conviction.
By permission of the judge and at his examination, witnesses might be called at any moment in favorem vitae. And although a judge would not allow new witnesses against the prisoner, he might under strong circumstances and pressure hear a witness who proffered material evidence for the prisoner even after the reply of the prosecutor and I believe even before sentence. Thus if you need it Esther's speech might come in anywhere (last or not) by special leave of the judge. A judge may in his discretion hear evidence at any moment of the trial but he rarely exercises a very great license and never against the prisoner.
Prisoners might have the assistance of counsel even before 1835 to cross-examine witnesses -- but not to speak. So that Felix would be quite consistent in rejecting counsel's aid.
Practically speaking, if you need it, the substance of the second set of witnesses for the prosecution might be placed in the prosecuting counsel's reply and then Esther might at the judge's order to inform the Court -- not at the prisoner's right -- come in after, but the sentence as to the witnesses for the Prosecution being in reserve must be altered -- unless they be witnesses in a second indictment and trial.
I was so harried yesterday and I am so wholly inexperienced in the forms of a criminal trial that I did not put all this completely to you yesterday. I hope it is not too late. I will try to see you tomorrow.
I am curious to know what you have done with the legal [opinion] I suggested. If you use it I shall have the satisfaction of thinking to myself that I have written one little sentence which will be immortal and be embodied in the literature of England. 463 Believe me
Sincerely yours
Frederic Harrison.
MS: Tinker Collection, Yale. Hitherto unpublished.
New Sq: | Saturday.
My dear Mrs. Lewes,
I have been looking in to the Trial and have been talking with a man experienced in criminal practice.
The indictments for the riot and the Manslaughter, the evidence etc. ought strictly to be separate. Felix must I think be indicted and tried for the Manslaughter and the evidence as to riot would be admissible as giving the character of the act.
The prisoner had no right of 2nd speech till last year. Nor could new witnesses for the prosecution be called after the case for the prisoner was closed, unless some totally new case (such as alibi) had been set up in the defence. The course of things would be this -- (a) Speech of prosecutor. (b) witnesses against prisoner. (c) Speech of prisoner. (d) witnesses for prisoner, to character last. (e) reply of prosecutor. There could be no witnesses to bad character. The only way of rebutting good character is by proof of previous conviction.
By permission of the judge and at his examination, witnesses might be called at any moment in favorem vitae. And although a judge would not allow new witnesses against the prisoner, he might under strong circumstances and pressure hear a witness who proffered material evidence for the prisoner even after the reply of the prosecutor and I believe even before sentence. Thus if you need it Esther's speech might come in anywhere (last or not) by special leave of the judge. A judge may in his discretion hear evidence at any moment of the trial but he rarely exercises a very great license and never against the prisoner.
Prisoners might have the assistance of counsel even before 1835 to cross-examine witnesses -- but not to speak. So that Felix would be quite consistent in rejecting counsel's aid.
Practically speaking, if you need it, the substance of the second set of witnesses for the prosecution might be placed in the prosecuting counsel's reply and then Esther might at the judge's order to inform the Court -- not at the prisoner's right -- come in after, but the sentence as to the witnesses for the Prosecution being in reserve must be altered -- unless they be witnesses in a second indictment and trial.
I was so harried yesterday and I am so wholly inexperienced in the forms of a criminal trial that I did not put all this completely to you yesterday. I hope it is not too late. I will try to see you tomorrow.
I am curious to know what you have done with the legal [opinion] I suggested. If you use it I shall have the satisfaction of thinking to myself that I have written one little sentence which will be immortal and be embodied in the literature of England. 463 Believe me
Sincerely yours
Frederic Harrison.
Signature
Frederic Harrison.
Citation
Frederic Harrison, Frederic Harrison to GE, London, [26 May 1866], Complete George Eliot Letters(2026), George Eliot Archive, edited by Beverley Park Rilett. https://GeorgeEliotArchive.org, Accessed September 7, 2026. https://georgeeliotarchive.org/items/show/91835