Meanwhile the newspapers were interested in the novel experiment of sending an American lawyer to defend an American citizen in England, and searching for some hidden reason for the selection of General Pryor. "Simply because of his daring spirit," said one. "He will speak out as another would hesitate to speak." "Not so," said the editor of the Irish World; "General Pryor was selected on account of his ability as a lawyer. I know of no man who can better represent the American bar. O'Donnell is an American citizen, and General Pryor will defend him as an American citizen." A would-be wit in England replied, "He was selected because he was prior to all others—take notice—this is registered."
The New York Times, November 8, 1883, reminds the public that "an English barrister would have no standing in an American court, except by a stretch of courtesy which would be rather violent. To give audience in court to a foreign counsel would be a great novelty in any country." The London Times commented on the matter and said, "It is probable that Mr. Pryor will be permitted to give the accused man all possible assistance short of taking a public part in the conduct of the case." Chief Justice Coleridge, recently returned from this country, where he had been the recipient of many kindly courtesies, was at once interested, and took an early opportunity to consult leading English jurists regarding certain amendments in the form of procedure in the courts, the admission of foreign lawyers being one of the points discussed. A correspondent of the Brooklyn Eagle visited my husband in England and wrote to the paper:—
"I called on General Pryor this morning. He is snugly housed at the Craven Hotel in Craven Street, hard by Charing Cross and within a minute's walk of the American Exchange. I found him immersed in papers relating to the case, but with sufficient leisure to greet a fellow-countryman (and an old client en passant) with his customary courtesy.
"Legally, the general has had a hard time of it here,—of which more anon,—but socially he has been the recipient of extraordinary marks of English favor. His romantic career as a soldier and as a lawyer is known to everybody, and invitations to club breakfasts and the dinner-tables of great men have poured in upon him. So far, he has accepted none of these, having been entirely preoccupied by the preparation of O'Donnell's defence, which, as I understand from other sources, is largely General Pryor's. Originally it was understood that the trial should occur in October, but it has been postponed again and again, and the general's great regret is that he was not able to get back to vote.
"Speaking to me on this subject to-day, a prominent member of the English bar said: 'My dear fellow, General Pryor is not an exception to the rule. He is simply a prominent instance of its operation. You may not be aware that neither a Scotch nor an Irish barrister is allowed to plead in English courts. If we were to make any exception at all, it would certainly be made in favor of General Pryor, who is known to and liked by us all.'
"'But,' I asked, 'how about his appearance in court as a matter of courtesy?'
"'There is no such thing possible, and not even the judge has power to extend it. The Benchers of the Inns are the authority, and even the objection of a single barrister would be fatal.'"
The English papers were, as a class, against his appearance. The St. James Gazette had long articles on the subject, in one of which the question is thus settled:—
"The case of American counsel claiming audience in a criminal trial arousing passionate political interest in certain circles is admirably calculated to demonstrate the excellence of the rule which the Irish-Americans were anxious to have broken,—as they supposed in their interests. The only motive which O'Donnell could have for wishing (if he does wish it) to be heard through foreign counsel would be that that counsel should say or do something which English counsel cannot say or do. For, however great General Pryor's fame may be in his own country, we have no reason to suppose that he is gifted with eloquence or persuasive powers so remarkable that he might be relied upon to move the hearts of an Old Bailey jury impervious to the tried abilities of Mr. Charles Russell and the earnest fluency of Mr. A. M. Sullivan. Let us consider, then, what it is which these gentlemen could not do, and General Pryor, if he got the chance, could do. The principal thing is that he could more or less defy the judge, and instigate the jury to override the law or take a wrong view of the evidence."
The Gazette little knew the manner of man under discussion. "Defy the law," indeed! He wrote me October 25:—