as an upright judge, how could he have done
otherwise? Let us for one moment consider this point also. It is often
said that the judge is counsel for the prisoner. But this is a gross
misconception. The judge, properly speaking, is counsel for the law,
and for every thing which can effect the right understanding of the
evidence. Consequently he sometimes appears to be advocating the
prisoner's cause, merely because the point which he is clearing up
happens to make for the prisoner. But equally he would have appeared
to be against the prisoner, if he found it necessary to dissipate
perplexities that would have benefited the prisoner. His business is
with no personal interest, but generally with the interest of truth
and equity--whichever way those may point. Upon this principle, in
summing up, it is the judge's duty to appraise the entire evidence;
and if any argument lurks obscurely in the evidence, he must strip it
of its obscurity, and bring it forward with fuller advantage. That may
happen to favour the prisoner, or it may weigh against him. But the
judge cannot have any regard to these consequences. His concern is
simply with the pressure and incidence of the testimony. If,
therefore, a prisoner has brought forward witnesses who were able to
depose any thing in his favour, be assured that the judge will not
overlook that deposition. But, if no such deposition were made, is it
meant that the judge is to invent it? The whole notion has grown out
of the original conceit--that a defendant in relation to the judge is
in the relation of a client to an advocate. But this is no otherwise
true than as it is true of every party and interest connected with the
case. All these alike the judge is to uphold in their true equitable
position and rights. In summing up, the judge used such facts as had
been furnished to him. All these happened to be against the Repealers;
and therefore the judge appeared to be against then. But the same
impression would have resulted, if he had simply read his notes of the
evidence.

Such are the desperate attempts to fasten charges of unfairness on
this fairest of all recorded trials. And with an interest so keen in
promoting the belief of some unfairness, was there ever yet a trial
that could have satisfied the losing party? Losers have a proverbial
privilege for being out of temper. But in this case more is sought
than the mere gratification of wrath. Fresh hopes spring up in every
stage of this