MR. FURNIVAL’S SPEECH

All this as may be supposed disturbed Felix Graham not a little.  He perceived that each of those two witnesses had made a great effort to speak the truth; ­an honest, painful effort to speak the truth, and in no way to go beyond it.  His gall had risen within him while he had listened to Mr. Furnival, and witnessed his success in destroying the presence of mind of that weak wretch who was endeavouring to do his best in the cause of justice.  And again, when Mr. Chaffanbrass had seized hold of that poor dram, and used all his wit in deducing from it a self-condemnation from the woman before him; ­when the practised barrister had striven to show that she was an habitual drunkard, dishonest, unchaste, evil in all her habits, Graham had felt almost tempted to get up and take her part.  No doubt he had evinced this, for Chaffanbrass had understood what was going on in his colleague’s mind, and had looked round at him from time to time with an air of scorn that had been almost unendurable.

And then it had become the duty of the prosecutors to prove the circumstances of the former trial.  This was of course essentially necessary, seeing that the offence for which Lady Mason was now on her defence was perjury alleged to have been committed at that trial.  And when this had been done at considerable length by Sir Richard Leatherham, ­not without many interruptions from Mr. Furnival and much assistance from Mr. Steelyard, ­it fell upon Felix Graham to show by cross-examination of Crook the attorney, what had been the nature and effect of Lady Mason’s testimony.  As he arose to do this, Mr. Chaffanbrass whispered into his ear, “If you feel yourself unequal to it I’ll take it up.  I won’t have her thrown over for any etiquette, ­nor yet for any squeamishness.”  To this Graham vouchsafed no answer.  He would not even reply by a look, but he got up and did his work.  At this point his conscience did not interfere with him, for the questions which he asked referred to facts which had really occurred.  Lady Mason’s testimony at that trial had been believed by everybody.  The gentleman who had cross-examined her on the part of Joseph Mason, and who was now dead, had failed to shake her evidence.  The judge who tried the case had declared to the jury that it was impossible to disbelieve her evidence.  That judge was still living, a poor old bedridden man, and in the course of this latter trial his statement was given in evidence.  There could be no doubt that at the time Lady Mason’s testimony was taken as worthy of all credit.  She had sworn that she had seen the three witnesses sign the codicil, and no one had then thrown discredit on her.  The upshot of all was this, that the prosecuting side proved satisfactorily that such and such things had been sworn by Lady Mason; and Felix Graham on the side of the defence proved that, when she had so sworn, her word had been considered worthy of credence by the judge and by the jury, and had hardly been doubted even by the counsel opposed to her.  All this really had been so, and Felix Graham used his utmost ingenuity in making clear to the court how high and unassailed had been the position which his client then held.

All this occupied the court till nearly four o’clock, and then as the case was over on the part of the prosecution, the question arose whether or no Mr. Furnival should address the jury on that evening, or wait till the following day.  “If your lordship will sit till seven o’clock,” said Mr. Furnival, “I think I can undertake to finish what remarks I shall have to make by that time.”  “I should not mind sitting till nine for the pleasure of hearing Mr. Furnival,” said the judge, who was very anxious to escape from Alston on the day but one following.  And thus it was decided that Mr. Furnival should commence his speech.

I have said that in spite of some previous hesitation his old fire had returned to him when he began his work in court on behalf of his client.  If this had been so when that work consisted in the cross-examination of a witness, it was much more so with him now when he had to exhibit his own powers of forensic eloquence.  When a man knows that he can speak with ease and energy, and that he will be listened to with attentive ears, it is all but impossible that he should fail to be enthusiastic, even though his cause be a bad one.  It was so with him now.  All his old fire came back upon him, and before he had done he had almost brought himself again to believe Lady Mason to be that victim of persecution as which he did not hesitate to represent her to the jury.

“Gentlemen of the jury,” he said, “I never rose to plead a client’s cause with more confidence than I now feel in pleading that of my friend Lady Mason.  Twenty years ago I was engaged in defending her rights in this matter, and I then succeeded.  I little thought at that time that I should be called on after so long an interval to renew my work.  I little thought that the pertinacity of her opponent would hold out for such a period.  I compliment him on the firmness of his character, on that equable temperament which has enabled him to sit through all this trial, and to look without dismay on the unfortunate lady whom he has considered it to be his duty to accuse of perjury.  I did not think that I should live to fight this battle again.  But so it is; and as I had but little doubt of victory then, ­so have I none now.  Gentlemen of the jury, I must occupy some of your time and of the time of the court in going through the evidence which has been adduced by my learned friend against my client; but I almost feel that I shall be detaining you unnecessarily, so sure I am that the circumstances, as they have been already explained to you, could not justify you in giving a verdict against her.”

As Mr. Furnival’s speech occupied fully three hours, I will not trouble my readers with the whole of it.  He began by describing the former trial, and giving his own recollections as to Lady Mason’s conduct on that occasion.  In doing this, he fully acknowledged on her behalf that she did give as evidence that special statement which her opponents now endeavoured to prove to have been false.  “If it were the case,” he said, “that that codicil ­or that pretended codicil, was not executed by old Sir Joseph Mason, and was not witnessed by Usbech, Kenneby, and Bridget Bolster, ­then, in that case, Lady Mason has been guilty of perjury.”  Mr. Furnival, as he made this acknowledgement, studiously avoided the face of Lady Mason.  But as he made this assertion, almost everybody in the court except her own counsel did look at her.  Joseph Mason opposite and Dockwrath fixed their gaze closely upon her.  Sir Richard Leatherham and Mr. Steelyard turned their eyes towards her, probably without meaning to do so.  The judge looked over his spectacles at her.  Even Mr. Aram glanced round at her surreptitiously; and Lucius turned his face upon his mother’s, almost with an air of triumph.  But she bore it all without flinching; ­bore it all without flinching, though the state of her mind at that moment must have been pitiable.  And Mrs. Orme, who held her hand all the while, knew that it was so.  The hand which rested in hers was twitched as it were convulsively, but the culprit gave no outward sign of her guilt.

Mr. Furnival then read much of the evidence given at the former trial, and especially showed how the witnesses had then failed to prove that Usbech had not been required to write his name.  It was quite true, he said, that they had been equally unable to prove that he had done so; but that amounted to nothing; the “onus probandi” lay with the accusing side.  There was the signature, and it was for them to prove that it was not that which it pretended to be.  Lady Mason had proved that it was so; and because that had then been held to be sufficient, they now, after twenty years, took this means of invalidating her testimony.  From that he went to the evidence given at the present trial, beginning with the malice and interested motives of Dockwrath.  Against three of them only was it needful that he should allege anything, seeing that the statements made by the others were in no way injurious to Lady Mason, ­if the statements made by those three were not credible.  Torrington, for instance, had proved that other deed; but what of that, if on the fatal 14th of July Sir Joseph Mason had executed two deeds?  As to Dockwrath, ­that his conduct had been interested and malicious there could be no doubt; and he submitted to the jury that he had shown himself to be a man unworthy of credit.  As to Kenneby, ­that poor weak creature, as Mr. Furnival in his mercy called him, ­he, Mr. Furnival, could not charge his conscience with saying that he believed him to have been guilty of any falsehood.  On the contrary, he conceived that Kenneby had endeavoured to tell the truth.  But he was one of those men whose minds were so inconsequential that they literally did not know truth from falsehood.  He had not intended to lie when he told the jury that he was not quite sure he had never witnessed two signatures by Sir Joseph Mason on the same day, nor did he lie when he told them again that he had witnessed three.  He had meant to declare the truth; but he was, unfortunately, a man whose evidence could not be of much service in any case of importance, and could be of no service whatever in a criminal charge tried, as was done in this instance, more than twenty years after the alleged commission of the offence.  With regard to Bridget Bolster, he had no hesitation whatever in telling the jury that she was a woman unworthy of belief, ­unworthy of that credit which the jury must place in her before they could convict any one on her unaided testimony.  It must have been clear to them all that she had come into court drilled and instructed to make one point-blank statement, and to stick to that.  She had refused to give any evidence as to her own signature.  She would not even look at her own name as written by herself; but had contented herself with repeating over and over again those few words which she had been instructed so to say; ­the statement namely, that she had never put her hand to more than one deed.

Then he addressed himself, as he concluded his speech, to that part of the subject which was more closely personal to Lady Mason herself.  “And now, gentlemen of the jury,” he said, “before I can dismiss you from your weary day’s work, I must ask you to regard the position of the lady who has been thus accused, and the amount of probability of her guilt which you may assume from the nature of her life.  I shall call no witnesses as to her character, for I will not submit her friends to the annoyance of those questions which the gentlemen opposite might feel it their duty to put to them.  Circumstances have occurred ­so much I will tell you, and so much no doubt you all personally know, though it is not in evidence before you; ­circumstances have occurred which would make it cruel on my part to place her old friend Sir Peregrine Orme in that box.  The story, could I tell it to you, is one full of romance, but full also of truth and affection.  But though Sir Peregrine Orme is not here, there sits his daughter by Lady Mason’s side, ­there she has sat through this tedious trial, giving comfort to the woman that she loves, ­and there she will sit till your verdict shall have made her further presence here unnecessary.  His lordship and my learned friend there will tell you that you cannot take that as evidence of character.  They will be justified in so telling you; but I, on the other hand, defy you not to take it as such evidence.  Let us make what laws we will, they cannot take precedence of human nature.  There too sits my client’s son.  You will remember that at the beginning of this trial the solicitor-general expressed a wish that he were not here.  I do not know whether you then responded to that wish, but I believe I may take it for granted that you do not do so now.  Had any woman dear to either of you been so placed through the malice of an enemy, would you have hesitated to sit by her in her hour of trial?  Had you doubted of her innocence you might have hesitated; for who could endure to hear announced in a crowded court like this the guilt of a mother or a wife?  But he has no doubt.  Nor, I believe, has any living being in this court, ­unless it be her kinsman opposite, whose life for the last twenty years has been made wretched by a wicked longing after the patrimony of his brother.

“Gentlemen of the jury, there sits my client with as loving a friend on one side as ever woman had, and with her only child on the other.  During the incidents of this trial the nature of the life she has led during the last twenty years, ­since the period of that terrible crime with which she is charged, ­has been proved before you.  I may fearlessly ask you whether so fair a life is compatible with the idea of guilt so foul?  I have known her intimately during all those years, ­not as a lawyer, but as a friend, ­and I confess that the audacity of this man Dockwrath, in assailing such a character with such an accusation, strikes me almost with admiration.  What!  Forgery! ­for that, gentlemen of the jury, is the crime with which she is substantially charged.  Look at her, as she sits there!  That she, at the age of twenty, or not much more, ­she who had so well performed the duties of her young life, that she should have forged a will, ­have traced one signature after another in such a manner as to have deceived all those lawyers who were on her track immediately after her husband’s death!  For, mark you, if this be true, with her own hand she must have done it!  There was no accomplice there.  Look at her!  Was she a forger?  Was she a woman to deceive the sharp bloodhounds of the law?  Could she, with that young baby on her bosom, have wrested from such as him” ­and as he spoke he pointed with his finger, but with a look of unutterable scorn, to Joseph Mason, who was sitting opposite to him ­“that fragment of his old father’s property which he coveted so sorely?  Where had she learned such skilled artifice?  Gentlemen, such ingenuity in crime as that has never yet been proved in a court of law, even against those who have spent a life of wretchedness in acquiring such skill; and now you are asked to believe that such a deed was done by a young wife, of whom all that you know is that her conduct in every other respect had been beyond all praise!  Gentlemen, I might have defied you to believe this accusation had it even been supported by testimony of a high character.  Even in such case you would have felt that there was more behind than had been brought to your knowledge.  But now, having seen, as you have, of what nature are the witnesses on whose testimony she has been impeached, it is impossible that you should believe this story.  Had Lady Mason been a woman steeped in guilt from her infancy, had she been noted for cunning and fraudulent ingenuity, had she been known as an expert forger, you would not have convicted her on this indictment, having had before you the malice and greed of Dockwrath, the stupidity ­I may almost call it idiocy, of Kenneby, and the dogged resolution to conceal the truth evinced by the woman Bolster.  With strong evidence you could not have believed such a charge against so excellent a lady.  With such evidence as you have had before you, you could not have believed the charge against a previously convicted felon.

“And what has been the object of this terrible persecution, ­of the dreadful punishment which has been inflicted on this poor lady?  For remember, though you cannot pronounce her guilty, her sufferings have been terribly severe.  Think what it must have been for a woman with habits such as hers, to have looked forward for long, long weeks to such a martyrdom as this!  Think what she must have suffered in being dragged here and subjected to the gaze of all the county as a suspected felon!  Think what must have been her feelings when I told her, not knowing how deep an ingenuity might be practised against her, that I must counsel her to call to her aid the unequalled talents of my friend Mr. Chaffanbrass” ­“Unequalled no longer, but far surpassed,” whispered Chaffanbrass, in a voice that was audible through all the centre of the court.  “Her punishment has been terrible,” continued Mr. Furnival.  “After what she has gone through, it may well be doubted whether she can continue to reside at that sweet spot which has aroused such a feeling of avarice in the bosom of her kinsman.  You have heard that Sir Joseph Mason had promised his eldest son that Orley Farm should form a part of his inheritance.  It may be that the old man did make such a promise.  If so, he thought fit to break it.  But is it not wonderful that a man wealthy as is Mr. Mason ­for his fortune is large; who has never wanted anything that money can buy; a man for whom his father did so much, ­that he should be stirred up by disappointed avarice to carry in his bosom for twenty years so bitter a feeling of rancour against those who are nearest to him by blood and ties of family!  Gentlemen, it has been a fearful lesson; but it is one which neither you nor I will ever forget!

“And now I shall leave my client’s case in your hands.  As to the verdict which you will give, I have no apprehension.  You know as well as I do that she has not been guilty of this terrible crime.  That you will so pronounce I do not for a moment doubt.  But I do hope that that verdict will be accompanied by some expression on your part which may show to the world at large how great has been the wickedness displayed in the accusation.”

And yet as he sat down he knew that she had been guilty!  To his ear her guilt had never been confessed; but yet he knew that it was so, and, knowing that, he had been able to speak as though her innocence were a thing of course.  That those witnesses had spoken truth he also knew, and yet he had been able to hold them up to the execration of all around them as though they had committed the worst of crimes from the foulest of motives!  And more than this, stranger than this, worse than this, ­when the legal world knew ­as the legal world soon did know ­that all this had been so, the legal world found no fault with Mr. Furnival, conceiving that he had done his duty by his client in a manner becoming an English barrister and an English gentleman.