“In the sixteenth century, and for some generations previous, it was customary for clients to provide food and drink for their counsel. Here is an extract from a bill of costs made in the reign of Edward IV.--‘For a breakfast at Westminster spent on our counsel, 1_s._ 6_d._; for boat hire in and out and a breakfast for two days, 1_s._ 6_d._’ Another item, from the parish books of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, runs thus--Also paid to Roger Fylpott, learned in the law, for his counsel given 3_s._ 8_d._, with 4_d._ for his dinner.... When Sir Thomas Moore lived in Bucklersbury, he ‘gained, without grief, not so little as 400_l._ by the year. Considering the relative profits of the Bar, and the value of money,’ says Lord Campbell, ‘this income probably indicated as high a station as 10,000_l._ a year at the present day.’ In the reign of James I., the nominal salaries paid to the judges and Crown lawyers were extremely low; their real incomes were derived from certain fees which had to be paid into Court before any suitor could obtain a hearing. ‘Francis Bacon,’ says Mr. Hepworth Dixon, ‘valued his place as Attorney-General at 6,000_l._ a year, of which the King paid him only 81_l._ 6_s._ 8_d._.’ Mr. Dixon goes on to mention several similar instances, adding, ‘Yet each of these great lawyers had given up a lucrative practice at the Bar. After their promotion to the Bench they lived in good houses, kept princely state, gave dinners and masques, made presents to the King, accumulated goods and lands.’ Sir Edward Coke had made a still larger income as Attorney-General, the fees from his private and official practice amounting to 7,000_l._ in a single year.... We confess ourselves unable to reconcile such figures as these with Lord Campbell’s statement about Sir Thomas Moore. Either within a hundred years the value of money had enormously declined, or Coke was making an income far exceeding anything attainable at the present day. In his survey of the state of England in 1685, Lord Macaulay says:--‘A thousand a year was thought a large income for a barrister; 2,000_l._ a year was hardly to be made in the Court of King’s Bench, except by Crown lawyers.’ Mr. Jeaffreson (in his _Book about Lawyers_) impugns the accuracy of this statement, holding that the former part of it is based on a passage in _Pepys’s Diary_. As long ago as 1668, the Admiralty was a favourite target for Parliamentary orators to shoot at, and Mr. Pepys, after priming himself with good liquor, made such a spirited speech in behalf of his department that his friends complimented him hugely, assuring him that if he would but put on a gown and plead at the Chancery Bar, he could not get less than 1,000_l._ a year. We see nothing to complain of in this portion of Lord Macaulay’s statement, especially as Mr. Jeaffreson himself adds in a note, ‘Among advocates in Charles II’s reign, a professional income of a thousand a year signified a practice and popularity that placed a