apologized for not appearing in full forensic costume. His lordship said he had set the example of leaving off the wig in conse quence of the unprecedented heat of the weather, as he thought there were limits to human endurance. Sir Robert Collier ex pressed a wish that this precedent might be generally followed, and hoped that the ob solete institution of the wig was coming to an end, — a hope in which many members of the bar heartily concur." Twenty-two years have passed away since this delightful scene occurred in the Court of Probate and Divorce, and the example of Sir J. P. Wilde and the hope of Sir Robert Collier remain unfollowed and unfulfilled. The greatest iconoclast that has appeared on the bench since that interesting occasion is Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, who ap peared in the vacation court the other day with his breast unadorned by bands. So far from proposing to put an end to " the ob solete institution of the wig," barristers fre quently discuss the various theories that have been started in explanation of its origin. What a standing subject for debate is the lapel, the little triangular piece of stuff which hangs from the back of a junior's gown! What learned statements respecting this mysterious bag-like appendage we have heard from the lips of young advocates, whose antiquarian researches are illumined with the ruby light of a glass of wine! There are two great theories connected with the lapel, and each has its advocates, who never fail to fight with enthusiasm. It is contended on one side that the lapel is a diminutive representation of the hood which barristers wore before the introduction of wigs and hats, the hood being fastened to the gown in order that it might not be lost when taken oft" in court. It is argued by the opponents of this view that the lapel is a wallet. It is divided, as our readers know, into two compartments, one of which is open, and the other enclosed. It is capable of hold ing small articles, such as money; and this is the object that the exponents of the
wallet view perceive in it. In the olden times barristers were supposed to give their services gratuitously. They were above the guineas for which their successors fight; in a literal sense, they were above price. But the suitor who enjoyed the services of one of these high-minded advocates invariably slipped an honorarium into the little bag be hind his back; and we can readily imagine the eagerness felt by this great-souled prac titioner to take off his gown in his chambers and see what sum had been put in. Such is the interminable discussion that rages among antiquarian lawyers respecting what, after all, is a very little thing. But the whole gown is the subject of dispute. Everybody who has been inside a court of law has doubtless wondered why a junior's gown differs so widely in shape from other legal robes. The gowns of judge, Q. C.'s, solicitors, and ushers are, except so far as material is concerned, alike. They all have the square flaps by the neck and the hang ing sleeves by the side; and it is concluded from the similarity of the gowns worn by these four different officials that their gowns are the truly legal ones, and that the junior's gown has come from the Universities, in which surmise there is probably much truth. However, it is quite clear that silk gowns have long been appropriated to ap pointments under the crown, which explains the silk attire of judges and Q. C.'s. About the head -gear of the higher branch of the profession less mystery prevails. F"or instance, the full-bottomed wigs, of which there is such an imposing array in the courts, were the full-dress wigs of all gentlemen in the time of Charles II., to whom belongs the honor of introducing them into England. At one time, too, jun iors encased their heads in them. Kettleby, the barrister immortalized in Hogarth's works, was the last junior to wear one. Since his time custom has confined fullbottomed wigs to the occupants of the bench and the leaders of the bar, — a fact for which juniors have every reason to be thankful;
