Anglo-In. Exactly, Sir; and I cannot thank you sufficiently for putting our case so plainly.
The Com. Not at all. Should you receive no redress within a reasonable time, you may mention the matter to me again.
[The Witness with a grateful bow then withdrew.
THE SHADOW OF A CASE!
(To the Editor of Punch.)
DEAR SIR,—As the leading forensic journal of this great country (your contemporary Weekly Notes runs you pretty close occasionally in some of its reports), I address you. It was my painful duty a few days ago (I had to "take a note" for a colleague, an occupation more honourable than lucrative), to be present at a cause that was heard before the President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice and a Special Jury. The trial created considerable interest, not only amongst the general public, but amongst that branch of our honourable Profession represented by the Junior Bar, no doubt, because certain points of law, not easily recognisable—I frankly confess, I myself, am unable to recount them—were no doubt in question, and had to be decided by competent authority. The Counsel directly engaged were some of the brightest ornaments of Silk and Stuff. Amongst the rest were my eloquent and learned friend, Sir CHARLES RUSSELL, my erudite and learned friend Mr. INDERWICK (whose Side-lights upon the Stuarts, is a marvel of antiquarian research), and my mirth-compelling and learned friend Mr. FRANK LOCKWOOD, whose law is only equalled (if, indeed, it is equalled) by his comic draughtmanship. As the details of the trial have been fully reported, there is no necessity to go into particulars. However, there was a feature in the case that the passing notice of an article in one or more of the leading journals is scarcely sufficient to meet.
It was proved that the detective part of divorce (if I may use the expression) may be conducted in a fashion, to say the least, of not the most entirely satisfactory character. A talented family were called before us, whose performances were, from one point of view, extremely amusing. But, Sir, although (as you will be the first to admit) laughter is a most excellent thing in its proper place, the sound of cachinnation is seldom pleasing in the Divorce Court. Under these circumstances I would propose that, in future, Divorce Shadowing should be put under the protection of the State. There should be a special department, and the Shadowers should be of the distinguished position of Mr. MCDOUGALL of the London County Council, and the like. The office of the rank and file of the Shadowers should be honorary, as the pleasure of following in (possibly) unsavoury steps in the cause of virtue, would be to them, I presume, ample reward for any trouble the labour might entail. I would willingly myself undertake the responsibilities attaching to the post of Director-General, of course on the understanding that a suitable provision were made, not only as compensation for the loss of my practice, but also that I might perform the duties of the office with suitable dignity. But when I say this, I would add, that I should reserve to myself the right of seeking the supplementary services of the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, and Mr. Sheriff AUGUSTUS HARRIS, as assessors in assisting me to distinguish between innocence and vice, and guilt and virtue.
Believe me, with an expression of all necessary respect for "the Nobility" connected with the case to which I have referred, and admiration for the courage of a certain Militiaman, exhibited by his entering the witness-box, and there facing the cross-examination he so richly deserved, I remain, Yours truly,
(Signed) A BRIEFLESS, JUNIOR.