impossible, for the simple reason that one cannot reside in two places at once.

Perhaps, however, the answer is not far to seek. The idea of making residence essential was at least impliedly contained in a somewhat drastic proposal put forward by the late Sir Charles Dilke in 1906, namely, to abolish the ownership vote altogether. But in April, 1910, Sir Charles Dilke said that he would not abolish the ownership vote, because there were 2,000 electors (presumably his supporters) in his constituency whose only qualification was for the ownership vote.

As those who confuse both public and private justice with party expediency have as yet failed to put forward any constructive proposal that will bear investigation, it should not be necessary to defend plural voting on its merits. Let it suffice that the principle of one man one vote should apply, as it already does, in any single constituency. It should be remembered that the representation is not only of the whole country, but also of constituencies and local interests.

It may well be asked what difference it can possibly make to anybody in Oxford what an elector does in Buckinghamshire; and whether it is expedient that local interests should be even partially disfranchised; whereas even the Act of 1832, which abolished the rotten Boroughs, safeguarded vested interests. It is indeed possible to add up an aggregate party vote of all the constituencies, and express the result on paper (thereby including some votes twice over); but such a result of political arithmetic has no legal importance, no practical value.

R. L. MARSHALL.

407

II. SCARLETT AND HIS METHODS.

THE

HE greatest verdict-getter that ever practised at the English Bar was James Scarlett, afterwards Lord Abinger. Innumerable testimonies to his extraordinary skill and success as an advocate are to be found in contemporary literature. Though he was not a great lawyer, his successes amazed his associates at the Bar. "It really was impossible," said Lord Brougham, "to figure anything more consummate than this great advocate's address in the conduct of a cause. His sagacity, his sure tact, his circumspection, his provident care, his sudden sense of danger to his own case, his instantaneous perception of a weak point in his adversary's case, all made him the most difficult person to contend against that perhaps ever appeared in Westminster Hall, when the object was to get or prevent a verdict." And to get the verdict was his one and only object. This end he pursued with matchless tact and consummate skill. He never showed any desire to produce a brilliant effect or to win applause for himself. He directed all his energies and sacrificed every other consideration to secure the verdict.

The qualifications required in a leader in jury trials are, as Brougham once said, very much the same as are required in a leader in war. Those qualities Scarlett possessed in the fullest degree. He had perfect quickness of perception and decision, imperturbable self-possession, and a thorough knowledge of human nature. He excelled both in his conduct of a case and in his powers of speech. As Brougham said, conduct without eloquence is safer to trust to for the victory than eloquence without conduct. He cites in proof of this the cases of Lord Wallace and Lord Loughborough. Wallace, he said, was a successful nisi prius advocate, with hardly any powers of speech; Wedderburn, afterwards Lord Loughborough, had but little success though a very fine

speaker. But Wallace was an excellent lawyer and a good leader of a cause: Wedderburn was an indifferent conductor of a cause, and had so little law, that it was said of him, that what he took in on the circuit at York had run through him before he got to Newcastle.

Scarlett possessed both Wallace's abilities in conducting a case and Wedderburn's powers of fluency and persuasion. His influence was almost as great with the judges as with the juries. His power over Lord Tenterden was so marked as to become the subject of complaint at the Bar. Campbell records in his Lives of the Chancellors that it used to be jokingly said that Scarlett had invented a machine by the secret use of which in Court he could always make the head of the judge nod assent to his propositions, whereas his rivals, who tried to pirate it, always made the head of the judge move dissentingly from side to side.

The question may be asked, how was it that Scarlett was so successful in his advocacy? What was his secret? Fortunately in his autobiography, published in The Memoir of Lord Abinger by Mr. Peter Scarlett, he has revealed to us some of his magic. Moreover, there are to be found in the writings and biographies of some of his contemporaries various passages in which Scarlett and his modes of advocacy are described. In the following pages the present writer has endeavoured to give some account of his methods and habits, and thus to throw some light on his remarkable

success.

(1) In his opening speeches he confined himself to a clear and lucid statement of the facts. He always singled out with consummate judgment the leading facts in favour of his client, and then placed them with singular clearness before the Court, and in the way most likely to help his case. Both judge and jury were forced to look at them, whether they would or no. Matters of minor importance, though in themselves favourable to his client, he passed

over altogether. "I made it my business," he said, "to know and remember the principal facts, to lay the unimportant wholly out of memory, to open the case, if for the plaintiff and when I expected evidence for the defendant, in the shortest and plainest manner, with no other object than to make the jury comprehend the evidence which they would shortly hear."

(2) He did not anticipate the defendant's case. I very seldom thought it necessary," he said, "to make any anticipation of the defendant's case. It is indeed oftentimes dangerous to do so, as it leads the judge and jury to seek for support of it in the plaintiff's evidence."

(3) He never exaggerated. He knew how important it was that the evidence should not appear weaker than the opening. No error, he said, is more fatal to an advocate than exaggeration. And again, he said, "I made it a rule in general rather to understate than overstate facts I intended to prove. For whatever strikes the mind of a juror as the result of his own observation and discovery, makes always the strongest impression upon him, and the case in which the proof falls much below the statement is supposed for that very reason not to be proved at all."

(4) He always avoided, except when he could not help it, matters involving professional technicalities; but when obliged to deal with them, he displayed a remarkable aptitude for so popularising them as to make them intelligible to the plainest and most unsophisticated mind. It was said of him that no man at the English Bar ever contributed so much as he did to make jurymen lawyers.

case.

(5) He never made fine speeches or wandered from his He rejected all jest, or ornament, or sarcasm, that did not fall directly in his way, and seem to be so unavoidable that it must strike everybody who thought of the facts. "I never made a speech," he said, "with a view to my own reputation, nor for any other subject than to

serve my client." He never used his addresses as pegs for purple patches, or fine metaphors or elegant quotations. He knew that a fine speech is not necessarily a good one from the client's point of view. He himself cites as a proof of this Mackintosh's famous speech for Peltier, who ought to have been acquitted. If Scarlett had appeared for Peltier, he would not have made, like Mackintosh, a speech that has been handed down as a model of eloquence, but he would have secured the acquittal of Peltier, which, after all, should have been the object of his advocate.

(6) He cross-examined but little. "I learned," he said, "by much experience that much more mischief than benefit generally results from cross-examination. I therefore rarely allowed that duty to be performed by my colleagues. I cross-examined in general very little, and more with a view to enforce and illustrate the facts I meant to rely upon than to affect the witness's credit, for the most part a vain attempt."

(7) He paid great attention to re-examination. In that he was exceedingly skilful.

(8) He never took notes of the evidence. "As the evidence proceeded," he said, "I bestowed much too anxious attention upon it to take a note. I treasured up the facts in my memory, and arranged them in such a way as I thought would lead most distinctly to the conclusion I desired."

(9) He always kept a strict watch over the judge. Brougham says that, when leading the Northern Circuit, he used to choose his seat second to that to which he was rightfully entitled by his professional rank. He preferred to take his seat on the judge's left, because standing there he had the judge always in his eye as he spoke, and could shape his course with the jury by the effect which he found that he produced on the judge. He was not above studying the personal peculiarities of the judges and