The Lord Justice-Clerk—Then go on, sir, at your peril.
Lord Hailes—You had better go on, Mr. Clerk. Do go on.
Mr. Clerk—This has been too often repeated. I have met with no politeness from the Court. You have interrupted me, you have snubbed me rather too often, my Lord, in the line of my defence. I maintain that the jury are judges of the law as well as of the facts; and I am positively resolved that I will proceed no further unless I am allowed to speak in my own way.
The Lord Justice-Clerk—Then we must now call upon the Dean of Faculty to proceed with his address for the prisoner Brodie, which the Court will hear with the greatest attention. [Here the learned Dean shook his head, as if declining to do so.] Very well. The Court will proceed now and discharge its duty.
[His Lordship was then about to address the jury in his final charge.]
Mr. Clerk [starting to his feet and shaking his fist at the bench]—Hang my client if you daur, my Lord, without hearing me in his defence!
[These remarkable words produced the greatest sensation in Court; the judges retired to the robing-room to hold a consultation; but on their returning to Court, the Lord Justice-Clerk merely requested Mr. Clerk to proceed with his speech. Mr. Clerk then continued his address without further interruption.]
Mr. Clerk—I say, gentlemen, I adhere to all the objections stated on the proof, both to the admissibility and to the credibility of these witnesses.
On the other hand, it is obvious, that if they are to be listened to as good and unexceptionable witnesses, their evidence goes to prove the guilt of my client in the clearest and most unequivocal manner; so that the questions come to be, how far are they admissible at all? and how far are they credible? Is their evidence to be laid aside altogether? and if not, to what extent is it worthy of belief?