supremacy of undoubted genius
was never more apparent, and never exacted nor received more willing
worship. Through the kindness of a friendly barrister I was introduced
to one of the juniors of the Attorney-General,--a stripling of about
fifty years of age. While we were conversing about the case, Sir Richard
turned and made some comment upon the conduct of the trial; but my
friend would no more have thought of introducing me to the leader of the
bar than he would have ventured to stop the carriage of the Queen in
Hyde Park and present me then and there to Her Majesty.

I remember as well as if it were but yesterday how attorneys and junior
counsel listened with the utmost deference to every suggestion which he
condescended to address to them, how narrowly the law-students watched
him, as if some legal principle were to be read in his cold, hard
countenance, and, as he at last rose slowly and solemnly to make his
long-expected argument, how court, bar, and by-standers composed
themselves to hear. He spoke with great deliberation and distinctness,
with singular precision and propriety of language, without any parade of
rhetoric or attempt at eloquence. After a very short and appropriate
exordium, he proceeded directly to the merits of the case. His words
were well-weighed, and his manner was earnest and impressive. It was, in
short, the perfection of reason confidently addressed to a competent
tribunal.

And yet his manner was by no means that of a man seeking to persuade a
superior, but rather that of one comparing opinions with an equal, if
not an inferior mind, elevated by some accident to a position of
factitious importance. One could not but feel that here was a power
behind the throne greater than the throne itself.

It cannot be doubted that this consciousness of mental and professional
preeminence, sustained by the unanimous verdict of public opinion, has
given to Lord Westbury a defiant, if not an insolent bearing. The story
is current at the English bar, that, some years ago, when offered a seat
on the Bench, with a salary of five thousand pounds, he promptly
declined, saying, "I would rather earn ten thousand pounds a year by
talking sense than five thousand pounds a year by hearing other men talk
nonsense." Anecdotes are frequent in illustration of his supercilious
treatment of attorneys and clients while he was a barrister. And since
his elevation to the wool-sack there has been no abatement or
modifica