a question as
should be left to a jury,--and would justify a trial on appeal if that
were practicable. It would be well that the case should stand over till
Thomas Crinkett and Euphemia Smith shall have been tried for perjury,
which, as I understand, will take place at the next winter assizes. If
the Secretary of State thinks that the delay would be too long, I would
humbly suggest that he should take her Majesty's pleasure in accordance
with his own opinion as to the evidence.'

When that document was read at the Home Office by the few who were
privileged to read it, they knew that Judge Bramber had been in a very
ill humour. But there was no help for that. The judge had been asked for
advice and had refused to give it; or had advised,--if his remark on
that subject was to be taken for advice,--that the consideration of the
matter should be postponed for another three months. The case, if there
was any case in favour of the prisoner, was not one for pardon but for
such redress as might now be given for a most gross injustice. The man
had been put to a very great expense, and had been already in prison for
ten or eleven weeks, and his further detention would be held to have
been very cruel if it should appear at last that the verdict had been
wrong. The public press was already using strong language on the
subject, and the Secretary of State was not indifferent to the public
press. Judge Bramber thoroughly despised the press,--though he would
have been very angry if his 'Times' had not been ready for him at
breakfast every morning. And two or three questions had already been
asked in the House of Commons. The Secretary of State, with that
habitual strategy, without which any Secretary of State must be held to
be unfit for the position which he holds, contrived to answer the
questions so as to show that, while the gentlemen who asked them were
the most indiscreet of individuals, he was the most discreet of
Secretaries. And he did this, though he was strongly of opinion that
Judge Bramber's delay was unjustifiable. But what would be thought of a
Secretary of State who would impute blame in the House of Commons to one
of the judges of the land before public opinion had expressed itself so
strongly on the matter as to make such expression indispensable? He did
not think that he was in the least untrue in throwing blame back upon
the questioners, and in implying that on the side of the Crown there had
been no undue delay, t