proceeded. The prisoner
was again required to plead to the charge, and she again replied, »Not Guilty,«
in the same heart-thrilling tone as before.
    The crown counsel then called two or three female witnesses, by whose
testimony it was established, that Effie's situation had been remarked by them,
that they had taxed her with the fact, and that her answers had amounted to an
angry and petulant denial of what they charged her with. But, as very frequently
happens, the declaration of the panel or accused party herself was the evidence
which bore hardest upon her case.
    In the event of these tales ever finding their way across the Border, it may
be proper to apprise the southern reader that it is the practice in Scotland, on
apprehending a suspected person, to subject him to a judicial examination before
a magistrate. He is not compelled to answer any of the questions asked of him,
but may remain silent if he sees it his interest to do so. But whatever answers
he chooses to give are formally written down, and being subscribed by himself
and the magistrate, are produced against the accused in case of his being
brought to trial. It is true, that these declarations are not produced as being
in themselves evidence properly so called, but only as adminicles of testimony,
tending to corroborate what is considered as legal and proper evidence.
Notwithstanding this nice distinction, however, introduced by lawyers to
reconcile this procedure to their own general rule, that a man cannot be
required to bear witness against himself, it nevertheless usually happens that
these declarations become the means of condemning the accused, as it were, out
of their own mouths. The prisoner, upon these previous examinations, has indeed
the privilege of remaining silent if he pleases; but every man necessarily feels
that a refusal to answer natural and pertinent interrogatories, put by judicial
authority, is in itself a strong proof of guilt, and will certainly lead to his
being committed to prison; and few can renounce the hope of obtaining liberty by
giving some specious account of themselves, and showing apparent frankness in
explaining their motives and accounting for their conduct. It, therefore, seldom
happens that the prisoner refuses to give a judicial declaration, in which,
nevertheless, either by letting out too much of the truth, or by endeavouring to
substitute a fictitious story, he almost always exposes himself to suspicion and
to contradictions, which weigh heavily in the minds of the jury.
    The declaration of Effie Deans was uttered on other principles, and the
following is a sketch of its contents, given in the judicial form,