DOI issue:
March 9, 1889
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.17687#0119
March 9, 1889.]
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
109
ON COMMISSION.
Tuesday, February 26.—Quite delightful to find so many persons
of distinction turning their attention, at length, to the Law. The
wife of an eminent ex-Premier was accommodated with a seat
amongst the Press. So far as I can understand, it seems to be a rule
of Court, when in doubt as to what to do with an importunate cele
brity, to find him or her (as the case may be) a seat amongst the
Press. Thus the seats reserved
for the chroniclers were, as my
learned and laughter - leading
friend, Mr. Lockwood, _ would
say, ‘ ‘ rather suggestive of
pressure.” I am quite sure,
however, that my learned and
laughter - leading friend will
agree with me that the occasion
See-Saw.
scarcely warranted a distinctly mirth-provoking display of what (in
our opinion) might he termed forensic jocularity. For the occasion
was certainly a solemn one.
On the Commissioners taking their places, after bowing to the Bar
(by the way, I fancy their Lordships must sometimes miss the cordial
courtesy of the briefless brotherhood who have had to surrender their
benches to others), there was a slight pause. My learned friends,
the leaders on both sides, were present, hut the witness-box was
empty. Then it transpired that Mr. Pigott (a gentleman whose
cross-examination, I think I may venture to say, without laying
myself open to a charge of contempt, was becoming quite a feature
in the case), had removed himself without giving reasonable notice of
his intention so to do. Immediately Mr. Attorney—(by the way,
how sincerely ray learned friend Mr. Solicitor must regret that he
is not associated with his brother Law Officer of the Crown in this
deeply interesting case)—had announced and proved that Mr. Pigott
was non est, Sir Charles Bussell, in his most persuasive manner,
asked for a warrant
for the witness’s ap-
prehension. To this
the Bench consen-
ted, after acknow-
•n , . _ ledging, in suitable
Eeady for a Box. terms, Sir Charles’s
eloquence. Then there was quite a competition for a place in the
witness-box. Mr. Soames was Sir Richard’s candidate, and Messrs.
Lewis, Labouchere, Parnell, and persons of lesser note were ready
to represent the other side. Ultimately, Mr. Soames appeared, and
gave additional particulars about Mr. Pigott’s correspondence—a
correspondence always of a more or less interesting character. After
Mr. George Lewis had been called, came an adjournment—nay, I
believe many adjournments—in fact, I do not think I should
be far out if I describe the day’s proceeding as “intermittent
adjournment.” The order was somewhat as follows: — 1. Fiery
address of Sir Charles Russell about something or other. 1. Mild
remonstrance of the Bench. 3. Renewed fiery address. 4. Desire
of Mr. Attorney and “ the friends, with whom he was associated,”
to consider their position. 5. Adjournment. Their Lordships’
appearances and disappearances were not only frequent, but (from a
spectacular point of view) most pleasing— the Commissioners seemed
to be taking part in a new figure of a sort of forensic set of legal
Lancers. The “ setting” every time the Commissioners appeared on
the Bench of the Judges to the Bar was full of a semi-gay and semi-
gloomy grandeur. During the absence of my learned (but slightly
embarrassed) friend, Sir Richard Webster, and those with whom he
was acting, my learned and laughter-leading friend, Mr. Lockwood,
occupied his place, and I have reasons for believing employed his
brief leisure in preparing proofs that, had they been made exhibits
in the case, would, I fancy, have illustrated the situation in a manner
entirely satisfactory to all parties. And here I may note, that
during the absence of the Commissioners, their ever courteous
Secretary served as a truly admirable locum tenens. One of the most
dramatic situations of a day full of excitement was the moment
when a loudly-talking audience were hushed to a deathly silence to
hear the ever courteous Secretary ask (in tones at once solemn and
business-like) for the name of the constable who should he charged
with the duty of apprehending Pigott. The day’s proceedings were
brought to a pleasant close by a merriment-compelling joke of Sir
James Hannen about “catching a hare,” which sent me and the
rest of my learned friends into hearty hut respectful convulsions.
Wednesday.—Again the Court was crowded. Since the adjourn
ment it appeared Sir Richard Webster had devoted his whole
attention—“ almost entirely every second of his time ”—to the
grave matter claiming their Lordships’ consideration. My learned
friend handed to the Court a packet bearing a superscription,
which was alleged to be in the handwriting of Mr. Richard
Pigott. Sir ’James Hannen gave the necessary permission to the
ever courteous Secretary to read the documents which the packet was
found to contain, and the obliging official (with the zealous aid of
talented assistants), carried out his Lordship’s instructions. The
documents consisted of a signed confession, witnessed by Mr. George
Augustus Sala, and a brief but cheery letter from Mr. Pigott,
pleasantly intimating that he “ would write soon.” The Attorney-
General then made a statement, in which he presumed (and, if I
may humbly suggest, rightly presumed) “that everyone would
agree with him that no one ought to attach any weight to the
evidence he (Pigott) had given.” He further expressed sincere
regret, in which I think all of us (and I even venture to include the
persons accused in the number), must have shared, that the letters
received from Mr. Pigott had been published. Mr. Parnell
was then called, and on oath denied the authenticity of the letters
which had been imputed to him—he had neither written them nor
authorised them to be written. He moreover gave evidence of his
skill as an expert in the comparison of penmanship. During the
examination of this witness Sir Charles received assistance from my
learned friend Mr. Asquith, whose services in the case (if I may
be permitted to suggest) have been of very great and very distinct
value. My learned friend’s learned leader listened with the greatest
attention to his Junior’s remarks.
However, this did not create
surprise, as Sir Charles is well
known for the marked courtesy he
invariably displays to those mem-
bers of the Outer Bar who have
the honour to act with him.
Shortly afterwards, as there were
no other witnesses ready for
examination, and Sir Richard
"Webster having also expressed a
desire for further time, the Court
adjourned. Thus the proceedings
of this sitting only occupied about
forty minutes, and were not quite
of so exciting a character as those
of the previous day. Indeed the
rising of their Lordships was at
so early an hour, that my learned
friend Sir Charles Russell
did not consume his usual self-
strengthening “refresher” — a
compound in a soda-water glass,
that, from a distance, suggests
some delicious preparation of coffee. However (and I have no doubt
my learned and laughter-leading friend, Mr. Lockwood, will confirm
the assertion), the documents received from Mr. Pigott were in them-
selves a “refresher” of a sufficiently supporting character.
Friday.—Only formal evidence and paper-reading. However, the
law-loving spectators were cheered by the promise that an important
statement would he made to them on the following Tuesday.
Fump-handle Court. (Signed) A. Briefless, Junior.
A Kefresker.
VOL. XCVI.
L
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
109
ON COMMISSION.
Tuesday, February 26.—Quite delightful to find so many persons
of distinction turning their attention, at length, to the Law. The
wife of an eminent ex-Premier was accommodated with a seat
amongst the Press. So far as I can understand, it seems to be a rule
of Court, when in doubt as to what to do with an importunate cele
brity, to find him or her (as the case may be) a seat amongst the
Press. Thus the seats reserved
for the chroniclers were, as my
learned and laughter - leading
friend, Mr. Lockwood, _ would
say, ‘ ‘ rather suggestive of
pressure.” I am quite sure,
however, that my learned and
laughter - leading friend will
agree with me that the occasion
See-Saw.
scarcely warranted a distinctly mirth-provoking display of what (in
our opinion) might he termed forensic jocularity. For the occasion
was certainly a solemn one.
On the Commissioners taking their places, after bowing to the Bar
(by the way, I fancy their Lordships must sometimes miss the cordial
courtesy of the briefless brotherhood who have had to surrender their
benches to others), there was a slight pause. My learned friends,
the leaders on both sides, were present, hut the witness-box was
empty. Then it transpired that Mr. Pigott (a gentleman whose
cross-examination, I think I may venture to say, without laying
myself open to a charge of contempt, was becoming quite a feature
in the case), had removed himself without giving reasonable notice of
his intention so to do. Immediately Mr. Attorney—(by the way,
how sincerely ray learned friend Mr. Solicitor must regret that he
is not associated with his brother Law Officer of the Crown in this
deeply interesting case)—had announced and proved that Mr. Pigott
was non est, Sir Charles Bussell, in his most persuasive manner,
asked for a warrant
for the witness’s ap-
prehension. To this
the Bench consen-
ted, after acknow-
•n , . _ ledging, in suitable
Eeady for a Box. terms, Sir Charles’s
eloquence. Then there was quite a competition for a place in the
witness-box. Mr. Soames was Sir Richard’s candidate, and Messrs.
Lewis, Labouchere, Parnell, and persons of lesser note were ready
to represent the other side. Ultimately, Mr. Soames appeared, and
gave additional particulars about Mr. Pigott’s correspondence—a
correspondence always of a more or less interesting character. After
Mr. George Lewis had been called, came an adjournment—nay, I
believe many adjournments—in fact, I do not think I should
be far out if I describe the day’s proceeding as “intermittent
adjournment.” The order was somewhat as follows: — 1. Fiery
address of Sir Charles Russell about something or other. 1. Mild
remonstrance of the Bench. 3. Renewed fiery address. 4. Desire
of Mr. Attorney and “ the friends, with whom he was associated,”
to consider their position. 5. Adjournment. Their Lordships’
appearances and disappearances were not only frequent, but (from a
spectacular point of view) most pleasing— the Commissioners seemed
to be taking part in a new figure of a sort of forensic set of legal
Lancers. The “ setting” every time the Commissioners appeared on
the Bench of the Judges to the Bar was full of a semi-gay and semi-
gloomy grandeur. During the absence of my learned (but slightly
embarrassed) friend, Sir Richard Webster, and those with whom he
was acting, my learned and laughter-leading friend, Mr. Lockwood,
occupied his place, and I have reasons for believing employed his
brief leisure in preparing proofs that, had they been made exhibits
in the case, would, I fancy, have illustrated the situation in a manner
entirely satisfactory to all parties. And here I may note, that
during the absence of the Commissioners, their ever courteous
Secretary served as a truly admirable locum tenens. One of the most
dramatic situations of a day full of excitement was the moment
when a loudly-talking audience were hushed to a deathly silence to
hear the ever courteous Secretary ask (in tones at once solemn and
business-like) for the name of the constable who should he charged
with the duty of apprehending Pigott. The day’s proceedings were
brought to a pleasant close by a merriment-compelling joke of Sir
James Hannen about “catching a hare,” which sent me and the
rest of my learned friends into hearty hut respectful convulsions.
Wednesday.—Again the Court was crowded. Since the adjourn
ment it appeared Sir Richard Webster had devoted his whole
attention—“ almost entirely every second of his time ”—to the
grave matter claiming their Lordships’ consideration. My learned
friend handed to the Court a packet bearing a superscription,
which was alleged to be in the handwriting of Mr. Richard
Pigott. Sir ’James Hannen gave the necessary permission to the
ever courteous Secretary to read the documents which the packet was
found to contain, and the obliging official (with the zealous aid of
talented assistants), carried out his Lordship’s instructions. The
documents consisted of a signed confession, witnessed by Mr. George
Augustus Sala, and a brief but cheery letter from Mr. Pigott,
pleasantly intimating that he “ would write soon.” The Attorney-
General then made a statement, in which he presumed (and, if I
may humbly suggest, rightly presumed) “that everyone would
agree with him that no one ought to attach any weight to the
evidence he (Pigott) had given.” He further expressed sincere
regret, in which I think all of us (and I even venture to include the
persons accused in the number), must have shared, that the letters
received from Mr. Pigott had been published. Mr. Parnell
was then called, and on oath denied the authenticity of the letters
which had been imputed to him—he had neither written them nor
authorised them to be written. He moreover gave evidence of his
skill as an expert in the comparison of penmanship. During the
examination of this witness Sir Charles received assistance from my
learned friend Mr. Asquith, whose services in the case (if I may
be permitted to suggest) have been of very great and very distinct
value. My learned friend’s learned leader listened with the greatest
attention to his Junior’s remarks.
However, this did not create
surprise, as Sir Charles is well
known for the marked courtesy he
invariably displays to those mem-
bers of the Outer Bar who have
the honour to act with him.
Shortly afterwards, as there were
no other witnesses ready for
examination, and Sir Richard
"Webster having also expressed a
desire for further time, the Court
adjourned. Thus the proceedings
of this sitting only occupied about
forty minutes, and were not quite
of so exciting a character as those
of the previous day. Indeed the
rising of their Lordships was at
so early an hour, that my learned
friend Sir Charles Russell
did not consume his usual self-
strengthening “refresher” — a
compound in a soda-water glass,
that, from a distance, suggests
some delicious preparation of coffee. However (and I have no doubt
my learned and laughter-leading friend, Mr. Lockwood, will confirm
the assertion), the documents received from Mr. Pigott were in them-
selves a “refresher” of a sufficiently supporting character.
Friday.—Only formal evidence and paper-reading. However, the
law-loving spectators were cheered by the promise that an important
statement would he made to them on the following Tuesday.
Fump-handle Court. (Signed) A. Briefless, Junior.
A Kefresker.
VOL. XCVI.
L