JET. 43.] THE TRIAL. 393 



had taken our part, would not be changed by hearing 

 one side. As to the Lords, I considered that my 

 speech, separated from our evidence, would lose its 

 effect, even if it had the full preparation which such a 

 mass of evidence required ; and I further conceived 

 that our calm and deliberate consideration of some 

 most important parts of the subject, would be a greater 

 benefit than anything we should gain by an imme- 

 diate, as compared with a deferred, answer to our 

 adversaries. I stated the opinion to which I had 

 come, and stated it strongly. They were as decided 

 in maintaining theirs, with the additional advantage 

 of mine having undergone a change ; but I overruled 

 them, and the proposal of the Lords was refused. I 

 found, when, three weeks after, we came to town and 

 had our consultation before opening our case, that the 

 reflection during the adjournment had brought them 

 all round to my opinion, and that they were well 

 pleased with my plan having been adopted. Another 

 instance of our differing was on a proposal which I 

 wished to make while the case for the bill was pro- 

 ceeding, that both sides should waive the rights of 

 summing up that is, of having a second speech. I 

 was inclined to this from the great failure of the 

 Attorney-General (Gifford), whose defeat had exceed- 

 ingly injured their case ; and was expected by them, 

 and dreaded by us, to be amply supplied by the Soli- 

 citor-General (Copley) summing up, to get rid of 

 which we felt to be a great advantage. Notwith- 

 standing the serious loss of Den man's summing up, it 

 was thought not too great a sacrifice to make for that 

 object. The other side, and indeed the Lords them- 



