that Ireland would soon be

Great, glorious and free,

First flower of the earth, and first jewel of the sea.

' " Gem," Mr. Parnell, " gem," ' said a friend. ' I think
"jewel" is a better word,' said the chief.

Russell once spoke of the great Lord Grey as a Tory,
and neither Russell nor Parnell had heard of Sir George
Cornewall Lewis's ' Irish Disturbances ' an invaluable
handbook for Irish political students before 1881. I
do not think that Parnell read it even then, but Russell
read it conscientiously. Both were men of action, and
the genius of each made him independent of artificial
aids ; neither was ' spoiled by culture. '

There were other points of resemblance between
Parnell and Russell besides their common ignorance of
political history. ' Parnell,' said Russell, ' was the most

134



JEr. 48] PARNELL AND RUSSELL

judicial minded man I ever met,' and assuredly that is
the judgment which will be passed on Russell himself by
all who knew him. The fairness, the patience, the sub-
mission with which both men listened while you had
anything to say which bore practically on the matter in
hand, was marvellous. There was no attempt to beat
you in argument, no determination to put you down, no
assumption of superiority, but an attentive, sympathetic,
open-minded expression of face, which gave you every
confidence, and encouragement to drive your points
home.

Russell's receptivity in particular was extraordinary.
There never lived a human being with a more open
mind. And it was not the open mind of the man with-
out convictions. It was the open mind of the man with
deep-rooted convictions, who nevertheless was ready,
and even eager, to hear the last word that had to be
said upon the other side. So long as you kept to the
point, he listened without a murmur, but if you wandered
from the point by the breadth of his nail

One day in discussing some question I told him a
story which I thought a good story. It was not, I am
free to say, very pertinent to the issue, though suggested
by something he had said. I expected he would have
laughed. But he only looked at me with an utterly
blank face. ' What has that to do with the point ? ' he
said. ' Well, it is a good story at all events/ I retorted.
' No,' he replied, ' it has not even that merit ; but even
if it were a good story, why tell it when it has nothing to
do with the question ?' 'All right,' I said, 'we'll come
back to the point.' 'You, my friend, will come back to
the point, and I wish you would not waste my time by

135



LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN [1880

wandering from it.' On another occasion I urged some
particular view upon him. He did not see it. I argued.
He shook his head. I went on. He was obdurate.
' Is there any use,' I asked, ' in pressing this matter
further ? ' ' Certainly, my friend, go on if you have any
more to say.' I went on, but without effect. ' Am I,' I
said at length, ' making any impression whatever upon
the Court ?' ' None whatever,' was the downright reply.
I soon learned that the way to make an impression
on Russell was to state facts, and to quote the authori-
ties on the instant. And it was wonderful with what
generosity he accepted your statement of the facts.
When he had confidence in you, he would even some-
times dispense with the authorities. ' I take your word
for it,' he would say, when he felt the force of the facts,
abandoning his position at once.

It has well been said that the way to Russell's heart
was through his head. If you gained his intellectual
sympathies, you were almost sure of his affections.

During the debates on the Coercion Bill of 1881, I
said, one day, that he ought to read the evidence given
before a Select Committee appointed by the House of
Lords in 1839 to ' inquire into the state of Ireland in
respect of crime and outrage,' and to note specially
the evidence of Thomas Drummond. Having made
the suggestion, I remarked : ' But I suppose you could
not spare the time to go through these big volumes ? '
' Certainly, my friend,' he said, ' I shall make it my
business to go through them, but' (raising his figure in a
minatory style, and smiling the while) ' if I find that you
have made me waste my time in doing some unnecessary
work, so much the worse for you.' Next day I called

136 '



JET. 48] POLITICAL VIEWS

and found him wading through the evidence with as much
care as if he had been noting a heavily marked brief.

Russell was not at this time 1 880-81 a Home
Ruler. He did not, it is scarcely necessary to say, meet
the question in the non possumus manner adopted by
most of the Liberals who, afterwards, under the relent-
less pressure of the inexorable Parnell, became ardent
converts to the cause of Irish nationality. The line
which he took was in effect this :

4 I doubt if an Irish Parliament is necessary. I think
it is possible that we may in time get all we want
from the Imperial Parliament. A great change has taken
place in England. The country is no longer ruled by
the privileged classes. The masses of the people are
gradually getting power, and they, who have grievances
themselves, will understand our case and sympathise
with us. But even if an Irish Parliament were necessary,
I do not think this is the time to press for it. It is not
now within the range of practical politics ; and we ought
to concentrate ourselves upon the questions which
are ripe for legislation the Land Question and Local
Government. Local Government might even be made
the stepping-stone to an Irish Parliament If an Irish
Parliament is to come, it must come from below. We
should work up to it, through Local Government.
Local bodies would train the people and accustom them
to the responsibility of managing their own local affairs,
and so fit them for the higher duties of Parliamentary
Government.' This, I think, is a fair statement of his
views frequently expressed to me before Mr. Gladstone
took up Home Rule. 1

1 In his letter to the Monaghan Liberals, in February 1880, he wrote

137



LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN [i 880-81

Indeed, his mind upon the question, as upon all
questions, was perfectly open. But it seemed to me that
he grew more and more in sympathy with the demand
day by day. Our arguments gradually turned rather
upon the question of tactics than the question of principle.
He believed to the end that the best policy was to work
up to Home Rule through Local Government. I believed
that we should go straight for an Irish Parliament.

During the stormy sessions of 1880 and 1881
Russell, though sitting on the Liberal benches, stood
manfully by the Irish Nationalist members. In the
debate on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill he
gave Parnell strenuous support. He fought against
coercion with vigour and persistence ; and threw himself
heart and soul into the struggle for the Land Bill in
1881. No better instance, perhaps, can be given of the
earnestness with which he entered the political arena
than the fact that, in 1880, he visited the County Kerry
and wrote to the Daily Telegraph a series of letters
on the Irish Land Question, describing his investigations
on the spot. These letters, which made a great stir,
were afterwards republished in book form, under the
title ' New Views on Ireland ' ; the book ran in a very

< It seems to me a crying scandal that any scheme of local enterprise or
improvement, having for its object the development of the country's resources,
should be at its outset crushed or weakened by the enormous outlay rendered
necessary by the present system of Private Bill legislation, and I shall
advocate the establishment of a local tribunal of inquiry to put an end to
this grievance.'

In his Dundalk address, March 1880, he wrote : ' I consider it a mon-
strous injustice that schemes directed to the development of our country's
resources should at their outset be burthened with the enormous cost
rendered necessary by Parliamentary investigation in London. I shall
therefore support all measures to secure that all such Home legislation shall
take place in Ireland.'

138



. 48-49] 'NEW VIEWS ON IRELAND'

short time through three editions, and proved a valuable
contribution to the literature of the subject. 1

Among the many letters of congratulations which he
received on the appearance of the work I shall quote
only one from Lord Coleridge :

Heath's Court, Ottery St. Mary : December 22, 1880.

MY DEAR RUSSELL, I had not a moment before I
left London to thank you for the book you have sent
me. I have read most of it already with unbroken
interest ; and I shall read it over again while I am here
so as to be ready for what I expect will be the fierce
debates in both Houses as soon as they meet. You
have done in my judgment a piece of work most difficult
to do at all (so as to be useful) in the most admirable
way ; and your contribution to the settlement, whenever
it comes, will, I hope, not be forgotten in the settlement
itself.

All the best wishes of this time and for 1881 to you
and yours.

Gully was excellent in your absence. His phrase when
he asked for a stay of execution ' in order to consider
more at leisure some of your Lordship's observations '
tickled my fancy very much. Misdirection was never
more courteously described.

Ever yours truly,

COLERIDGE.

In 1 88 1 Michael Davitt, the 'father of the Land
League,' was arrested. He had already suffered a
lengthened period of imprisonment on account of his
connection with the Fenian movement ; and had recently
been released on ' ticket-of-leave ' by the Government
of Lord Beaconsfield. His sudden arrest by a Liberal

1 The letters were originally intended for the Times; but the Editor
stipulated that the subject should be dealt with in ' about four or five letters
of a column each,' a stipulation which Russell would not accept.

139



LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN [1881

Ministry, without any reason having been assigned for
the act, filled not only Irish Nationalists, but the most
fair - minded of English Liberals, with indignation.
Russell was on Circuit at the time, but he did not
hesitate to convey his views of the transaction to Sir
William Harcourt, the Home Secretary. Writing from
Liverpool, he said :

Re DAVITT

I write this letter to you because I see you have
been questioned about the matter, and, although I have
marked my letter ' private,' I have not only no objection
to your showing it to Mr. Forster, or to any other of
your colleagues, but I should be glad that you did so.
I assure you the greatest excitement and anger have
been created in Ireland by this arrest. I have only this
moment returned from the Mayor's banquet to the Judges
in the Town Hall here, and three men of Liberal
opinions, but not of extreme views one of them

Mr. , late Secretary of the Liberal Association

have not hesitated to apply the word ' cowardly ' to
the proceeding. This is, of course, on the assumption
that the Government are proceeding either without any
nameable reason by virtue of the Queen's absolute
authority under the statute relating to tickets-of-leave, or
by reason of the part which he has taken in relation
to the Land League. If the former, I must in candour
say, if I be permitted to do so, with all deference, the
proceeding is misjudged ; and if the latter, surely in fair
play and justice some warning ought to have been given
to him, or if his proceedings in reference to the Land
League have been in the opinion of your law officers
illegal, he ought to have been prosecuted for the ille-
gality. I have had a shower of letters from Ireland
upon the subject, and from different parts of Ireland.

140



JET. 49] MICHAEL DAVITT

The tenor of all is the same. They say in effect that
for no new offence, but merely for some violent lan-
guage used in times of great excitement, the Govern-
ment has done what has never been done before. One
letter says : 'It will need little short of a miracle now
to prevent the excited peasantry from murdering land-
lords and agents ; they will feel that the only men who
have had the courage to speak up for them are being
right and left suppressed by the Government.' I am
writing to you in great distress. I cannot vouch for the
accuracy of the information sent me, but I know the
majority of my correspondents sufficiently well to be
able to say that their views are honest, and that the
feeling in Ireland is intense. It is said that if these
things are done before the Coercion Bill is passed, what
will be done after it has been passed ? and they will be-
lieve or fear (notwithstanding the disclaimer of Ministers)
that the new powers will be used to put down entirely
the Land League, which, with all its grave faults and
excesses (which I admit), has been an above-board
agitation. It has, in fact, been literally a safety-valve
for what would otherwise have been the, for a time,
pent-up and dangerous discontent of the people. , I
believe in my soul that if it had not been for this
agitation, while a number of landlords might have been
able to collect some more rent, the country would have
been stained by crime much more serious and much
more widespread.

1 88 1 was one of Russell's busiest years. His income
in 1878 was n,iO2/. ; in 1879 it fell to 9,92O/. ; in 1880
it rose again to 1 2,465^ ; and in 1881 it reached i4,666/.
He appeared in four famous cases during the year
Chamberlayne v. Barnwall ; Wilberforce v. Philp ;
Steinbank v. Becket ; and Scott v. Sampson. He him-
self told me the story of the first three of these cases.

141



LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN [1881

One day I asked him, ' What do you consider the best
bit of cross-examination you ever did ? ' He answered,
' The cross-examination of a young lady named Wilber-
force in a libel action tried before Field. It was a
curious case. Miss Wilberforce, the plaintiff, was clever
and attractive, and quite fascinated Field and the jury.
I remember Field was getting very deaf at this time,
and Miss Wilberforce was accommodated with a seat on
the Bench so that the judge could hear her more dis-
tinctly. She was smart enough to make the most of
this position. She sat very near Field and smiled inno-
cently on him, and indeed on the jury, from time to
time in fact, successfully played the part of a young
person who required the protection of the Court. She
told an extraordinary story, but it was so well put
together that I think every one believed her, taken in
by her appearance and by her delivery, which was
plausible and effective. As well as I can now recollect
this was the story she told. She said that she had been
born in America and indeed came of a very good
American family. In 1870 she came to Europe with
her mother, I think, and was at Paris either during or
some time after the siege, and attended to the sick and
wounded. Subsequently she went to the Russo-Turkish
war on a like mission, and I think she was in a third
war in Mexico. In fact, she represented herself as a
person whose life was devoted to works of charity and
mercy quite a Christian heroine. While she was in
Europe, I forget where, she met a Mr. Philp an old
gentleman between seventy and eighty. 1 He fell in love
with her, and wanted to marry her. But she refused, as

1 He was eighty-one years old in fact. She met him in 1878.

142



JE.T. 49] WILBERFORCE v. PHILP

she thought it would not be fair to his family so she
said. But she consented to become his adopted daugh-
ter. He adopted her, and she came to live with him in
his house in London. Old Philp's son who was a
doctor, I believe and his wife lived in the house too.
At first they all seem to have got on very well together.
But Philp's son soon began to have suspicions about the
genuineness of Miss Wilberforce, and finally wrote a
letter to his father saying she was an impostor and an
adventuress, who had designs on the old man's property
and even on his life I think he said that she had
attempted to poison the old man. The upshot was that
she was ultimately turned out of the house, and then she
brought an action for libel against young Philp. My
instructions were that she was an unscrupulous adven-
turess, and that her whole story, from beginning to end,
was a fabrication ; that, in fact, she had a very bad
history. But my difficulty was to prepare Field and the
jury for what was to come. She had made such a
favourable impression on them, that had I developed my
case too quickly, or too roughly, I should have created
a strong prejudice against myself. I had, therefore, to
move very slowly, watching Field and the jury to see
what effect my questions were making on them ; and to
take care not to shock them by being rough or rude
to this innocent young person. Really, as I look back
upon it now, it was very interesting and amusing. She
put herself quite under the protection of Field, and drew
nearer to him, when I got up to cross-examine ; and he
looked as if he meant to protect her too. I watched
Field very closely, and, when I saw him frowning at any
question I asked, drew back quickly. She was equally

H3



LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN [1881

on the alert, and, on my word, played the game very
skilfully. I began the cross-examination, I remember,
one afternoon, and had made no impression when the
Court rose. Next day she took her seat near Field as
usual, bowing graciously to him ; and he bowed graciously
back to her. It was clear that I had made no impres-
sion. I went on with the cross-examination, and, getting
near the luncheon hour on the second day, I began to
feel my ground more secure, and pressed her harder.

' Then the Court rose. I remember very well think-
ing at luncheon whether I had yet succeeded in making
any impression on the judge or the jury, and I could not
make up my mind upon the point. After luncheon she
came on to the Bench, looking more innocent than ever,
and drew her chair still closer to Field, when he turned
round sharply, waving his hand towards her, and saying,
" Not so close, madam ; not so close." That was enough
for me, and I am afraid that afterwards I took her rather
brusquely in hand. Next morning she came back.
When I resumed the cross-examination, she referred to
some notes. " What are those notes ? " I asked. " Notes
to refresh my memory," she answered. " When did you
take them ? " I asked. " Last night." " How came you
to take them ; what suggested it?" I asked again.
"Some old letters I was reading," she replied. "Can I
see the letters?" " I have not got them with me."
' Where are they ? " " At my lodgings." Then Field
broke in and said, " Let a messenger be sent to the
house for the letters at once." The messenger was sent,
but no letters could be found. I went on with the cross-
examination, and the upshot was that her whole story
turned out to be a pure fabrication. She was not an

144



JEr. 49] CHAMBERLAYNE v. BARNWALL

American. She had not been in Paris during the war.
She had not been at the Russo-Turkish war, nor in
Mexico. Letters which she produced had been invented
by herself, and a youth whom she called her brother
was her illegitimate son. Finally, Murphy, who was on
the other side, threw up his brief. 1 That was one of
the most interesting cases I ever had.

' I remember another interesting case tried about the
same time. It was an action for libel brought by one parson
against another. The name of the case was Chamberlayne
against Barnwall. Chamberlayne, for whom I appeared,
was a fine, dignified old gentleman of about seventy.
Barnwall had accused him of immoral practices, and for
this he brought his action. There were two trials. In
the first Henry James appeared for Chamberlayne, and
there was a verdict for the plaintiff, 5O/. damages.
Then there was an application for a new trial, and it
was granted. James was unable to lead in the second
trial, and suggested to the solicitors- that I should take
his place. The brief was then sent to me. In the first
trial Chamberlayne was not put into the box. His
evidence was taken by commission. He had a weak
heart, and it was said he could not with safety undergo
an examination in Court. I made up my mind, how-
ever, not to take the brief unless he was prepared to
go into the box. I remember we had a consultation,
which Chamberlayne's son attended. I said, " I won't go
into this case unless Mr. Chamberlayne comes forward as

1 Miss ' Wilberforce,' whose real name was Smith, was afterwards tried
for perjury, and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. Mr. Justice Field
described her evidence as ' gross fabrications,' and her ' claim ' as ' in-
famous.'

H5 L



LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN [1881

a witness in Court." The son replied, " It is impossible ;
my father has disease of the heart, and he would
probably die in the box." " Well," I said, somewhat
brutally I am afraid, " and how can he die better than
defending his character ? " The upshot was, he did go
into the box, and we got a verdict for nearly 4,ooo/. 1
My comment upon this case is the importance of having
witnesses examined in Court. I remember another case
which illustrates this point. It was in Vice- Chancellor
Bacon's Court. A question involving many thousands
of pounds was at issue. An important witness a lady
was examined before a master in a room like this quite
private. She held her ground under cross-examination
and favourably impressed the master. A fresh appli-
cation was made for her further examination, and I
was briefed to cross-examine her. I insisted that the
examination should this time take place in open Court.
Bacon thought that the re-examination was quite un-
necessary the previous evidence of the woman seemed
so conclusive. The application was, however, granted,
and she was examined in open Court. The cross-
examination took the whole of one day, and was
continued up to luncheon-time the next day. After
luncheon the lady was called, but it was stated by her
counsel that she was unwell and could not attend. The
case was adjourned until next morning. The lady was
called again, but it was again stated that she was too ill

1 This trial lasted for fifteen days. The Times described it as ' one of
the most extraordinary and protracted trials ever heard in Westminster
Hall.' Sir John Holker appeared for the defendant. There was an appli-
cation for a new trial, on the ground that the damages were ' excessive.'
The judge held that the damages were excessive, and said that the Court
would order a new trial unless the plaintiff accepted 8oo/., which he did.

146



JEr. 49] SCOTT v. SAMPSON

to appear. She never did appear, and my client came
in for the money in question, several thousands of
pounds.

' I remember the case of Steinbank v. Becket. 1 Sir
Edmund Becket wrote a letter to the Times, saying that
Big Ben 2 was a disgrace to the country ; and he also,
I think, attacked the founders of the bell generally. 3
Steinbank, the founders, brought an action for libel
against him, and I appeared for them. There was
nothing really of interest in the case, but I remember
very well that people looked forward to an encounter
between Becket (who was a famous cross-examiner at
the Parliamentary Bar) and myself. But there was no
encounter. We were quite civil and polite to each
other, and there were no " scenes." We got a verdict,
though.' 4

The case of Scott v. Sampson is well known. A
celebrated actress, Miss Neilson, had died. By her will
she left i,ooo/. to a dramatic critic. Mr. Sampson, the
editor of the Referee, referring to this fact, stated that
Mr. Scott (the dramatic critic of the Daily Telegraph)
had called on Admiral Carr Glyn (an old friend of
Miss Neilson) threatening that if he (Mr. Scott) did not
receive a sum of 5OO/., he would make certain disagree-
able disclosures relating to the life of Miss Neilson,
whereupon the Admiral gave him the money. For this

1 Now Lord Grimthorpe.

2 The bell at Westminster.

3 He said they were the worst founders in England. C. Mears (a very old
firm) was the founder of the bell ; and Mears & Steinbank (who brought the
action) had succeeded to the business. Sir John Holker led for Sir E.
Becket.

4 For 2oo/. damages.

147 L2



LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN [1881

Mr. Scott brought his action, and Russell became his
counsel, Mr. (now Judge) Willis leading on the other
side. There was not a shadow of foundation for the
attack thus made on Mr. Scott, and the jury gave a
verdict in his favour for i,5OO/. 'Russell's cross-
examination of Sampson,' says an eye-witness, ' was
ferocious. I remember one scene which was painful
in its dramatic intensity. It lasted only for an instant,