together in one place, they would not find work for two judges throughout the year. I do not, however, propose such a step. As regards the country causes it would be uneconomical and unjust; though not so much so as the present system. What I would sug gest is that one judge should be engaged day by day in trying the 1,150 London causes, which, according to the average just now given, would last him exactly a year at the rate of three causes and two-thirds a day. The judge could be changed as often as necessary, but one should always be at work. Causes would thus be tried soon after they were set down, and suitors would seldom have to wait longer than a day, and neither the court nor the suitors would often have to complain of the absence of the counsel engaged; an evil inseparable from the present mode of doing business, in which several judges are sitting at one time in different rooms in the same building.

As regards the criminal business which is now done at the Old Bailey, I need not quote figures to show that a judge sitting about one day a week throughout the year could easily go through all that now falls to the lot of the judges of the superior courts.

Next, as regards the business done on circuit, which is partly civil and partly criminal. The number of causes tried at the assizes during the year are, as was said before, 1,000; and the number of prisoners in 1861, were 3,623; a considerable increase over the preceding years. Taking these figures, however, we have eleven causes and forty-three prisoners per month to each circuit; and, if this business could be done every month by one judge, he would only be occupied about twelve days. The causes, according to the statistics, would occupy three days, and, judging by one's general experience, the forty-three prisoners, of whom a good many would be tried together, would occupy eight days. Add a day for travelling, and each month's work in the country would be done by one judge on an average in twelve days.

Having spoken of the trial of civil and criminal causes, whether in London or the country, and of the business at chambers, it only remains to mention the full court. The three courts now sit at the same time for four periods of three weeks each, unequally distributed over the year. Each sits for 84 days. The three together for 252 days, or 36 weeks, not quite five days a week throughout the year. There are also usually sittings of no great length after term. But, considering how often it happens in term that the courts have to rise before the end of the day for lack of work, there is no doubt but that their work could be done by one court composed of four judges, who should sit about five days in the week throughout the year.

Under this plan, then, we have the fifteen judges distributed as follows:-There would only be work every day for two, one sitting to try causes, and one sitting at chambers; and during five days in the week there would be work for four sitting in the full court. The other nine would be employed as follows:-One would sit for

one day a week at the Central Criminal Court, seven would sit for six days a week for two weeks at one or two towns in the several circuit districts, and one would be entirely at leisure.

By this arrangement each would be at leisure for more than half the year, as the following table

will show :

I have taken pains to give these figures, because, whenever a complaint is made that the public is ill-served by the courts, it is so often accompanied by a cry for the appointment of more judges.

There are weighty objections to any such increase, apart from its being unnecessary. Not merely would it be undesirable to add to the £700,000 now annually spent in judicial salaries and pensions, but there would be reason to fear that a large number of men capable of preserving the present character of the law could not be easily supplied, even from a body so abounding with talent as the English Bar.

And here I must advert to an objection which I may look forward to as likely to be made to the system which I propose, and which, in fact, has been made to it when put forward elsewhere. It may be said that the system which I advocate would deprive the lawyer

I have not reckoned for the attendances in the Exchequer Chamber, the Court for the consideration of Crown Cases reserved, and the House of Lords. These attendances, however, are not very lengthy or frequent; and, per contra, I have reckoned as if four judges always sat in the full court, though, in fact, three is the more common number, thus making an addition of 260 days, which is more than would be occupied by the attendances above mentioned.

of his long vacation. Now, even if this were strictly true, I believe that lawyers would continue to exist, and would be just as good lawyers though they had no long vacation; and, if that be so, the benefit to the public would decide the question.

But a little examination will show that this is an objection of words only. It is true there would not be a fixed and compulsory long vacation for every one. There would be no period of three months' duration in which no lawyer could assist a litigant, however much both parties might desire it. Suits, being by nature things capable of arising at any time, and recourse to the courts being a thing likely to be necessary at any time, there would be no time at which such suits and such recourse could not be had. There would be no time at which lawyers, both on and off the bench, would stand idle. But is it desirable that there should be such a time? Peter having converted to his own use Paul's waggon and horses, does the fact of the offence having been committed between hay-time and harvest, furnish any reason why the injured party should have his remedy postponed? Again. Does it follow, because the courts would be always at work, that every individual practitioner should always be at work? It is not so in other professions; why should it be so with the lawyers? As regards the judges, it has been shown that it would not be so. And what reason is there why the barrister and the attorney should not take their holidays on the same terms and subject to the same losses and risks as the physician, the journalist, and the artisan? These people do not find it necessary to be all climbing mountains together. To the profession in general the proposed system would in fact be beneficial as conducing to the wider distribution of the business, which, under the present system, is monopolised by those who have acquired a prominent position.

To return, then, to the principal matter in hand. In our police courts we hear of no delay, vexation, or expense, and yet it would be easy, by following the example of the superior courts, to give rise to these evils. The reason why no one is dissatisfied with these courts is that they sit day by day. In the county courts again we find no such complaints; and why? Because justice is administered there at short intervals, and no cause has longer than a month to wait, and the precise day of hearing is always notified to the parties. Why should the superior courts yield to the inferior in those qualities of cheapness and dispatch which so much enhance the value of justice?

In conclusion, let me remind the Department that, though the evils which I have pointed out are more severely felt by the public than by the lawyers, yet it is the lawyer only who can trace them to their source and supply a remedy for them. And to do this, I cannot help regarding as one of the most urgent duties which the lawyer owes to the public, and one which the public expects to be performed by the lawyers and by gentlemen such as those who form a large portion of this Association.

CRIMINAL LAW.

The Deterrent Influence of Capital Punishment. By THOMAS BEGGS, F.S.S., Honorary Secretary to the Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment.

THATEVER may be the general opinion as to the expediency of retaining upon the statute book the punishment of death, there will be no question as to the importance of the inquiry upon which the Commission appointed by Her Majesty during the last session of Parliament is about to enter. Those who have read the calendar of crime for the last ten years will, I think, arrive at the conclusion, that if the extreme penalty be retained, there must be some alteration as to the mode and manner of its administration. It is confessedly defeating its purpose. A painful feeling pervades the community that the law is not carried out with firmness, while among the humbler classes, an opinion has obtained that exceptions are made in favour of the richer at the expense of the poorer criminals. I need scarcely say, that the efficiency of the law depends almost entirely upon the public confidence in the law itself, and upon the integrity of its administrators. Without that confidence, it becomes not so much a terror to evil doers, as an object of distrust and suspicion to those who desire to do well. Some cases, to which I shall have more particularly to allude, have tended to nurture the uneasiness which has been growing for many years past. Sometimes there is much difficulty in securing the conviction on a trial for murder, while in other cases, it becomes almost impossible to execute the sentence; and in some instances of imputed or supposed insanity, an unfortunate collision has taken place between the highest legal and medical authorities. Under these circumstances the law is deprived of much of its dignity and power, while an impunity is offered to crime, by diminishing the chances of conviction, and increasing the chances of escape after a conviction has been secured. It is necessary to look these things fairly in the face, with the view of effecting such changes as will bring public opinion into greater harmony with the law. It is important, moreover, to inquire whether the difficulties are not inherent in the law itself, and whether they do not arise from the nature of the punishment it provides. I believe that this is the conclusion to which a fair investigation will lead. If, however, a contrary conclusion be arrived at, then we must reconcile ourselves to a sad necessity, and try to remove the anomalies which attend the execution of the law. It is clear that we must renounce the punishment of death altogether, or enforce it with a stronger and a firmer hand.

I believe the labours of the Commission will lead to valuable results, in directing public attention to the proper points of inquiry; by collecting and systematising much evidence that lies scattered abroad, and by condensing into one report the opinions of the most eminent jurists in all parts of the world. With a humble

hope that I may in some way be able to assist the inquiry I have ventured to bring the subject before this Association.

In doing this it is very satisfactory to find that the ground of debate has been much narrowed of late years. It would be idle now to reply to those who were wont to taunt the advocates of the abolition of capital punishment with a maudlin sentimentalism. A single sentence will suffice to say that our respect for human life is as great, and our sympathy with the murderer just as little, as that of the stoutest advocate of death punishment. There are many grounds upon which the demand for abolition is preferred, but I may frankly say that my objection to capital punishment is not founded upon the abstract sacredness of life. I concede at once the perfect right of a community to take the life of the murderer, if by that means the lives of its citizens are rendered more secure.

I object to a spirit of retaliation or vengeance being made an element in any kind of punishment, but would place in the hands of the civil magistrate, the most ample and extreme powers of punishment where the safety of human life is concerned. This I apprehend ought to be the highest object of legislation. If capital punishment does not secure this end, then its retention is a mistake and a cruelty.

Much need not be said on the demoralisation attendant upon public executions. The suggestion made in so many quarters that criminals should be executed in private, is a confession that the scaffold has entirely failed as an example, and that the spectacle is injurious to the crowds who witness it. One word as to private executions. The open profligacy would be prevented, but what I regard as the greater mischief would remain. The moment any circumstance of horror is surrounded by a shade of mystery, that morbid curiosity which prevails in a greater or less degree among all classes of men, is increased and intensified. One of the strongest evidences of a deplorably low taste among the people, is the avidity with which the papers are bought up which contain the account of any particular atrocity, and those which give the most minute details command the largest sales. This unfortunate excitement will always exist as to the crime and the criminal, but I fear that it would be much greater as to his final end, if an air of privacy or secresy was thrown over it. The accounts which are given in the newspapers of the conduct of the condemned up to the time of execution, circulate over every part of the kingdom, and by covering a larger ground do much more mischief than that which takes place at the foot of the gallows. If executions were carried out in private, there would be quite as much excitement among the readers of these accounts, whilst the privacy would encourage all kinds of suspicions and conjectures. In some cases there would be a suspicion that the execution had not been carried out. It was, I remember, gravely asserted in a newspaper some years ago that Fauntleroy had not been executed, and this most improbable statement was credited by many. If such a suspicion could be entertained in a case where many thousands had witnessed the