People went away with a sense of gratitude for his kindness, and when he sentenced a batch of prisoners to death he did it in a manner that might make any one suppose, if he did not know the facts, that they had been awarded prizes for good conduct.

He was firm, nevertheless—­a great thing in judges, if not accompanied with weakness of mind.  I may add that there was a singular precision in his mode of expression as well as in his ideas.

At a country assize, where he was presiding in the Crown Court, a man was indicted for murder.  He pleaded “Not guilty.”  The evidence contained in the depositions was terribly clear, and, of course, the judge, who had perused them, was aware of it.

The case having been called on for trial, counsel for the prosecution applied for a postponement on the ground of the absence of a most material witness for the Crown.

I should mention that in those days counsel were not allowed to speak for the prisoner, but the judge was always in theory supposed to watch the case on his behalf.  In the absence of a material witness the prisoner would be acquitted.

The learned Mr. Justice Graham asked the accused if he had any objection to the case being postponed until the next assizes, on the ground, as the prosecution had alleged, that their most material witness could not be produced.  His lordship put the case as somewhat of a misfortune for the prisoner, and made it appear that it would be postponed, if he desired it, as a favour to him.

Notwithstanding the judge’s courteous manner of putting it, the prisoner most strenuously objected to any postponement.  It was not for him to oblige the Crown at the expense of a broken neck, and he desired above all things to be tried in accordance with law.  He stood there on his “jail delivery.”

Graham was firm, but polite, and determined to grant the postponement asked for.  In this he was doubtless right, for the interests of justice demanded it.  But to soften down the prisoner’s disappointment and excuse the necessity of his further imprisonment, his lordship addressed him in the following terms, and in quite a sympathetic manner:—­

“Prisoner, I am extremely sorry to have to detain you in prison, but common humanity requires that I should not let you be tried in the absence of an important witness for the prosecution, although at the same time I can quite appreciate your desire to have your case speedily disposed of; one does not like a thing of this sort hanging over one’s head.  But now, for the sake of argument, prisoner, suppose I were to try you to-day in the absence of that material witness, and yet, contrary to your expectations, they were to find you guilty.  What then?  Why, in the absence of that material witness, I should have to sentence you to be hanged on Monday next.  That would be a painful ordeal for both of us.

“But now let us take the other alternative, and let us suppose that if your trial had been put off, and the material witness, when called, could prove something in your favour—­this sometimes happens—­and that that something induced the jury to acquit you, what a sad thing that would be!  It would not signify to you, because you would have been hanged, and would be dead!”