defence, or, worse yet, fighting a trumpery or speculative action; or an evasive or men dacious witness. No man was ever keenerscented for fraud than Lord Russell. The first signal when he struck the trail of it was the production of a snuff-box and a huge red bandanna handkerchief, which was waved viciously in the air. Then came a snort of rage, the brow darkened, and the eyes emitted sparks. These signs of ap proaching storm usually sufficed to stop the bad case or to withdraw the shuffling witness from the box; but if they were disregarded the consequences were awe-inspiring and never to be forgotten by the objects of his scorn. There is probably no profession in the world ments and so full of brilliant of heart-breaking prizes, as that disappoint^ of the English barrister. Thousands of men well equipped and capable of doing the best work have eaten the'ir hearts out waiting year after year for clients that never came. This is true of the majority who are called to the Bar. The minority get their chance, through accident sometimes, but generally through connection or influence. The few that make great successes get the great rewards of fame and fortune and title and social honors. Lord Russell literally carved out his own success. He was an Irishman and a Roman Catholic. Furthermore, he had no univer sity degree, although he had taken a partial university course at Trinity College, Dublin;' and he was without social influence. He practised law for a short time as a solicitor, at Belfast, and then, doubtless feeling his powers striving within him, decided to go to the Bar, and he entered as a student at Lincoln Inn. After his call he settled as a local barrister at Liverpool, where then, and for many years before, a feeling of in tense and aggressive Protestantism prevailed. His progress was sufficiently slow to dis courage him, and the story runs that about this time he dined with two other young
limbs of the law who were also in despair of ever getting work enough to afford them a living. Some one suggested abandoning the Bar, joining forces and emigrating to the Colonies, and the proposition was seriously considered. Happily, it was not adopted, as one of the three afterwards became the Lord Chancellor of England and was known and affectionately regarded in America as Lord Herschel; the second was Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Chief Justice of England, and the third is now the present Speaker of the House of Commons. However slow Lord Russell's progress was at first it was substantial, and his merit in time was gen erally recognized to such an extent that it was impossible for him to remain as a local at Liverpool and he came up to London. In 1878 he got his first big chance in one of the libel actions brought against Labouchere's Truth. The case came on for trial before Sir Alexander Cockburn, in the old Queen's Bench Court at Westminster; and for a "silk " new, or comparatively new, to Lon don, and in a sense upon his own trial in the metropolis, the commencement did not seem propitious to Russell, whose vigorous han dling of the plaintiff caused Chief Justice Cockburn to interject some comment as to the proper limits of cross-examination, and to express the opinion that they were being over-stepped. Russell, always fearless at the Bar, even with such an opponent as Cockburn on the Bench, would not give way, saying that the line he was adopting was necessary to the justification of his defence, and he hoped that when his case came to be fully heard by the Chief Justice that he would withdraw what he had said, and in the meantime suspend his judgment. At the conclusion of the trial when both Russell and his defence had been heard, Cockburn was generous enough to publicly withdraw every word of injurious comment which had fallen from his lips, and in paying a high tribute of praise to the defendant's advocate
