The one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself.  There is no other principle distinctly, certainly, and consistently maintained through all its narrow turnings.  Viewed by this light it becomes a coherent scheme and not the monstrous maze the laity are apt to think it.  Let them but once clearly perceive that its grand principle is to make business for itself at their expense, and surely they will cease to grumble.

But not perceiving this quite plainly—­only seeing it by halves in a confused way—­the laity sometimes suffer in peace and pocket, with a bad grace, and do grumble very much.  Then this respectability of Mr. Vholes is brought into powerful play against them.  “Repeal this statute, my good sir?” says Mr. Kenge to a smarting client.  “Repeal it, my dear sir?  Never, with my consent.  Alter this law, sir, and what will be the effect of your rash proceeding on a class of practitioners very worthily represented, allow me to say to you, by the opposite attorney in the case, Mr. Vholes?  Sir, that class of practitioners would be swept from the face of the earth.  Now you cannot afford—­I will say, the social system cannot afford—­to lose an order of men like Mr. Vholes.  Diligent, persevering, steady, acute in business.  My dear sir, I understand your present feelings against the existing state of things, which I grant to be a little hard in your case; but I can never raise my voice for the demolition of a class of men like Mr. Vholes.”  The respectability of Mr. Vholes has even been cited with crushing effect before Parliamentary committees, as in the following blue minutes of a distinguished attorney’s evidence.  “Question (number five hundred and seventeen thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine):  If I understand you, these forms of practice indisputably occasion delay?  Answer:  Yes, some delay.  Question:  And great expense?  Answer:  Most assuredly they cannot be gone through for nothing.  Question:  And unspeakable vexation?  Answer:  I am not prepared to say that.  They have never given me any vexation; quite the contrary.  Question:  But you think that their abolition would damage a class of practitioners?  Answer:  I have no doubt of it.  Question:  Can you instance any type of that class?  Answer:  Yes.  I would unhesitatingly mention Mr. Vholes.  He would be ruined.  Question:  Mr. Vholes is considered, in the profession, a respectable man?  Answer:”—­which proved fatal to the inquiry for ten years—­“Mr. Vholes is considered, in the profession, a most respectable man.”

So in familiar conversation, private authorities no less disinterested will remark that they don’t know what this age is coming to, that we are plunging down precipices, that now here is something else gone, that these changes are death to people like Vholes—­a man of undoubted respectability, with a father in the Vale of Taunton, and three daughters at home.  Take a few steps more in this direction, say they, and what is to become of Vholes’s father?  Is he to perish?  And of Vholes’s daughters?  Are they to be shirt-makers, or governesses?  As though, Mr. Vholes and his relations being minor cannibal chiefs and it being proposed to abolish cannibalism, indignant champions were to put the case thus:  Make man-eating unlawful, and you starve the Vholeses!