"This may be all well, if the advocate let it be so understood. But if in pleading he assert his belief that his cause is just when he believes it unjust, he offends against truth, as any other man would do who in like manner made a like assertion. "Every man, when he advocates a case in which morality is concerned, has an influence upon his hearers, which arises from the belief that he shares the moral sentiments of all mankind. This influence of his supposed morality is one of his possessions, which, like all his possessions, he is bound to use for moral ends. If he mix up his character as an advocate with his character as a moral agent, using his moral influence for the advocate's purpose, he acts immorally. He makes the moral rule subordinate to the professional rule. He sells to his client not only his skill and learning, but himself. He makes it the supreme object of his life to be not a good man, but a successful lawyer. "There belong to him, moreover, moral ends which regard his profession; namely, to make it an institution fitted to promote morality. To raise and purify the character of the profession, so that it may answer the ends of justice without requiring insincerity in the advocate, is a proper end for a good man who is a lawyer; a purpose on which he may well and worthily employ his efforts and influence."[19] Nothing need be added to enforce what has been so well said. The remark, however, may be permitted, that the expression of private opinion as to the merits of a controversy often puts the counsel at fearful odds. A young man, unknown to the court or the jury, is trying his first case against a veteran of standing and character: what will the asseveration of the former weigh against that of the latter? In proportion, then, to the age, experience, maturity of judgment, and professional character of the man, who falsely endeavors to impress the court and jury with the opinion of his confidence in the justice of his case, in that proportion is there danger that injury will be done and wrong inflicted--in that proportion is there moral delinquency in him who resorts to it. Much interest was excited some years ago in England, by the circumstances attending the defence of Courvoisier, indicted for the murder of Lord William Russell. The crime was one of great atrocity. It came out after his conviction, that during the trial he had confessed his guilt to his counsel, of whom the eminent barrister Charles Phillips, Esq., was one. Mr. Phillips was accused of having endeavored, notwithstanding this confession, to fasten suspicion on the other servants in the house, to induce the belief that the police had conspired with them to manufacture evidence against the prisoner, and to impress the jury with his own personal belief in the innocence of his client. How far these accusations were just in point of fact was the subject of lively discussion in the newspapers and periodicals of the time.[20]