It has been said that he did do so.

As far as we know, he abandoned the intention.

We have no trace of his speech, and no allusion in history to an occurrence which would certainly have been mentioned.[186] But there was _no_ reason why he should not have done so.

He defended Fonteius, and I am quite willing to own that he knew Fonteius to have been a robber.

When I look at the practice of our own times, I find that thieves and rebels are defended by honorable advocates, who do not scruple to take their briefs in opposition to their own opinions.