ALAnA>rA CLAIMS. 147 



well known that lie dinVrcil from llicin in ocrtiiin rospccis, wliii'h 

 would iippcar ])y tlic transactions ol'llio iVward. I iliink ii is a 

 jiity wlion the thiiM^ is docidiMl, wIilmi wo arc liouml to act iijum 

 it, and when avc arc not really jiislilicd, in any Icelin^^ oI'Iiouim- 

 or ot' ^ood faitii, in niakin.i; any reclamation or iiuarrel at all 

 with what lia.s been done, that he hlutnld have thou;4ht it his 

 dlily to stir up and to renew all the stroni^ arL,MitnentsQand con- 

 tests U])on which these ^Vrhitrators have decided. [C"heer>. j 

 I think if it was Ids opinion that we ou;4lit to aiMpiiescc (piii'tly 

 and without niurinur in the Award, he had Ijelter not have pub- 

 lished his argument, and, it' he thouu:ht it right to jjublisii his 

 argument, lie had better have retrenched his advice ifself as to 

 the nrbitration," 



]\[r. Lowe can not liclp seeing that the "Heasons" 

 are not an opinion, but an "argiunent," anil an "argu- 

 ment" adverse to the (onclusions of tlie writer. 



Thus, it would appear, sucli is tlie eccentric menial 

 constitution of the Chief Justice, that while he is in-, 

 capable of going through any process of reasoning 

 without inconsistencies and self-contradictions at ev- 

 ery step, so he can not perform an act, or reconnnentl 

 its performance, without at tlie same time setting 

 forth ample reasons to forbid its performance. 



In the recent debate in Parliament, to be sure, on 

 the Queen's speech, some of the members of Ijoth 

 Houses, especially of tliose in Oj)}H)sition, speak in 

 terms of laudation of the '* lleasons" of the Chief Jus- 

 tice. Lord Cairns, on this occasion, seems to have for- 

 gotten what he had said, on a previous occasion, of the 

 judicial impartiality to be expected of an arbitrator. 

 And Mr. Vernon Harcourt, in defending the Chief 

 Justice against what the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

 bad said of him at Glasgow, unconsciously fidls into 



