being very rich and powerful people, were able to secure the advocacy
of one of the most eminent criminal lawyers of the day, with whom were
briefed sundry almost equally eminent juniors. Indeed no trouble or
expense was spared that could help to ensure my conviction.

On my behalf also appeared a well-known Q.C., and with him two juniors.
The judge who tried the case was old and experienced but had the
reputation of being severe, and from its very commencement I could see
that the perusal of the depositions taken in the magistrates' court,
where it will be remembered I was not defended, had undoubtedly biased
his mind against me. As for the jury, they were a respectable-looking
quiet set of men, who might be relied upon to do justice according to
their lights. Of those who were called from the panel and answered to
their names two, by the way, were challenged by the Crown and rejected
because, I was told, they were professed anti-vaccinationists.

On the appointed day and hour, speaking in a very crowded court, counsel
for the Crown opened the case against me, demonstrating clearly that
in the pursuit of my own miserable ends I had sacrificed the life of a
young, high-placed and lovely fellow-creature, and brought bereavement
and desolation upon her husband and family. Then he proceeded to call
evidence, which was practically the same as that which had been given
before the magistrates, although the husband and Lady Colford's nurse
were examined, and, on my behalf, cross-examined at far greater length.

After the adjournment for lunch Sir John Bell was put into the
witness-box, where, with a little additional detail, he repeated almost
word for word what he had said before. Listening to him my heart sank,
for he made an excellent witness, quiet, self-contained, and, to all
appearance, not a little affected by the necessity under which he found