The English Bench and Bar of To-day. riding has done it." One cannot but feel that Sir Richard Webster might, with ad vantage, have borrowed a hint from the example of Sir Alexander Cockburn. Our readers must not, however, suppose that the Attorney-General's appearance before the Parnell Commission was, in any sense of the term, a failure. His cross-examination of Mr. Parnell, extending over a period of three or four days, was well worthy of the traditions of his office, and in nearly every essential point has received the imprimatur of the judges. Those portions of it which relate to Mr. ParnelTs alleged opinion that crime in Ireland was the work of " secret societies," and to the purchase of the " Irish man," deserve not only to be studied by novices in the art of cross-examining, but to find a place in the State trials beside the masterpieces of Erskine. Moreover, the following passages in Sir Henry James's reply throw some light upon the disjointed character of the Attorney-General's opening address : " To tell you all the difficulty that the Attorney-General had to encounter when opening this case, is impossible. If one re fers or recurs to the experience of any coun sel who has had to make a statement of a case he is about to prove, whether it be one of magnitude or one of slight dimensions, every one will know that it is impossible for counsel to vouch the certainty of proving all that he is instructed to lay before the tribu nal that is to hear the case; and we have, all of us, felt, time after time, however care ful we have been to speak with that modera tion which is one of the attributes of success in advocacy, how impossible it is to fulfil each obligation that counsel undertakes to the tribunal he addresses. If that be the difficulty in an ordinary case, perhaps you may have gathered enough in this case to know how that difficulty became multiplied
37
and exaggerated. . . . From first to last there have been obstacles placed in the way of this case being brought before you completely and directly which probably no one can un derstand." The learned gentleman then pro ceeded to point out at least two deliberate attempts, disclosed by the evidence, to mis lead the representatives of the "Times," and argued that such conduct on the part of witnesses vastly increased Sir Richard Webster's difficulty in discriminating be tween what was worthy and what unworthy to be laid before the Commissioners. The magnificent ovation which he received at the annual meeting of the Bar Committee, from counsel of all shades of political opin ion gave unmistakable expression to the con viction of his professional brethren that the Attorney-General had done nothing deroga tory to the traditions of his office, as advo cate for the " Times." Perhaps the highest tribute to their importance of this vote of confidence may be found in the fact that the "Daily News," which had pursued Sir Rich ard Webster with unrelenting hostility and had declared that his reputation was blasted, omitted to report it. The Attorney-General is not only one of the most successful, he is also one of the most hard-working, men at the bar. Before other counsel are abroad, he may be found in his chambers in the Temple preparing for the contests of the day. He has a private room in the House of Commons, where he masters briefs in the intervals between par liamentary divisions, sustained by no stronger stimulant than tea. He finds time, neverthe less, to attend to the interest of his constitu ents, to preside at the annual meetings of athletic or charitable societies, and to in; dulge his fine musical tastes. In private as in professional life, he is a very perfect, gen tle knight, sans peur et sans rcproche. — Lex.
