philologians of his time. I shall
have occasion, further on, to mention this topic again.

In the year 1823, I find that he was keeping a school in Bond Street,
near the chapel; his pupils, no doubt, being mainly the sons of the
members of the congregation. This life appears to have been, to him,
somewhat of a drudgery; and he longed for more active duties, and a
larger sphere of work. At that time the strict etiquette which now
governs all legal matters did not exist. The young schoolmaster having
volunteered on one occasion to assist a friend to conduct a case in
the old "Court of Bequests," found the self-imposed task very much to
his taste. He took up the profession of an Advocate, and in that court
and the magistrates' room at the Public Office he soon became a busy
man. His clear insight gave him the power of instantly possessing
himself of the merits of a case, while his fluency of speech,
his persuasive manner, and his scholastic acquirements were great
advantages. He soon obtained considerable influence among the
respectable old gentlemen who at that time sat as judges in the one
court and magistrates in the other. His intense love of fun, and his
powerful irony, made these courts, instead of dull and dreary places,
lively and cheerful. Many droll stories are told of him, one of the
best of which relates to his cross-examination of a pompous witness.
Edmonds began by asking, "What are you, Mr. Jones?" "Hi har a
skulemaster," was the reply. In an instant came the crushing retort
from Edmonds, "Ho, you ham, his you?" He continued to practise in the
Court of Bequests until it was abolished, but he was ineligible in
the newly-established County Court, not being an attorney. He then
articled himself to Mr. Edwin Wright, and in the year 1847 was
admitted as a solicitor, which profession he followed actively, up to
the time of the illness which removed him from public life.

He was a powerful and successful advocate. His fault, however, in this
capacity was that he identified himself too much with his case. He
seemed always determined to win. True justice and fairness were not
considered, so long as he could gain the day. Hence, when another
advocate was opposed to him, the matter assumed, generally, the aspect
of a professional tournament, in which victory was to be gained,
rather than that of a calm and impartial investigation, in which the
truth was to be ascertained and a just award made.

At the time of the in