Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/57

 Rh

36

of becoming a successful barrister would require to undergo a period of probation in the lower branch of the profession. Although a member of another Inn, I had an opportunity the other evening of viewing the Middle Temple Hall lighted as it now is by electricity; the installation has proved an im mense success, contrary to very general expecta tion, for it was feared that the cold rays of the modern illuminant would strike unsympathetically against the dark oak carvings and massive woodwork of the time of Queen Elizabeth. Some criticism has been excited by the selec tion of Lord Cross to succeed Mr. Cohen, Q. C, as Treasurer of the Inner Temple for 1895. Lord Cross is a barrister, but he never became a Queen's Counsel. As a junior he got into poli tics and there made his mark as the possessor of the useful and practical talents, for brilliant he never was, but he attracted Lord Beaconsfield's attention when that eminent statesman was Mr. Disraeli, and was made quite unexpectedly Home Secretary. The duties of that responsible office he discharged with inf1nite credit, and made an impression so favorable at court that for a num ber of years he has had the honor of arranging the Queen's private investments. His business capacities are exceptional, and to this he chiefly owes his success. He is a man somewhat of the stamp of the late leader of the House of Com mons, the Hon. William Henry Smith, another of Mr. Disraeli's sagacious selections for Cabinet office, and that polished cynic has been credited with the sarcastic observation that he could never remember which was Mr. Smith and which Mr. Cross. Lord Cross is one of the most regular at tendants at the Sunday morning service in the Temple Church, where, in his seat close by the

s»

pulpit, his well known figure is a characteristic feature of the legal congregation. London has been thrown into a turmoil for weeks over the triennial School Board election, which has just taken place and relieved us from the continuance of a very tiresome controversy. When I say that the question of religious instruc tion was seized upon as the occasion of a trial of strength between the two political parties, for notwithstanding a considerable confusion of ordi nary political classifications this was substantially the situation, you can imagine how embittered every one has been. We lawyers were hoping that the personalities of the contest would pro duce a plentiful harvest of libel and slander ac tions, but I hear that most of the wordy quarrels have been more or less amicably adjusted. If it were not for divorce cases, which seem to multiply, and defamation actions, there would scarcely be any work for barristers to do. There is beyond dispute a painful stagnation in litigat ing activity. lawyers would seem to have killed their goose, for people nowadays much prefer to suffer wrongs patiently than allow the profes sion to unloose their purse strings. I am told that there was great rejoicing at Lincoln's Inn on grand night last term, when the equity pundits discovered that the meager dainties of the tabled'hote, introduced as an experiment, had been displaced by the old-fashioned banquet in all its barbaric sumptuousness; if there was an absence of variety there was plenty, and, after all, severe intellectual labor no less than manual toil breeds appetite. This is a very short letter, but, could you be lieve it, there is but very little of interest taking place. I cannot trespass on political grounds, and your readers would resent dry points of law.