I don`t know for certain, either, but the obvious point of their relationship is that they`re political opposites, that is, they represent opposite political parties.
The First Lord has to use "Let right be done" in his speech because in the archaic language of British Law, these are the very words officially used once the very motion of a Petition of Right is granted.
Here´s from Rattingan`s play, act two:
Descmond Curry says: "A subject can sue the Crown, nevertheless, by Petition of Right, redress being granted as a matter of grace- and the custom is for the Attorney General- on behalf of the King- to endorse the Petition, and allow the case to come to court."
To which Sir Robert replies: "It is interesting to note that the exact words he uses on such occasions are: Let Right be done."
It`s the first time in the play that we actually encounter these words and I always had the feeling that Rattigan stresses them to characterize Sir Robert- we still think of him as a cold fish, but once you think about it, it`s clear that this is what drives him on- he wants to see right done. So I think that he slips the First Lord the sheet of paper for two reasons- one being that he reminds him of both the power and the responsibility that comes with this power, that he cannot allow to let the case rest there without right being done- acting, as it were, as a kind of political and legal reminder, the other being a sort of moral reminder. Sir Robert strikes me as a very moral man, he`s not just a crafty lawyer alone. There are definite Christian motives in there, too. It`s a matter of grace- and Sir Robert reminds the First Lord that he should show this grace.
As for the other questions, I think they have already been answered. They`re surely not talking about bribes, but about the complications that arise for the party and for Sir Robert once they insist upon following the case through.
I think he might have been offered the post before the whole Winslow Case got going- this surely isn`t a post that becomes vacant suddenly and him being the foremost barrister of his day, he was the obvious choice. Besides, you never see him wavering in his support of the case, you never spot a point at which you might think "Oh, this is it- he`s being offered and he´s thinking about it." so I always thought that he had been offered the post some time ago.
It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.
reply
share
pmvk
13 years ago
Thank you for your reply.
Having only seen the film and not read the play (yet), I have a less favourable and more ambivalent idea of Sir Robert though. In my opinion Catherine is not completely wrong about him in the beginning of their acquaintance; I came to the conclusion that it is the Winslow case and her who make him change.
When in the end he says: "Easy to do justice, very hard to do right", it sounds like a confession to me, that he is not used to "doing right". He usually is one of those who side with the great against the powerless, and the Winslow case is a new experience for him. (That is how I interpreted it, but I think that it is open to different interpretations. Maybe I should watch it again and try to view it from a completely different perspective this time... )
reply
share
rebkad
13 years ago
The original Sir Robert Morton, Carson, defended the Marquess of Queensberry against Oscar Wilde's charge of libel. On the one hand, he was "right" in the sense that Wilde had not actually been libelled, but his death and fall from grace would likely give some reason to pause. You can see it the first time Catherine mentions the Rodgers case; its like biting on a sore tooth. I would agree, Sir Robert's comment is an admission, but less of actual guilt, more of an admission of Catherine into a closer sense of intimacy. It is one thing to be steadfast in your decisions; another to admit a potential complexity of judgment.
As for when he got offered the post, I would suggest they offered it to him to effectively silence him by making him a tacit member of the crown; he would have something to lose by succeeding with the Winslow case. That being so, I would imagine it was either before or after the speech he makes when he invokes Nelson et al - they are afraid of any more oratory, or would rather he was not put in a position where he could make them. Of course, there is also the point when he asks Cate what to do - whether to go on or not, and his advisers have been suggesting he quit, that 'it is his own best interests' etc which also suggests they have had wind of some exceptionally prestigious bribe coming his way.
As for point #1, I was rewatching reccently and I'm not so sure - it seems more of Sir Robert stage-managing the appeal behind the scenes to make sure the key phrase 'LRBD' is kept prominent, as it is the real vote-winner. The case seems trivial, but it is being fought for a vindication of abstract principles - and perhaps to atone for Rodgers.
reply
share
SpinozaGal
13 years ago
I think a key remark that Sir Robert makes near the end of the film gives a deep insight into his taking on the Winslow case: "...easy to do justice very difficult to do right." I agree that his taking on the case was his way of making amends for falsely condemning an innocent man. After all arguing a case upon emotions is the surest way to loose it but cold hard facts can lead to a miscarriage of justice & right.
reply
share