disinterestedness in the matter of fees, either returning or declining to accept them, at a severe sacrifice of time and labour, after great anxiety and exertion have been bestowed, and successfully bestowed. The rule in question is rigidly adhered to, subject to these exceptions by eminent counsel, on another ground; viz. for the protection of junior counsel, who would be subject to incessant importunities if confronted by the examples of their seniors. Take, now, the case of a counsel who has eclipsed most, if not every one, of his competitors, in reputation, for the skill and success of his advocacy--who is acute, ready, dexterous, sagacious, eloquent, and of accurate and profound legal knowledge: that is the man whose name instantly occurs to any one involved, or likely to be involved, in litigation--such an one must be instantly secured--_at all events, taken from the enemy_--at any cost. The pressure upon such a counsel's time and energies then becomes really enormous, and all but insupportable. As it is of the last importance either to secure his splendid services, or deprive the enemy of them, such a counsel--and such, it need hardly be said, was Sir William Follett--is continually made the subject of mere speculation by clients who are content to take the _chance_ of obtaining his attendance, with the _certainty_ of securing his absence as an opponent. When, however, the hour of battle has arrived, and, with a compact array visible upon the opposite side, the great captain is _not_ where it had been hoped--or thought possible that he might have been--when, moreover, no adequate provision has been made against such a serious contingency--when the battle has been fought and lost, and great interests are seriously compromised, or for ever sacrificed--_then_ the client is apt, in the first smarting agony of defeat, to forget the _chance_ which he had been content to run, and to persuade himself that he had from the first calculated as a matter of _certainty_ on the great man's attendance--and intense is that client's chagrin, and loud are his complaints. Can it be supposed that this eminent counsel is not sufficiently aware of the true state of the case? It is but fair to give him credit for being under the impression, that all which is expected from him, in many cases, is his best exertions to attend the trial or hearing--to provide an effective substitute, if unable to attend--and give due attention to the case at consultation. For counsel to act otherwise, deliberately to receive a brief and fee, in a case which he _knows_ that he cannot possibly attend, without in the first instance fairly intimating as much to the client--to do so, in cases of importance, and habitually--is surely most foully dishonourable, dishonest, and cruel; and conduct which there is no pretence for imputing to the members of the bar. It cannot, however, be denied, that very serious misunderstandings occasionally arise on such occasions; but