mselves as much entitled to justice
at his hands as either the prosecutor in this matter or she who was
being prosecuted; who, indeed, if anything, were better entitled
unless he could show that they were false and suborned; for unless
they were suborned or false they were there doing a painful duty to
the public, for which they were to receive no pay and from which they
were to obtain no benefit. Of whom else in that court could so much
be said? The judge there had his ermine and his canopy, his large
salary and his seat of honour. And the lawyers had their wigs, and
their own loud voices, and their places of precedence. The attorneys
had their seats and their big tables, and the somewhat familiar
respect of the tipstaves. The jury, though not much to be envied,
were addressed with respect and flattery, had their honourable seats,
and were invariably at least called gentlemen. But why should there
be no seat of honour for the witnesses? To stand in a box, to be
bawled after by the police, to be scowled at and scolded by the
judge, to be browbeaten and accused falsely by the barristers, and
then to be condemned as perjurers by the jury,--that is the fate of
the one person who during the whole trial is perhaps entitled to
the greatest respect, and is certainly entitled to the most public
gratitude. Let the witness have a big arm-chair, and a canopy over
him, and a man behind him with a red cloak to do him honour and keep
the flies off; let him be gently invited to come forward from some
inner room where he can sit before a fire. Then he will be able to
speak out, making himself heard without scolding, and will perhaps be
able to make a fair fight with the cocks who can crow so loudly on
their own dunghills.

The judge in this case did his work with admirable skill, blowing
aside the froth of Mr. Furnival's eloquence, and upsetting the
sophistry and false deductions of Mr. Chaffanbrass. The case for the
jury, as he said, hung altogether upon the evidence of Kenneby and
the woman Bolster. As far as he could see, the evidence of Dockwrath
had little to do with it; and alleged malice and greed on the part of
Dockwrath could have nothing to do with it. The jury might take it
as proved that Lady Mason at the former trial had sworn that she
had been present when her husband signed the codicil and had seen
the different signatures affixed to it. They might also take it
as proved, that that other deed,--the deed purporting to cl