tance." Sheil's acerbity, more lasting than the stone,
was softened a little perhaps by the sculptor's nepotism.
But only a little. Sheil's description of the living man
can stand well enough for the effigy. Joy looked as dry
a stick as any in his beloved herbarium and the twenty-
line eulogy of his pedestal was no answer to Sheil.
Chief Justice Whiteside
Whiteside was unveiled at the opening of the Easter
Term, 15th April 1880—the newspapers disrespectfully
said "by the broom handle of the hall sweeper". Any-
way there was no ceremony when four years after his
death he was set up at the right of the clock beside the
Queen's Bench. The sculptor was the pre-Raphaelite,
Thomas Woolner, sculptor
en titre
to the Victorian men
°f letters. He also carved Bacon for Acland's new
Museum in Oxford, and when he placed Moses with
'he tables of the law on the apex of the Manchester
Assize Courts we may guess that he took a hint from
our Four Courts. Whiteside stood, a tall commanding
figure in frock-coat and trousers, before a pile of books,
his left hand hanging by his side with the notes of his
speech, his right crossed over his breast. The attitude
was very different from what the Parliamentary corres-
pondent of
The Nation
saw in Westminster on 3rd May
1856 : "Whiteside talked thirteen columns. People for-
got that gigantic gesticulations of apish arms and acro-
oatish vertebrae and listened with amazed admiration
a
t the frightfully fluent Counsellor. You could see the
pudnight oil in his hair!" Woolner's statue showed a
buttoned-up intellectual with bald head, the hair clu-
'ering at the back; the expression was severe and con-
temporary writers took exception to the head as lacking
'ts proper breadth and massiveness, and to the expres-
sl
on as not exhibiting the variety and genial nature of
'he orator. The:e are the sculptor's tribulations of
which posterity is an indifferent judge. Certainly Bruce
Joy's seated figure in St. Patrick's does, in profile and
front, skilfully indicate his subject's changing linea-
ments. The Four Courts statue, as I recall it justly or
n
pt, made a single impression of rigid authority and its
Clv
ilian attire was just redeemed from banality by its
Simple severity. It was no masterpiece except by Vic-
torian standards and was hardly adequate to White-
Side's distinction, but it had the stance of an orator and
looked well. The pedestal was inscribed "Whiteside".
Lord Chancellor Plunket
Plunket stood to the left of the clock. Erected by ,the
®
a
r of Ireland and so inscribed, the sculptor was again
Patrick McDowell and the statue was placed in 1884,
thirty years after the sculptor had laid down his chisel.
Actually the statue had been executed in August 1863.
1' would appear that in the middle eighties there was
^me individual initiative or concerted movement
a
mongst the Benchers of this date, to complete the
sculptural decoration of the hall with memorials of the
more-distinguished members of the Bench and Bar. We
jmd Whiteside, 1880, Plunket and Sheil, 1884, and
p>Hagan, 1887, commemorated in the same decade. If
me series had been completed by O'Connell and Curran,
Hogan, instead of the Academicians, had been timely
commissioned, the representation, honourable to subject
a
nd subscribers, would have been more justly fulfilled.
There was a blunt directness about this statue of
Rlunket that made up for its shortcomings. He stood,
mancing Whiteside, in a curious short double-breasted
coat with tails, his left arm akimbo, his right extended,
a cloak draping the back at half length. There was
assurance in the pose and the head was convincing.
W. H. Curran and Phillips tell us how he struck his
contemporaries: "A tall, squire-built, robust, ascetic,
his aspect was the reverse of his companionable nature,
but it quared with his vigorous intellect and its mascu-
line expression. He disdained the externals of the
oratory of which he was a master. His gestures were few,
his lips unsmiling, his features blunt and harsh." These
also were characteristics that marked McDowell's statue,
riveted one's attention, and diverted it from some grace-
lessness in the natural forms.
Sheil standing near the old Common Pleas—now
Court II—was the entertaining opposite. It is worth
reviving Christopher North's description of him though
it does not in every respect confirm the statue. Sheil was
actually five feet, four inches in height. North notes
him as : "The smallest of the small in stature, shabbiest
of the shabby in attire, voice like a gimlet, eyes large,
deeply set, dark, liquid, and flashing, fixing you as a
basilisk, but after ten minutes you feel yourself in the
presence of a man of genius." This statue and Plunket's
alone continually held and renewed my interest. Each
represented an opposite facet of genius so plainly as to
put any spectator on enquiry. Like Plunket and White-
side, Sheil was in civilian dress and, as I remember him,
small and dapper with no touch of slovenliness* There
was something bird-like and brilliant in the set of the
head, and animation of the eyes, and the erect hair.
Memory perhaps cheats me and a willing subjugation
to the subject-interest, for though Thomas Farrell,
R.H.A., fabricated some mildly dignified figures and
many wholly unhappy, I cannot think him equal to the
image that remains in my mind. But there must have
been something sufficient in the modelling of the head
and in the alert poise to reflect the sparkle of this bril-
liant rhetorician. The statue was the gift to the Ben-
chers of Lord Gormanstown as trustee of Montesquieu
Belew and it was erected below the niche between the
Queen's Bench and Common Pleas on 15th November
1884.
Lord Chancellor O'Hagan
O'Hagan, modelled by the same sculptor in 1885,
was erected in 1886-87—two years after his death. A
few years later and it would not have occurred to any-
one so to commemorate him. He stood near Whiteside
on the other side of King's Bench I, head bare, in court
dress and Chancellor's robes with a book in his right
hand, a dignified banalitv. The head "the face of the
melancholy Melanchthon" was reasonably well modelled
but the gesture of the arms, though more fully draped,
repeated the Whiteside almost as obviously as the legs
so unfortunately repeat themselves in Farrell's Smith
O'Brien and Sir John Grey in O'Connell Street.
On the whole we were fortunate in these statues
though the greatest names were absent and one or two
present who were only slightly meritable. As sculpture
none was unmeritorious though none was comparable
with Hogan's O'Connell or Drummond or Smyth's
Lucas in the Gitv Hall. They added an appropriate
dignity to Gandon's architecture. Now they are crum-
bled into dust, finer than that which covers the vain
titles of Justinian's victories. On the 3rd July 1922 I
saw them prostrate under the open sky. Smyth's work
fallen into indistinction, Lord Chancellor, judges and
advocates broken and calcined. I stuck my thumb into
Joy—he had the consistency of cream cheese.
4»7




