law. We shall allude to some of his other notable appearances at the proper place. In 1880 Mr. Clarke's political career be gan. The Beaconsfield-Salisbury " Peace with Honor " ministry was coming near the end of its statutory life, and the Premier was naturally anxious to ascertain the state of public feeling toward himself and his cab inet. A vacancy occurred in the borough of Southwark. Mr. Clarke stood in the Con servative interest; he was opposed by a Liberal and a Labor candidate, but polled more votes than both his rivals together. 1 Previous by-elections had made the Earl of Beaconsfield think of appealing to the country; the result of the poll at Southwark determined him to do so, and Parliament was dissolved. The Government had surprised the people, and the people surprised the Government. Not only was the Conserva tive Ministry swept out of power, but even Southwark had changed its mind; Mr. Clarke was unseated, and for the time be ing his political race was run. In 1885, however, he became member of Parliament for Plymouth (which constituency he still represents), and confidently expected the Solicitor-Generalship. But he was doomed to disappointment; and Sir John Gorst, now Under-Secretary of State for India, received the coveted prize. Mr. Clarke's resentment found expression in a letter to his constitu ents, in which he showed how keenly he had felt the slight thus put upon his party and professional claims. In 1886 the Solicitor-Generalship and the honor of knighthood were conferred upon him. Lord Salisbury has never made a more deserved or a more successful appoint ment. Imperturbable in demeanor, tren chant in style, effective in delivery, and endowed also with that " infinite capacity for taking pains," wherein genius is some times said to consist, Sir Edward Clarke is a feared and respected member of the House of Commons. With the exception of Mr. J.
P. B. Robertson, the Lord Advocate of Scot land, no other lawyer in the House has made a more brilliant parliamentary reputation in so short a time. As a nisi prius advocate, the SolicitorGeneral is perhaps the only counsel at the bar who can face Sir Charles Russell with suc cess. In the trial of Mrs. Bartlett 1 (April 12-17, 1886) for the alleged murder of her husband by chloroform poisoning, these two great common-law lawyers were opposed, and the victory remained with Clarke. An emi nent American ambassador once said that a man who never made mistakes seldom made anything; and no one will suspect us of a de sire to belittle Sir Charles Russell if we in sist that in the case of Reg. vs. Bartlett, he fell into two errors of judgment: (1) In the first place, although Mr. Clarke had called no evidence for the defence, the AttorneyGeneral claimed and exercised a right of re ply. At one time all counsel instructed by the Treasury were held to be entitled to a reply, whether a prisoner had called any witnesses or not; but in recent years this privilege was restricted to cases in which the Attorney or Solicitor-General conducted the prosecution in person. Now, when Mrs. Bartlett was on her trial, Sir Charles Rus sell was Attorney-General, and was prosecut ing in that capacity. He was therefore strictly within his rights in replying to the speech for the defence. But the jury seem to have imagined that the prisoner was being subjected to some hardship by the AttorneyGeneral's course of action, and we doubt whether this impression was altogether re moved by the elaborate explanation of the law on the question with which Mr. Justice Wills found it necessary to preface his charge. (2 ) The Attorney-General's second blunder was far more serious. In opening and in atttempting to prove the case for the prosecution, he alleged in substance that the chloroform had been administered while the deceased was in a state of unconsciousness; and it was to the
1 Clarke, 7,683 votes; Liberal, 6,830; Labor candidate, 799.
1 Report of the Trial, with preface by Edward Clarke (Stevens & Haynes, London).
