7 SEPTEMBER 1867, Page 7

QUARTER SESSIONS.

AMONG the many suggestions made at and after the last Assizes for diminishing the amount of business which weighed so heavily on judges, sheriffs, petit jurors, and grand jurors, one in particular was offered which opens up a wider question. Whenever there is a pressure of small civil cases, we hear of the excellence of the County Courts. A Lan- cashire grand jury which groaned under the burden of small criminal cases, made a presentment to the effect that the great bulk of them might well be sent to Quarter Sessions. The Recorder of Liverpool has just alluded to this sugges- tion, and it will no doubt be clutched at greedily by all whom it 'would tend to relieve. When we read that on the Northern Circuit this summer almost twenty causes were left standing over at Manchester, and a great many were either settled or referred to arbitration at Liverpool, and that the 'criminal business at the latter place "would have occupied one judge for at least three weeks, if he had not obtained the assistance of one of the Queen's Counsel to try some of the prisoners," we see that there is a pressing need of reform, while we remember that one if not two Assizes must pass without its being accomplished. Yet the relief that can be given by Quarter Sessions as they are at present constituted, is not such as to make any perceptible difference. If the grand juries complain that many cases which might ba sent to the Sessions are sent to the Assizes, the barristers com- plain that difficult points of law are too often referred to country gentlemen and Recorders who have no prac- tice. The list of offences which can be tried at Quarter Sessions is strictly limited by statute, and it is not worth while making a statutory change for the sake of so small an advantage. It may be well enough to relieve the two Assizes which will be held before Parliament has well settled down to its next year's work. But if any scheme is to be submitted to that Parliament, it must be far wider than the one proposed by the Lancashire grand jury ; and even if this scheme were sufficiently large, there would be reason to question its wisdom. We have no wish to enter into the history or theory of Quarter Sessions. It seems to us that history and theory are constantly to blame for the preservation of useless and mis- chievous institutions, and that if people looked to the working of every part of a system, instead of to the relation each part might have been originally intended to bear to the whole, they would put fewer obstacles in the way of reform, and would not be so ready to object to efficiency. The question for us is whether the mode of trying those whose offences cannot be dealt with by summary conviction, and are not sufficiently grave to be remanded to the Assizes, is good or bad ; whether it insures them that excessive fairness granted them by the law, or extends the limits of that privilege unduly by not regarding the claims of justice. These questions are not answered by a reference to the wisdom of our ancestors, and by learned quotations from Coke and Blackstone. What may have been effective then may now be antiquated. What may have been out of the power of our ancestors may be easy to their descendants. The ancient rights which had to be defended against the Crown may have no meaning now that the Government has passed into the hands of the people. The local interests which had to be consulted may have merged in larger interests, as old boundaries are virtually swept away by the increased facilities of travel. It is certain that many of these changes have been made, and have greatly affected all the relations of town and country. Some of the old capitals are secondary, stagnant places, while the energy and importance of their counties have migrated to new manufac- turing centres. No good is done by ignoring such changes, or by waiting to recognize them till they are almost matters of history. We ought to be ready to discard any part of the machine of Government which time and change have rendered useless ; to transfer its operation to the place where it is needed, or adapt it to the circumstances which have been altered. If this was done with Quarter Sessions, there might be an excuse for enlarging their sphere of action. But at present there is an inequality in the system which forbids our adding to its functions, and the working of the sessions gene- rally is by no means satisfactory. We do not object to some distinction being made between counties and boroughs, for it might be unwise to try a rural population before a civic tribunal, or to bring town offenders into the country. But why should misdemeanours that are committed within the boundaries of a borough be tried before a practised lawyer, while felonies committed a .short distance off are brought before a bench of country magistrates And Why should the offenders of a county be judged by their own landlords, while a small county town pays some 401. to a barrister to come down and make a gaol delivery ? It may happen that the Chairman of County Sessions is a good lawyer, while the Recorder of some borough has been appointed by favouritism, and knows nothing. But the chairman is more likely to be a worthy squire, a zealous agriculturist, an admirable silent member, and a perfect gentleman. He forms his opinion of cases from their merits. He knows the character of the accused, and does not feel much difficulty in making up his mind as to the inherent probability of the charge. He is aware that the counsel on either side make speeches which are meant to impress the jury, but which, as a rule, may be said studiously to avoid having any reference to the general facts of the case. He therefore pays little attention to the speeches, whatever regard he may give to the evidence. As for stopping a counsel who " opens " what is mere hearsay, that is the part of the other counsel, and it does not always occur to the chairman that the prisoner may be undefended. But the part of the chairman's duty which is most apt to be shirked is the summing up, and though in this respect some of the judges are lamentably weak, that is no excuse for the total failure of their lieutenants. A Chairman of Quarter Sessions will sometimes content himself with telling the jury that if they believe the prosecutor's story they must convict, if they believe the defence they must acquit, the prisoner. We may fairly presume that the jury knew that already. What they want is to have the power of comparing both stories, not in the form of detached answers, not overlaid with cross-questions and argumentative fluency. The one most important thing in a trial is to keep the jury from deciding on the ground of sympathy. It is for this reason that judges are so careful to exclude all that is not evidence, because it might help the jury to a conclusion which the law would not warrant. But if you have a judge who is not very certain about evidence, and who cannot sum up the facts which are both material and properly ascertained, the trial becomes a toss-up, and the counsel who speaks last is pretty sure of the verdict. According to the principles of English law, even this carelessness is better'than directing the jury. The judge ought not to express his opinion in such a way as to influence the decision of the twelve men who are to pronounce on the question of fact. Yet the neglect of the one duty is likely to entail a breach of the other, and a chair- man who does not lay the whole case before the jury is often tempted to let them see what he thinks of the point in issue. We have heard of one who summed up a case as follows :— " Gentlemen of the jury, the prosecutor states that the pri- soner stole his watch ; the prisoner says that she was living with the prosecutor, and that be gave it her. It is.for you to decide which of these accounts is the true one. If you think the prisoner is not guilty, you will acquit her ; if you believe the prosecutor's story, you will convict her ; but I can only say I don't believe a word of it." Of course the jury came to the same conclusion. Under the circumstances, this was probably justice. It was not law.

We do not pretend that Recorders are infallible, but at all events they have gone through some professional training. If their numbers were diminished, their sphere enlarged, and their salaries increased, they would become more prominent and more open to criticism ; their posts would be competed for by better men, and they would furnish a sort of prepara- tory school for the judicial bench. At present there are a great many Recorders of small boroughs, who sit four days in the year and receive a salary of 401. The first Recorder in the kingdom, both in merit and emolument, is the Recorder of London, with a salary of 3,0001. a year, and the reputation of being the best criminal judge in England. Manchester, we believe, pays its Recorder 8001., and Liverpool, 525/. ; the other large towns scarcely rise above 300/. ; and one borough returns its Recorder's salary as " 2/. 2s., paid by the Mayor out of his own pocket." There seems no reason why Recorders should exist in all boroughs, or why they should be confined to boroughs. If no other change is made in the system of Sessions, the Chairman of the County Sessions might be replaced by a paid lawyer, whatever title was conferred upon him. But as the same judge holds assizes for city and county, why should not the Recorder of a borough sit in two Courts, and transact the whole business of the district ? Some such arrangement, we believe, exists in Ireland. The Chairman of Quarter Sessions receives a salary, and the sessions have a civil jurisdiction. If such a system was introduced in England many of the present objections would be answered. The County Courts have not given satisfaction, and the wish that is ascribed to the Lord Chancellor of transferring more business to them is an aggravation of the old complaint. Yet the business increases so fast that it is not enough to hold three assizes in the year at the most important places, and the London lists are full enough already, without being swelled by contributions from the country. Moreover, the expense of bringing up wit- nesses to London, or of keeping them in the assize towns from the commission day till the close, is a heavy tax on suitors, and might be avoided. One reason why the County Courts are insufficient is, that the best men will not debar themselves from the hope of future advancement by settling down on 1,500/. a year. But a Recorder need not be contented with what he has attained already, and is neither tempted to shirk his duties nor to confine himself to their execution. His post brings him business, if he had none before, and if he does that business well he becomes known to a still wider circle. By removing County Court business from the channels in which it is apt to stagnate, or rather by sending a fresh running stream through those channels, and by placing the civil and criminal business of the country under one jurisdiction, we shall do away with some of that legal confusion which is the cause of so much delay and expense to the public. By enlisting the most conspicuous lawyers in the service of the country, we may render it more difficult for the Governments of the day to repay political fidelity by sudden advancement. We may have a graduated scale of rewards for merit, instead of a few brilliant prizes, and a mass of paltry distinctions. It is not certain that country magistrates would object to be relieved from responsibilities which are too heavy for them, and duties which only cause dissatisfaction. They would still take their places on the bench, and would do so with a clearer conscience if they sat as county magnates, and had not to play at being judges. Advice and experience would still come worthily from their lips. The feelings of the county may influence a sentence, though they are out of place in the summing up, and in the charge to the grand jury. But so long as we have unpaid tribunals interpreting a law which it requires a Life to study, we may be sure that feeling will prevail over judgment, and the natural instincts of justice will be more powerful than the tests by which the law decides between suspicion and certainty.