DOI Heft:
March 23, 1889
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.17687#0143
March 23, 1889,] PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
ON COMMISSION.
Tuesday, March 12th.—Those who had come to see those eminent
Counsel, Sir Charles Russell and Mr. Lockwood, must have been
disappointed as neither of my learned friends put in an appearance,
during the whole day. However, my learned friends, laughter-
leading and fiery, were admirably represented by Mr. R. T. Reed, a
gentleman of infinite jest and judgment, and consequently the
appropriate spokesman in Parliament of the rollicking borough of
Dumfries. The artists of the illustrated papers were also in attend-
ance, ready to seize upon, for pictorial embellishment, such striking
incidents as “Mr. George Lewis drops his eyeglass,” or “Mr.
Hardcastle, the accountant, examines the bankers’ pass-book,” or
to give a carefully-finished sketch (that, if executed, would have a
distinct historical value) of “Mr. Cunningham, the Secretary,
attentively reads a letter asking for seats.” By the way, it seems
Sudden appearance of a Mysterious Stranger on the Bench.
a pity that the artists in question do not now and again depict
subjects a little more sensational. For instance, on this occasion, a
visitor appeared conspicuously on the Bench, whose identity no one
could ascertain. It was suggested that he might be a Judge.
“Not one of our lot,” said an official of the Court.
“ Nor an Irish Judge either,” returned a gentleman of the Press,
who, from the purity of his accent, I imagine, must have been an
Englishman born in Dublin.
If the Bar for the defence was weak in members, the Times was
exceptionally well represented. All the leaders were present; and
it was a touching sight to see Mr. Attorney offering to assist Sir
Henry James to examine a Witness. My learned and right hon.
friend, the Ex-Home Secretary, however, seemed to me a little
ungrateful when he asked the Senior Law Officer of the Crown to
elect to keep silence, or to examine the Witness all by himself. The
feature of the sitting was the committal of this very Witness to gaol
for contempt of Court. The man was rightly described as
“insolent” by Sir James
Hannen, and richly merited
his fate. Nothing could
have been more dignified
than the bearing of the
revered President when he
ordered the fellow to he
taken “to prison,” which
sounded (especially as it
was followed by the man’s
immediate removal by a
door under the bench) like
a command to ‘ ‘ throw the
recreant into the deepest
dungeon beneath the castle’s
moat. ’ ’ During the luncheon
interval the Court showed
their entire confidence in
the strength and determin-
ation of their ever-courteous
Secretary by leaving the
Witness (a person of power-
ful proportions) in his safe
custody until their return.
The man, who was removed
by an elderly official, com-
plained as he went “ that
his was a case of intimidation of the worst sort.” The fellow’s name
was Coffey—a fact that, I fancy, suggested a thought to Mr. Justice
Day (a thought that, if it ever existed, however, was never revealed)
that “ Coffey, in prison, would he suited to a T ! ”
Wednesday.—Unquestionably a great day for Ireland. In the
133
first instance my learned and erudite friend, Mr. Murphy, Q.C.,
had an opportunity of declaring to the world in general, and to Mr.
Attorney in particular, that the 17th of March was the date of
the fete of St. Patrick. Encouraged by this valuable assistance,
to he generous to others, Sir Richard, in his turn, once more
gave Sir Henry James the benefit of his support and advice,
when my right hon. friend the ex-Home Secretary had a Witness
under examination. It is needless to say that Sir Henry made
suitable acknowledgment of the kindness. The second time “ Ould
Ireland” scored, was when Mr. Biggar, representing himself (and
really no better representative could be possibly found for so difficult
a role) showed how much was lost to the Bar, and even the Bench,
by the Hon. “ apparition in person” (if I may use such a term) not
having qualified for the Lora High Chancellorship. On two distinct
occasions, Mr. Biggar was well to the fore, obtaining results
that must have filled him with (perhaps) surprise, and (no doubt)
sincere gratification. The rest of the morning was taken up with
the last of the Times Witnesses, tempered with the occasional appear-
ance of Mr. Soames, as a sort of forensic] Chorus, explaining
everything to everyone’s entire satisfaction. I was glad to see
during the sitting my ever-courteous friend, Mr. Cunningham,
also seizing an opportunity for personal distinction. It having
become necessary to produce a letter, the Secretary set to work
to hunt it up, and during the interesting process managed to
give quite a little entertainment. Mr. Cunningham, by his expression,
(while engaged in the search), contrived to suggest anxiety, doubt,
sorrow, hope, determination, despair, and ultimately triumph.
When the letter was at length run to cover (in a portfolio), Mr.
Cunningham produced it with the air of a conjuror, who, after
piquing curiosity by several simulated failures, finally draws from a
seemingly empty hat an unexpected bundle containing a loaf of
bread, a wig, a bird-cage, and a pair of infantine leggings.
It was not until after the midday adjournment that the case of the
Times concluded. Then it was that Sir Charles Russell (who had
been away during the morning, leaving my learned friends, Messrs.
Reid and Asquith, to represent the accused during his absence),
rose to put several questions to the Bench. He asked would the
Commissioners make any interim report. “No,” courteously ex-
plained the President, on behalf of himself and colleagues, ‘ ‘ they
would not,” on the principle (so I understood), that it is bad in law
to make two bites at a cherry. Then Sir Charles explained the
great possibilities of expansion the inquiry possessed. He made a
calculation, which seemed to suggest that, under certain pleasing
and favourable circumstances, the Commissioners might be invited
to sit, “ it might be for years, it might be for ever.” He assured
their Lordships that he was well aware that, if necessary, they
would willingly assent to such an arrangement. No doubt he was
right in his assumption, but, as a matter of fact, the Commissioners
gazed into vacancy as they listened to this merited recognition of
their devotion to duty with a stare painfully eloquent of the
strongest emotion. My learned friends for the Times also looked
rather black. Then Sir Charles held out a brighter prospect. If
they might adjourn until Tuesday fortnight, he fancied that he
would be able to so arrange the case for “ what he might term ” the
defence, that a great portion of it might receive development by the
Easter Vacation. He (with the consent of his learned friends) would
he the only Counsel to open the case. He laid a stress upon the
word “counsel” no doubt with a view to leaving Mr. Biggar the
opportunity of making an oration, the eloquence of which might live
in the memories of generations yet to come. With a sigh of either
sorrow or relief (I cannot say which), the Commissioners immediately
assented, and the Court stood adjourned until the 2nd of April—the
morrow of a festival that to many present had possibly a certain
weird significance.
Thus my note ends. Whether I shall reopen it depends upon the
claims that my clients may advance to my time and attention, as I
(like the rest of the Bar) have made it a golden rule never to accept
retainers to be in two or more places at once.
Pump-handle Court. (Signed) A. Briefless, Junior.
Taking a little Coffey.
VOI. XCVI.
w
ON COMMISSION.
Tuesday, March 12th.—Those who had come to see those eminent
Counsel, Sir Charles Russell and Mr. Lockwood, must have been
disappointed as neither of my learned friends put in an appearance,
during the whole day. However, my learned friends, laughter-
leading and fiery, were admirably represented by Mr. R. T. Reed, a
gentleman of infinite jest and judgment, and consequently the
appropriate spokesman in Parliament of the rollicking borough of
Dumfries. The artists of the illustrated papers were also in attend-
ance, ready to seize upon, for pictorial embellishment, such striking
incidents as “Mr. George Lewis drops his eyeglass,” or “Mr.
Hardcastle, the accountant, examines the bankers’ pass-book,” or
to give a carefully-finished sketch (that, if executed, would have a
distinct historical value) of “Mr. Cunningham, the Secretary,
attentively reads a letter asking for seats.” By the way, it seems
Sudden appearance of a Mysterious Stranger on the Bench.
a pity that the artists in question do not now and again depict
subjects a little more sensational. For instance, on this occasion, a
visitor appeared conspicuously on the Bench, whose identity no one
could ascertain. It was suggested that he might be a Judge.
“Not one of our lot,” said an official of the Court.
“ Nor an Irish Judge either,” returned a gentleman of the Press,
who, from the purity of his accent, I imagine, must have been an
Englishman born in Dublin.
If the Bar for the defence was weak in members, the Times was
exceptionally well represented. All the leaders were present; and
it was a touching sight to see Mr. Attorney offering to assist Sir
Henry James to examine a Witness. My learned and right hon.
friend, the Ex-Home Secretary, however, seemed to me a little
ungrateful when he asked the Senior Law Officer of the Crown to
elect to keep silence, or to examine the Witness all by himself. The
feature of the sitting was the committal of this very Witness to gaol
for contempt of Court. The man was rightly described as
“insolent” by Sir James
Hannen, and richly merited
his fate. Nothing could
have been more dignified
than the bearing of the
revered President when he
ordered the fellow to he
taken “to prison,” which
sounded (especially as it
was followed by the man’s
immediate removal by a
door under the bench) like
a command to ‘ ‘ throw the
recreant into the deepest
dungeon beneath the castle’s
moat. ’ ’ During the luncheon
interval the Court showed
their entire confidence in
the strength and determin-
ation of their ever-courteous
Secretary by leaving the
Witness (a person of power-
ful proportions) in his safe
custody until their return.
The man, who was removed
by an elderly official, com-
plained as he went “ that
his was a case of intimidation of the worst sort.” The fellow’s name
was Coffey—a fact that, I fancy, suggested a thought to Mr. Justice
Day (a thought that, if it ever existed, however, was never revealed)
that “ Coffey, in prison, would he suited to a T ! ”
Wednesday.—Unquestionably a great day for Ireland. In the
133
first instance my learned and erudite friend, Mr. Murphy, Q.C.,
had an opportunity of declaring to the world in general, and to Mr.
Attorney in particular, that the 17th of March was the date of
the fete of St. Patrick. Encouraged by this valuable assistance,
to he generous to others, Sir Richard, in his turn, once more
gave Sir Henry James the benefit of his support and advice,
when my right hon. friend the ex-Home Secretary had a Witness
under examination. It is needless to say that Sir Henry made
suitable acknowledgment of the kindness. The second time “ Ould
Ireland” scored, was when Mr. Biggar, representing himself (and
really no better representative could be possibly found for so difficult
a role) showed how much was lost to the Bar, and even the Bench,
by the Hon. “ apparition in person” (if I may use such a term) not
having qualified for the Lora High Chancellorship. On two distinct
occasions, Mr. Biggar was well to the fore, obtaining results
that must have filled him with (perhaps) surprise, and (no doubt)
sincere gratification. The rest of the morning was taken up with
the last of the Times Witnesses, tempered with the occasional appear-
ance of Mr. Soames, as a sort of forensic] Chorus, explaining
everything to everyone’s entire satisfaction. I was glad to see
during the sitting my ever-courteous friend, Mr. Cunningham,
also seizing an opportunity for personal distinction. It having
become necessary to produce a letter, the Secretary set to work
to hunt it up, and during the interesting process managed to
give quite a little entertainment. Mr. Cunningham, by his expression,
(while engaged in the search), contrived to suggest anxiety, doubt,
sorrow, hope, determination, despair, and ultimately triumph.
When the letter was at length run to cover (in a portfolio), Mr.
Cunningham produced it with the air of a conjuror, who, after
piquing curiosity by several simulated failures, finally draws from a
seemingly empty hat an unexpected bundle containing a loaf of
bread, a wig, a bird-cage, and a pair of infantine leggings.
It was not until after the midday adjournment that the case of the
Times concluded. Then it was that Sir Charles Russell (who had
been away during the morning, leaving my learned friends, Messrs.
Reid and Asquith, to represent the accused during his absence),
rose to put several questions to the Bench. He asked would the
Commissioners make any interim report. “No,” courteously ex-
plained the President, on behalf of himself and colleagues, ‘ ‘ they
would not,” on the principle (so I understood), that it is bad in law
to make two bites at a cherry. Then Sir Charles explained the
great possibilities of expansion the inquiry possessed. He made a
calculation, which seemed to suggest that, under certain pleasing
and favourable circumstances, the Commissioners might be invited
to sit, “ it might be for years, it might be for ever.” He assured
their Lordships that he was well aware that, if necessary, they
would willingly assent to such an arrangement. No doubt he was
right in his assumption, but, as a matter of fact, the Commissioners
gazed into vacancy as they listened to this merited recognition of
their devotion to duty with a stare painfully eloquent of the
strongest emotion. My learned friends for the Times also looked
rather black. Then Sir Charles held out a brighter prospect. If
they might adjourn until Tuesday fortnight, he fancied that he
would be able to so arrange the case for “ what he might term ” the
defence, that a great portion of it might receive development by the
Easter Vacation. He (with the consent of his learned friends) would
he the only Counsel to open the case. He laid a stress upon the
word “counsel” no doubt with a view to leaving Mr. Biggar the
opportunity of making an oration, the eloquence of which might live
in the memories of generations yet to come. With a sigh of either
sorrow or relief (I cannot say which), the Commissioners immediately
assented, and the Court stood adjourned until the 2nd of April—the
morrow of a festival that to many present had possibly a certain
weird significance.
Thus my note ends. Whether I shall reopen it depends upon the
claims that my clients may advance to my time and attention, as I
(like the rest of the Bar) have made it a golden rule never to accept
retainers to be in two or more places at once.
Pump-handle Court. (Signed) A. Briefless, Junior.
Taking a little Coffey.
VOI. XCVI.
w