Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/161

 138

properties, invested in carriages and horses for his own comfort and convenience, and generally lived up to the luxurious standard of life which his astute hypocrisy enabled him to do. All the circum stances of the case contributed to the public curi osity, — the large sum in issue, the high social position of the aggrieved parties, and the atmos phere of devoted religious feeling with which Loughnan had contrived to surround his mis doings. Very bitter feelings have been aroused among the Plymouth Brethren; they apprehend that the charges of unctuous hypocrisy so con clusively established against a prominent figure in the inner circle of Close Brethren may unfairly be extended to the body as a whole. Sir Charles Russell's cross-examination of Loughnan was a most effective and amusing performance. The conclusion was a foregone one; the judge had no hesitation in finding for the plaintiffs, and or dering a restitution of the amounts advanced by the deceased to his " companion," —• the only difficulty being that probably a very considerable part of the large total is spent and gone beyond recall. A very acute controversy is being conducted on the subject of the law officers' remuneration. When the Gladstonian government came into power it was grandly announced that for the future the Attorney and Solicitor-General would ab stain from engaging in private practice, and would dedicate all their time and energies to the service of the State. These eminent men, Sir Charles Russell and Sir John Bigley, however, continued to engage in an apparently extensive private practice, as before; curiosity being aroused, it was then ex plained that the law officers had not been entirely prohibited from ordinary practice, that it had been arranged they should take cases in the House of Lords and before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as well as be at liberty to appear in any cases in which they were actually engaged, or for which they had been retained prior to accept ing office; the latter proviso of course explained Sir Charles Russell's constant appearances in the teeth of the authoritative announcement. The

liberty thus conceded to the law officers cuts away entirely the logical standpoint of those who initiated the agitation while the late government was in office. Their argument was twofold : it was urged that a law officer's position as a public servant must from time to time be interfered with by his interests as a private practitioner, and that his official salary was amply sufficient to compensate him pecuniarily, and' in fact could not be properly earned unless his entire mind was devoted to the cares of office. I need not point out how this specious reasoning is equally applicable to the new arrangement. But a still more ludicrous feature of the matter has developed. Under the old plan the law officers never appeared personally in treasury prosecutions unless the cases were of great importance, the duty being in ordinary circumstances discharged by counsel employed by the Crown for the purpose, who received fees adequate no doubt but of quite moderate proportions. Now we have changed all this, and Sir Charles Russell as Attorney-General prosecutes in treasury cases that once were thought beneath such exalted attention. But mark what has happened; his briefs are marked with a fee as high, or almost so, as he would have received from a private client, to recoup him as far as possible for his sacrifice of income. Thus the law officers forfeit their claims to our compassion as well as to our reverence. What every one objects to is that so much credit should have been taken for a pro ceeding which is as broad as it is long. There never was any real and genuine demand that the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General should ab stain from private practice while in office; on the contrary, professional feeling is all the other way, unless in isolated cases of unrepresentative opinion. However, the Gladstonian party made so much political capital out of Sir Richard Webster's con nection with the " Times " during the sessions of the Parnell Commission, and Sir Charles Russell then so committed himself to some opinions which one fears must be regarded as in advance of his real sentiments, that for very shame some reconciliation of practice with profession had to be attempted.