Wherein, then, does Sir Charles Russell's great strength lie? First, in the variety of his powers. He is not a very great lawyer; but he possesses a wide general knowledge of law, coupled with ability to convert it into special knowledge at any point and at any moment. It may well be argued that this is a higher and more serviceable gift than any " specialism." Again, the ex-AttorneyGeneral is neither a statesman nor even a first-class politician; but he is a reliable, fair-minded, and capable parliamentary de bater. He is at the same time an effective speaker, although not an orator, an un equalled master of legal tactics, a cogent reasoner, a skilful jury lawyer, and the greatest living cross-examiner at the bar. Endowments so varied and so harmonious entitle Sir Charles Russell to a foremost place in the ranks of contemporary lawyers. But it is not only in the rare combination of his mental qualities that Sir Charles Russell's eminence consists. In his intellectual equip ment there are two faculties (we have noticed them already), either of which would have sufficed to mark him out as the first advo cate of the day. As a forensic tactician he has no living rival. In the Colin-Campbell divorce suit he was opposed to Mr. R. B. Finlay, Q. C, a Scotchman by birth, and able and stubborn, with all the ability and stubbornness of his race. Russell " engi neered " the action with consummate skill, and literally swept his rival from the field. This is a kind of art that the litem scripta is powerless to portray. Its exercise must be witnessed or felt. In another litigation the counsel for the plaintiff, in moving for a new trial, complained that " the Attorney-Gen eral had carried the verdict with a rush." "If we were to yield to that contention," said the Lord Chief-Justice, " it would be necessary for us to grant a new trial when ever Sir Charles Russell was ' on the other side.' " ( As a cross-examiner, Russell is supremely great. His insight into men's motives and characters is all but super human. He never bullies, except in the
rare cases when a witness (like the famous Le Caron) is beating him at his own weap ons; and he never fails to make his "points " artistically, nay, even dramati cally. " Write the word hesitancy" was his first question to the hapless Pigott. The idea of this memorable cross-examination, it may be observed in passing, seems to have been suggested to Sir Charles Russell by Sir Frederick Thesiger's method of deal ing with the forger Provis in the Smyth Baronetcy Case; just as the striking intro duction to his speech for Mr. Parnell — "Who are the accusers? " and " Who are the accused? " — appears to have been inspired by a masterpiece of Cardinal Newman's.1 Sir Charles Russell is not over-popular in chambers. Both to solicitors and to his juniors he is apt to be imperious; and he is said to engross the talking at a conference, as Lord Macaulay used to do at a dinnertable. On one occasion a consultation was in progress in Sir Charles's chambers; the late Attorney-General was monopolizing the attention of the solicitors, and the junior counsel, an Irishman by birth, vainly en deavored to make his voice and his opinions heard. At length the great advocate paused for a moment to take breath, and the pentup fury of his colleague burst forth. " I would have you understand, Sir Charles Russell," he exclaimed, in a rich brogue, "that this is a consultation, and not a lec ture." This story may not be true; but it is eminently characteristic, and therefore worthy of preservation. Sir Charles Russell carries his imperiousness and impetuosity with him into court. In the case of Pearce v. Foster (17 Q. B. D. 536), — an action for wrongous dismissal, brought by a confidential clerk against his employers who had promptly dismissed him from their service for gambling on the Stock Exchange, — he treated Mr. Justice Grove with an impatience that amounted almost to 1 Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England, p. 121. The Edgbarton Tradition.
