r attention being drawn to
the ambiguities latent in their agreement. His experience had not made
him familiar with the details of commercial business, and he had to
acquire the necessary information rather against the grain. To be a
really great lawyer in the more technical sense, a man must, I take it,
have a mind full of such knowledge, and feel pleasure in exercising the
dialectical faculty by which it is applied to new cases. In that
direction Fitzjames was probably surpassed by some of his brethren; and
he contributed nothing of importance to the elaboration of the more
technical parts of the law. I find, however, that his critics are agreed
in ascribing to him with remarkable unanimity the virtue of
'open-mindedness.' His trenchant way of laying down his conclusions
might give the impression that they corresponded to rooted prejudices.
Such prejudices might of course intrude themselves unconsciously into
his mind, as they intrude into the minds of most of us. But no one could
be more anxious for fair play in argument as in conduct. He would give
up a view shown to be erroneous with a readiness which often seemed
surprising in so sturdy a combatant. He spared no pains in acquiring
whatever was relevant to a case; whether knowledge of unfamiliar facts
or of legal niceties and previous judicial decisions. Though his mind
was not stored with great masses of cases, he never grudged the labour
of a long investigation. He aimed at seeing the case as a whole; and
bringing out distinctly the vital issues and their relation to broad
principles. He used to put the issues before the jury as distinctly as
possible, and was then indifferent to their decision. In a criminal case
he would have been inexpressibly shocked by a wrongful conviction, and
would have felt that he had failed in his duty if a conviction had not
taken place when the evidence was sufficient. In a civil case, he felt
that he had done his work when he had secured fair play by a proper
presentation of the question to the jury. His mastery of the laws of
evidence would give weight to his opinion upon facts; though how far he
might be open to the charge of cutting too summarily knots which might
have been untied by more dexterity and a loving handling of legal
niceties, is a question upon which I cannot venture to speak positively.

I will only venture to refer to two judgments, which may be read with
interest even by the unprofessional, as vigorous pieces of ar