“The prisoner’s counsel said that the accused did not speak of the woman’s murder after the inquest, and said it was not necessary; he did not understand the ‘familiar jargon’ of the Law Courts.

“The familiar jargon of the Law Courts, gentlemen, is not quite the phrase to use with reference to our judicial proceedings.  The Law Courts are the bulwark of our liberties, our life, and our property.  Our welfare would be jeopardized, indeed, if you dismiss what takes place in them as ‘familiar jargon.’

“The question is whether the charge has been so reasonably brought home to the prisoner as to lead you in your consciences to believe that he is guilty.  If so, it is your duty to God, your duty to society, and your duty to yourselves, to say so.”

Such was the summing up that was arraigned by the humanitarian partisans of the prisoner.  If a Judge may not deal with the fallacies of a defence by placing before the jury the true trend of the evidence, what other business has he on the Bench?  And it was for thus clearly defining the issue that some one suggested a petition for a reprieve, on the ground that the evidence was purely circumstantial, and that my “summing up was against the weight of the evidence.”  Truly a strange thing that circumstances by themselves shall have no weight.

But there was another strange incident in this remarkable trial:  the jury thanked me for the pains I had taken in the case.  I told them I looked for no thanks, but was grateful, nevertheless.

I have learnt that the jury, on retiring, deposited every one on a slip of paper the word “Guilty” without any previous consultation—­a sufficient indication of their opinion of the weight of the evidence.

This was the last case of any importance which I tried on circuit, and if any trial could show the value of circumstantial evidence, it was this one.  It left the identity of the prisoner and the conclusion of fact demonstrable almost to mathematical certainty.

A supposed eye-witness might have said:  “I saw him write the paper, and I saw him administer the poison.”  It would not have added to the weight of the evidence.  The witness might have lied.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

A NIGHT AT NOTTINGHAM.

Ever since the establishment of itinerant justices, now considerably over seven hundred years, going circuit has been an interesting and important ceremony, attended with great pomp and circumstance.  I had intended to give a sketch of my own drawing of this great function, but an esteemed friend, who is a lover of the picturesque, has sent me an interesting description of one of my own itineraries, and I insert it with the more pleasure because I could not describe things from his point of view, and even if I could, might lay myself open to the charge of being egotistical.

“When Sir Henry Hawkins stepped into the train with his marshal, he felt all the exuberance which a Judge usually experiences on going circuit.