Lawyers' Bags (Vol. vii. passim).—The communication of Mr. Kersley, in p. 557., although it does not support the inference which Col. Landman draws, that the colour of lawyers' bags was changed in consequence of the unpopularity which it acquired at the trial of Queen Caroline, seems to show that green was at one time the colour of those professional pouches. The question still remains, when and on what occasion it was discontinued; and when the purple, and when the crimson, were introduced?
When I entered the profession (about fifty years ago), no junior barrister presumed to carry a bag in the Court of Chancery, unless one had been presented to him by a king's counsel; who, when a junior was advancing in practice, took an opportunity of complimenting him on his increase of business, and giving him his own bag to carry home his papers. It was then a distinction to carry a bag, and a proof that a junior was rising
in his profession. I do not know whether the same custom prevailed in the other courts.
Causidicus.
In this city (Philadelphia) lawyers formerly carried green bags. The custom has declined of late years among the members of the legal profession, and it has been taken up by journeymen boot and shoe makers, who thus carry their work to and from the workshop. A green bag is now the badge of a cordwainer in this city.
Philadelphia.
Bust of Luther (Vol. viii., p. 335.).—Mr. J. G. Fitch asks for information respecting a bust of Luther, with an inscription, on the wall of a house, in the Dom Platz at Frankfort on the Maine. I have learned, through a German acquaintance, who has resided the greater part of his life in that city, that the effigy was erected to commemorate the event of Luther's having, during a short stay in Frankfort, preached near that spot; and that the words surrounding the bust were his text on the occasion. He adds that Luther at no period of his life "lived for some years" at Frankfort, as stated by Mr. Fitch.
Alfred Smith.
Grammar in relation to Logic (Vol. viii., pp. 514. 629.).—H. C. K.'s remarks are of course indisputable. But it is a mistake to suppose that they answer my Query. In fact, had your correspondent taken the trouble to consider the meaning of my Query, he could not have failed to perceive that the explanation I there gave of the function of the conjunction in logic, is the same as his. My Query had sole reference to grammar. I would also respectfully suggest that anonymous correspondents should not impute "superficial views," or any other disagreeable thing, to those who stand confessed, without abandoning the pseudonym.