92 Tin: theaty of Washington. 



guagc as to render it scarcely intelligible. Mr. Jus- 

 tice Blackburn replied, reiterating in temperate Ian- 

 fruacre Lis statement that the Chief Justice liad ex- 

 pressly assented to the legal doctrine of the charge, 

 and his colleagues, Justices jNIellor, L\ish, and Han- 

 uen,gave no suj)port to the denial made by the Chief 

 Justice. 



Tlie qualities of character exhibited in this inci- 

 dent Avere the occasion at the tinie of unfavortable 

 commentary on tljc part of the British Press and 

 j)ublic. 



Sir Alexander Cockburn had seemed, on sujierll- 

 ciul view, u lit pel son to taUe j)urt in the im]»()rtanti 

 duties committed to the Tribunal of Arlntration. IIo 

 carried thither the prestige of judicial rank, as the 

 head of one of tlu; most venerable courts of Europe. 

 And he was thorouirh master of the lanrjuaire in 

 which the discussions of the Tribunal were con- 

 ducted. 



But, unlbrtunately, it would seem that neither the 

 original constitution of his mind, nor the studies, pur- 

 suits, or liabits of his life, had fitted him for calm, im- 

 partial, judicial examination of great questions of 

 public law. The same traits of confused thought, 

 equivocation in matters of law, tendency to declama- 

 tory denimciation of adversary opinions, which pro- 

 voked and justified the criticisms of Mr. Finlason, 

 ^Ir. Gathorne Hardy, and others, and which prompt- 

 ed contiict with ]Mr. Justice Blackburn, reappeared 

 in more vivid colors at Geneva. 



Of the oftensive singularities of his deoortiuent aa 



