REVIEWS
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1954.tb02163.x |
| Published date | 01 July 1954 |
| Date | 01 July 1954 |
REVIEWS
CARSON
:
a biography by
H.
MONTGOMERY
HYDE.
[London:
William Heinemann
Ltd.
1953.
515
pp.
(with index).
25s.
net.]
THE
lives of great advocates are
a
source of perennial interest not only to
lawyers, but to the general public. Into the warp and woof of their existences
there are woven patterns of drama and personality which make exciting
reading, and ensure
a
constant demand for books about them.. Carson was
undoubtedly one of the great advocates of his generation and to use a useful
American term, as a trial lawyer, which is not quite the same thing, he may
have been the best who has ever practised in our courts. Although there
is already an admirable life of him by Marjoribanks and Colvin the present
life will no doubt have
a
ready sale.
It
is competently put together by
Mr. Hyde who has the advantages of being an Ulsterman,
a
member of
Parliament, and
a
lawyer, as well as being a practised author. Moreover the
early part of the Marjoribanks-Colvin biography appeared during Carson’s
lifetime which always makes difficulty for
a
biographer. Mr. Hyde is, or
should be, able to get
a
better historical perspective, and also has been able
to correct
ii
number of mistakes which appeared in the earlier work, notably
the extraordinary statement which attracted much attention at the time that
the Carsons were descended from an Italian who settled in Dublin in the
eighteenth century
:
it is
a
puzzle that Carson who appears to have read the
manuscript could have passed the statement. Actually it appears that the
Carsons came from the Scottish Lowlands. Students
of
Carson’s personality
may, however, come to the conclusion that he owed more to the genes which
he derived from his mother who was directly descended from General
Lambert the Parliamentarian.
Carson’s career, especially after he became leader of the Ulster movement,
was more political than legal, a fact inevitably reflected in these pages, and
which accounts in some degree for the length of the volume. Very nearly
half the book is taken up with the political events of the ten or twelve years
from
1910
onwards, and since Mr. Hyde does not possess such an attractive
style as Mr. Marjoribanks, or even Mr. Colvin, this part of the book tends
to drag from time to time. Nevertheless it is of much historical interest, and
here and there throws new light, or rather new reflection, upon national history.
The readers of this review will probably be more interested in Carson the
trial lawyer than in Carson the political leader. The more important of the
causes
cQ12bres
in which Carson was engaged are carefully and clearly
sum-
marised, and the fact that Mr. Hyde is rather
too
much of
a
hero worshipper
does not prevent his giving a three dimensional portrait
of
the great man,
though Carson’s personality was
so
overpowering that in a sense it builds
itself into the pages. In particular the constant duelling with Rufus Isaacs,
a
man only less capable as
a
trial lawyer, and if anything a finer advocate,
makes exciting reading. Carson had not a fine intellect, but it was shrewd
and robust, and within the terms of the intensely personal relationships which
provided much of the material for his work, it was highly imaginative. What
Mr. Hyde fails to bring out,
I
think, is the fact that Carson often defeated
Isaacs because he had got the measure of his opponent in
a
way that the
latter probably never realised.
I
remember
a
junior barrister of some
standing telling me of an occasion when he was led by Carson against Isaacs.
They were appearing for the plaintiff and it was difficult to get their case
satisfactorily onto its feet without calling
a
certain witness. On the other
389
\vo~..
17
25
890
THE MODERN LAW REVIEW
voc.
I7
hand this witness, if effectively cross-examined, would almost certainly destroy
his own side’s case-the c1assic:il dilemiiia of the trial lawyer. My friend
spent sleepless nights puezling over the probleni
of
whether the witness should
be called, but at the consultation Carson treated thc imitter very lightly,
and when the junior diffidently inquired what they were
to
do
about
it
he
replied that he would decide about calling the witncss during the course of
the trial.
“For,”
he said,
“I
have not been against Rufus Isaacs all these
years without knowing if he has got the material for breaking
up
the witness
in cross-examination he will not be able to refrain from giving me some
indications of it as the case goes on.” In the result the witness wits called,
the cross-cxai~iinaticin was ineffective, and the plaintiff won.
Carson’s own cross-examination was of course one of the most powerful
weapons in his arnioriry, and Mr. Ilyde gives some fanions exaniples of
his
use of it.
I
have the feeling, however, that to those who are not familiar
with court work the effectiveness of some of this questioning, appearing, as
it does, in the somewhat thin context of the siirninnrised facts of the case
may not be altogether self-evident. Some rather fuller explanation of what
the cross-examiner was aiming to do would have been helpful. Indeed
a
detailed study of
it
niiitiber of these cases directed principally to that point
would be of great value to young advocates, and niight well prove fascinating
to the general reader.
The handling of a big case requires
a
sort of generalship, and this Carson
had in high degree. Moreover his generalship was of a dynamic quality not
common in leaders, whether legal
or
military. His cases liad
a
habit of
developing in
a
way that he willed, and against the will of his opponent.
But he was usually ready, even when the case took
a
turn for the
worse,
to try some new tactical line, often successfully. This involved
a
much fuller
grasp and understanding of the facts of the case than most leaders acquire,
and could only be attained by intense effort, and
a
sort of brooding con-
templation-he lived with his cases.
IIe
found that to attain this mastery
required
a
concentr;ition which he could only provide if he accepted but fcw
briefs, though of course
his
fecs rose in proportion.
He
was
thus after tie
reached niatiirity seldoni occupied with more than one big brief at
a
tiiiie.
In this he
aas
almost
if
not quite unique ninong fashionahle leaders. More-
over he liad none of the ability possessed in
siich
superb degree by Viscoiint
Simon when at the height of his powers of being able to
go
into court in
a
complicated ciisc with little more ni:iterid than
could
be supplied by
it
competent devil in
a
careful note.
In the working out of this pattern of action which was to prove
so
success-
ful the clerk Herepath played an important part. In this volume he appears
as
the hero of some amusing stories, but in actual fact Carson owed
a
great deal
to
him. He was
a
shrewd capable man who soon saw that his principal’s nervoiis
organisation would rr:irk under the strain of too many briefs. On one
occasion,
as
he told me himself. he retiirneil
a11
the hrirfs in chamhers
to
the various solicitors who had delivered them, with the demand for
a
douliled
fee. Most of thnri wme back in due course, hut
in
the incanwhile Carson
suffered :igonics. €Ic
was
indeed very highly striing,
as
Mr. Ilyde
c1e:irly
brings out, thoiigh only those who knew him well can have redised it.
To
the outward observer he appeared to be
a
man of iron, cold, iiu~~ertiir1~:~l~lc~.
implacable, hardly smiling even when delivering his most telling sallies
of
wit
or
humour, for which of coiirsc he was famous, and of which some
well-
known exaniples tire reprodiiced here. IIe seeins to have hcen soinetliing
of
a
hypochondriac, continually imagining that he wiis too ill to do his work,
hut always warming to the task in time to give
a
first-rate performance.
Carson said throrighout that he preferred litw to politics,
and
indeed, he
always had
a
hankering after the bench. Some time before he migrated to
England he very nearly took
a
county court judgeship, and after establishing
himself here Iic hesitated long over whether to accept tin offer of the Presidency
To continue reading
Request your trial