at first sight anything but
acquiescence in German claims to philosophical pre-eminence, but after a
time he comes to understand the respect which Austin professed for
Savigny. His study of the Law of Contracts was apparently broken off by
a renewed call to take up once more the Criminal Law. Of this I shall
have to speak presently.

The reference just quoted to improved prospects is to be explained by an
influx of parliamentary business which took place at this time. He was
leading counsel in the session of 1874 for the London, Chatham and Dover
Railway Company, and appeared for them in several cases. The impression
which he made upon professional observers has been reported to me by
more than one competent witness. It is such as may be foreseen. 'You are
bringing your steam hammer to crack a nut again,' was the remark made to
one of them by a friend. Admiration for his 'close reasoning, weighty
argument, and high tone of mind,' is cordially expressed. He never threw
a word away, always got to the core of a question, and drove his points
well home. And yet he did not seem to be in the field best adapted for
his peculiar gifts. He was too judicial, too reluctant to put a good
face upon a bad cause, not enough of a rhetorician, and not sufficiently
alert in changing front, or able to handle topics with the lightness of
touch suitable to the peculiar tastes of a parliamentary Committee.
Thus, though he invariably commanded respect, he failed to show the
talent necessary for the more profitable, if not more exalted lines of
professional success. Business still continued to present itself in the
most tantalising form; it came in gushes and spurts, falling absolutely
dead at one moment and then unexpectedly reviving. He had occasionally
successful circuits; but failed to step into the vacant place made by
the elevation to the bench of his old tutor, Lord Field, in 1875, and
gradually went his rounds less regularly. Meanwhile a good deal of
business of a different kind presented itself. At the end of 1874, I
find him mentioning that he had eleven cases before the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council. He appeared in a good many colonial and
Indian appeals, and afterwards, as I shall have occasion to notice, in
certain ecclesiastical cases. I do not think, however, that I need dwell
upon this part of his career.

One remark must be made. Fitzjames was still doomed to be an
illustration of the curious disproportion which may