experience has gone, these men are exceptions to the general rule. I recollect one occasion about eighteen years ago, when a learned barrister was defending a prisoner whom I was prosecuting, his eloquence was at a loss for a better argument, and therefore in addressing the jury, he charged me with having falsely instructed counsel! his client was convicted, and thus the jury showed their sense of the value of the charge. I was then so young that 1 knew not how slight was the insult conveyed by such professional attacks; but being my opponent's equal in all the adventitious circumstances of education and social position, and somewhat his superior in birth and connexion, I resented the supposed affront by giving him my card. I cannot describe my amazement, when instead of receiving the hint in silence he tossed it from him with an air of affected indifference, saying, "I throw it back with contempt; " but taking especial care at the same time to fix the attention of the judge on this daring violation of forensic privilege, so as to avoid the bare possibility of unpleasant consequences. The obliging interposition of Mr. Law, the present recorder, healed my

wounded feelings; or I might have been betrayed by anger into a very disagreeable position. These attacks, however, are, as I have observed, rarely made on solicitors of acknowledged character; nor, in truth, could I quote another such instance towards myself in nearly twenty-five years' acquaintance with the courts; it is because it is almost unique, that I think it worth mentioning. The usual style of insolence is of a very different description: it is a supercilious hauteur that implies total disregard of the attorney, the client, the cause, and the fee. On the latter point, I incline to think that the disregard is entirely assumed, but in all other particulars, it is too natural to be insincere. This is a professional folly that often entails its own punishment, for I have good reason to know that gentlemen of this character always lose business, unless they can command their briefs in spite of the attorneys, and are rarely employed of spontaneous goodwill, but only because our clients will not be satisfied without retaining them. It may be a good policy of our clients, but it is an expensive one; for many a time have I been compelled to employ two leaders when one would

ultra his costs! I hope for the sake of both parties that it was unmerited. Cases like this cannot fail to raise the bile; and more especially when, as in that which I have been mentioning, one feels assured that the proceedings are pressed on merely for costs, against a perfect conviction of their injustice. But it is very rare that we have such fair excuse for our irritability.

We should steadily bear in mind, that after all, we are only the attorneys, not the principals in the cause; it is generally from losing sight of this, that we are betrayed into excitement and ill-will; exactly in proportion as we do lose sight of it, and identify ourselves with our client's feelings, we not only expose ourselves to the risk of quarreling, but incapacitate ourselves from discharging our duty to him with calm and dispassionate judgment. When however, it occurs, as of course it will occasionally, that we are opposed to a man who blusters and writes angry letters, the same course should be taken as with the affidavit-monger-avoid all personal interviews, and write your replies as laconically as is consistent with courtesy; a long letter, unless confined to simple explana

tion, will rarely produce peace; and it is an excellent maxim that I learnt from one of the most honorable and respected men in the profession, Mr. Greaves, never to answer an angry communication, till it has lain four-and-twenty desk.

hours on your

Whenever I see an attorney bristling up his quills in porcupine fashion, before any body thinks of attacking him, I always write him down an ass, unless his juvenile appearance can plead inexperience in behalf of ignorance: ours is of necessity a rough profession in many of its encounters, and we must expect rough knocks in it, and learn to bear them; but I deprecate our needlessly provoking each other to inflict them, and I am convinced, that by following the principles I have suggested, many a blow may be saved, and the disposition to give the blow often restrained.

While I sincerely believe that there are very many in the profession with whom we may safely trust ourselves in frank discussion of the merits of our case, with a view to avoid expense and possibility to put an end to threatened litigation, I am compelled to say as a general rule, that it is by no means prudent to enter

into any irregular correspondence, either by letter or in person, even to restore peace. I wish it were otherwise, for I am convinced that justice might often be done between contending parties, without law and at little costs, if their respective solicitors could place that confidence in each other which would insure an honest overture being received with equal cordiality. It is clear that every difference involving no legal question, can only arise from a misunderstanding on facts, or from irritation of temper; and all experienced attorneys are well aware that not one case in fifty brought under our notice, will be found to turn upon a new point of law, or upon such nice distinctions of circumstance as to take it out of an acknowledged principle. Where error as to fact, or excitement of temper involves men of respectability in a controversy about their respective rights, how easy is it for a clear-headed attorney to get at the truth by a little open conversation with his opponent, if that opponent will only meet him with the same laudable purpose of setting the parties right! nor, if I may judge from my own experience, is this conciliatory disposition a losing game in the