Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/433

 392

confess this is a tender point; it is a thing I would willingly be excused from, and it is not without a great deal of reluctance and compulsion forced from me. ... I will not enumerate particulars by way of open ing, only I must tell your lordship that some letters of hers must of necessity be produced, which truly I should not meddle with if I had not these innocent gentlemen here to defend as well as myself. Perhaps it may be said that in honor I ought to conceal the weakness of this gentlewoman; but then in honor and justice to these gentlemen that are falsely accused with me I cannot do it. I hope that one reason will excuse me to the world, for I have no other that could have obliged me to bring these letters upon the stage. I solemnly protest, if I stood here singly in the case of my own life, upon the evidence given against me, — I take it to be so inconsiderable, — I would not do it; but I must do it to show that these gentlemen also are innocent and to preserve them, because I am satisfied in my mind that they are so." In view of the circumstances this justifi cation seems rather weak. Cowper's fellowdefendants were never in the slightest danger of conviction. The only semblance of evi

dence against them was some unexplained allusion by them to the dead woman, made while they were intoxicated. Furthermore, Cowper had been under no obligation to undertake their defence. The fact that he was a married man would' seem to have been a much better justification for a course which a man of honor would hesitate to pursue. His obligations to his wife and the good name of his children were certainly para mount, in such a situation, to his duty to protect Miss Stout's character. In all justice Cowper should have been relieved from his embarrassing position by the Court. The case should not have been allowed to go to the jury. But throughout the trial the presiding judge, Baron Hatsell, was a mere figurehead; his languid indiffer ence was contemptible. He was constantly grumbling about the time consumed by the defence, and he was so muddled over the medical testimony that he did not attempt to charge the jury upon it. He said in con clusion of his brief and puerile summing up, "I am sensible I have omitted many things; but I am a little faint and cannot repeat any more of the evidence." The jury re turned a verdict of not guilty as to all the defendants.

THE STORY OF THE GREAT SEAL. ON the death of the reigning monarch the virtue of the Great Seal ceases, and a new seal becomes a constitutional necessity. Such has recently been the fate of the Great Seal of Queen Victoria which has now become the perquisite of the Lord High Chancellor. The seal which is made in two portions, the obverse bearing a different design from the reverse, remains intact. It is " damasked " by the new monarch, an

operation which consists in giving the seal a slight blow whereupon its efficacy is forever gone. A well-known instance of this procedure on the accession of William IV. gave rise to rival claims by two Chancellors, Lyndhurst and Brougham, the one being Chancel lor when the old seal was damasked, the other being in office when the new seal was made. The King, emulating the wisdom of Solomon, ordered half the seal to be set in