"My dear Briefless,—In reply to your letter, 'No, I certainly was not joking.' It is true that we four had got to the third bottle of our after-dinner port; but in that admission I see no reason for assuming that our intellectual faculties had failed us. No; I shall be only too pleased if the proposed Testimonial should become an accomplished fact. To put it tersely, if Athletics are to be rewarded, why should Learning wait? Yours sincerely, ——."
I purposely omit the signature—an influential one—as I have no desire to bring undue pressure to bear in a cause so purely personal to myself. I need scarcely say that a Testimonial, even when it takes the shape preferred by Mr. Micawber, is highly gratifying. But when the matter was first broached, I had serious doubts whether I would maintain the dignity of the Bar if I became a party to the proceedings that would bring it to a successful issue. This being so, I have little hesitation in laying before you this case and opinion. The first—at request—was prepared by myself; the latter was appended by a Counsel whose name, if revealed, would carry great weight, not only with lawyers but the community at large.
Case.
It is proposed to give Mr. A. Briefless, Jun., a Testimonial, which it is intended shall take the shape of a bag of money, in consideration of his services to the Bar. It is in contemplation that this money shall be collected from the human race in general, and the British public in particular. It may be suggested—not that the contention has as yet arisen—that there is something derogatory in a Barrister-at-Law receiving pecuniary assistance from persons other than those of his kith and kin. Mr. A. Briefless, Jun., although enjoying a very considerable practice as things go—he has held no less than three consent briefs during the last five years—is not very wealthy, and it must be admitted that a grant would not be an unwelcome incident in his career. For all that he would shrink from doing anything that might be considered derogatory to his title of "esquire"—a distinction that he not only holds as his father's heir, but by the usage of his office.
You are requested therefore kindly to say—
- 1. Can Mr. A. Briefless, Jun., receive a Testimonial of a bag of money without laying himself open to the charge of being an accessory before and after the fact of an act of maintenance?
- 2. Assuming that there is nothing in the first suggestion, will Mr. A. Briefless, Jun., in accepting the sum of money it is proposed to hand to him, be guilty of an act of contributory negligence, bringing about a loss of dignity to the Bar?
- 3. Should there be nothing in the latter suggestion, is it desirable that, instead of a bag of money, the Testimonial should take the shape of a golden snuff-box, a service of plate, or some equally costly article? It is strongly urged that, if practicable, this course should not be advised, as such articles are invariably embarrassing.
- And to consult and advise generally.
Opinion.
I do not think that the reception of a bag of money by Mr. A. Briefless, Jun., would amount to maintenance. But it would be advisable that the learned gentleman should undertake not to use any of the sum in defraying costs.
As the ancient manner of paying counsel was to drop an honorarium into the bags worn at the back of their robes, I can see nothing derogatory to the profession in Mr. A. Briefless, Jun., accepting the proposed Testimonial.
I do not see that a distinction can be drawn between coins of the realm and their equivalent. Both are equally acceptable. If Mr. A. Briefless. Jun., prefers cash to snuff-boxes, there is no reason why he should not receive the former in preference to the latter.