arise for discussion; but the suitors will not be ruined by taking the opinion of the courts. There will be an immense increase of business for advocates, but little will remain for special pleaders, equity draughtsmen, and conveyancers. Plain and rational law will ruin them, although it will encourage the people to resort constantly to the tribunals. The judges under the reformed system will receive less than a fourth of their present salaries; and as to the officers of the various courts, who receive enormous emoluments for doing little or nothing, they will be dismissed, and no compensation will be given to them. Some of these men now receive salaries two or three times higher than that of the chief justice of the supreme court of the United States, and the suitors are heavily taxed to pay these salaries.

VI.

An entire reform of the law of debtor and creditor must accompany the introduction of a new judiciary system. We must follow the example set us by the Americans, and abolish imprisonment for debt, except in cases of fraud, abolish distraints for rent, and executions upon household furniture and common necessaries. Cheap justice must not be made a nuisance as it is now too often in the new English county courts, where the poor debtor is almost harassed to death. His bed may be taken to satisfy the judgment of the court; and if that be not sufficient, he is liable to be arrested and thrown into prison. This is irrational and inhuman. In Ohio and most of the other States, all the necessary articles of furniture, clothing, &c. of the debtor, are exempted from execution. His widow and children too are protected to a considerable extent from harsh creditors. A certain allowance is made for their support. The result of this system is that the landed property of the debtor is the principal thing liable to execution, and this is the very property which in England is practically exempted altogether.

Sales of land on execution are very rare in England. One reason is the want of a registry of land-titles, without which the sheriff cannot sell the landed property of the debtor, for it cannot be ascertained how the title stands. The landed aristocracy are, of course, opposed to a registry of deeds.

With respect to distraints for rent, it is absurd to give the landlord the power of judge, jury, and sheriff, all which powers he now exercises, when he levies a distress for the amount of rent which he claims to be due, without advancing any legal proof of the justice of that claim. On that distress he may take even the necessary wearing apparel of his debtor, and in addition to this may seize and sell all the property found upon the premises (with a few exceptions), to whomsoever it may belong. This barbarous right of the landlord class has long been abolished in New York and other States where it formerly existed, but it still flourishes in

England in all its pristine rigour. In England, the landlord may of his own mere authority strip his tenant and debtor of his household furniture and the necessary clothing of himself, his wife, and family; whilst the landlord's property, the land, cannot be reached to satisfy his creditor, who has sued, and duly obtained judgment. Wherever we look, we find the fruits of class government and legislation.

The remedy of the judgment creditor against the freehold land of his debtor is merely nominal; but the judgment lien is sometimes available to the creditor, when the debtor is desirous of selling his lands; and it is also available in case of bankruptcy, or where an application is made for a discharge from prison, under the act for the relief of insolvent debtors. The indebted landowner, not engaged in trade, has only to go abroad, and he can then successfully evade or postpone the payment of his debts. He can usually prevent his creditor from getting judgment; and even when that is obtained, the right to take the lands in execution is, in consequence of the secresy of land titles, practically worthless.

CHAPTER VI.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN AMERICA AND ENGLAND

COMPARED- -(continued.)

I. Salaries of English and American Judges compared-The Officers of the American and English Courts compared.

II. The Exclusive Privileges of Attorneys, Conveyancers, and Barristers-The late Constitution of New York on this subject-English and American Lawyers compared.

III. The English Chancery.

IV. How the due performance of the Duties of Executors, Trustees, &c., is secured in America-Law of Lunacy.

V. The Boasting of English Writers on the Administration of Justice-Political Addresses of the Judges.

VI. Administration of Justice in Ireland.

VII. Law Reforms proposed by Lord Brougham-Their Insufficiency.

I.

In order to keep up what is falsely called the dignity of the judges in England, they are paid enormous salaries, besides being entitled to retiring pensions. The chief justice of the court of queen's bench receives £8,000 per year, the chief justice of the supreme court of the United States £1,200. A county court judge in England has £1,000 per year, double the salary of a judge of the supreme court of New York. The latter performs five times as much work as the former, and requires and possesses five times as much legal knowledge. The American judge often gets too little for his services, but all the English judges have too much. It is argued that very high salaries must be given in England to secure the services of the most talented men. There is no force in that remark; the true object in giving extravagant salaries being to enable the judges to take caste with, and assume the splendour of the aristocracy. Under a proper judiciary system, the emoluments of lawyers would be moderate, and £1,000 per year would be a sufficient salary for the highest legal functionary in England. There would be no retiring pensions, for the judges would be elected to serve for terms of a few years only.

The contrast between the English and American law offices is very great. A clerk with a salary of £200 or £300 per year, with half a dozen assistants at about £100 per year each, suffice, in New York or Cincinnati, to transact more actual business than is transacted by either of the courts at Westminster, with its horde of highly paid officials. The various masters of the common-law courts have incomes varying from £1,200

to upwards of £1,300. Ten registrars in chancery receive sums varying from £1,350 to £3,000 and upwards. Some of the commissioners of bankruptcy get £2,000 each. It has been stated, in the house of commons, that from three to four hundred persons were employed to collect fees in the courts of equity, and that between £300,000 and £400,000 was paid in salaries to the officers of the court of chancery alone; that one individual in that court held a sinecure office of £7,700 per year; another one of £5,496 a year; and that there were numerous others, varying from that sum to £2,000 a year. When an office is abolished, the party holding it is compensated for its loss by an annuity for life; and it is the practice to grant retiring pensions.

II.

It seems to have been the design of the framers of the present constitution of the State of New York, to permit a suitor to select any person in whom he might place confidence, to conduct his case. But the practice is still retained of examining candidates for admission to the bar, although there is now no prescribed period of study. It may be very well to provide that no one shall, in the absence of a special contract, recover for services rendered as a legal adviser, unless he has obtained a diploma; but there is no good reason why the suitor should be subjected to the alternative of either conducting and pleading his own case, or employing any particular class of men to do it for him.

With more plain and simple laws, and a proper judiciary in England, every person ought to have the right to conduct legal proceedings in and out of court. The practical effect of the system would be this: the bulk of the business in each judicial district would soon get into the hands of men far more talented than the present race of practitioners, but far less extravagant in their charges. As to the ignorant brawler, he would not find many opportunities for displaying himself. The really incapable would retire at once, whereas under the present system, having once obtained admission into the profession, and acquired a certain privilege, they do not like to devote themselves to any other pursuit. In New York and many other States, medical practitioners do not absolutely require a license to authorise them to practice. No practical inconvenience is found to result from this, but, on the contrary, great public advantage, as persons of small pecuniary means are able to obtain medical advice and assistance at a moderate rate. In New York, and most if not all of the States, any person may draw up deeds and other instruments, and charge for so doing.

The English attorneys are in the habit of leaving almost everything to counsel, and consequently do not trouble themselves much with the study of law. Special pleadings are drawn by counsel devoted to that particular business; any question of law out of the ordinary course is sub

mitted for the opinion of counsel. Wills and conveyances, which are not of the most simple kind, are drawn by conveyancing counsel. Bills, answers, and pleadings in chancery, are drawn by equity counsel. This system vastly increases the expense of legal proceedings.

The American lawyer, on the other hand, conducts all kinds of cases at common law, in chancery, and in criminal courts; he prepares the pleadings, and performs the part of advocate. In addition to the English precedents and authorities, he has to examine the decisions of the courts of the thirty Republics, as well as those of the Union. Very accomplished lawyers are to be found at the bar and on the bench. T names of Kent and Story have been immortalized by their commentaries. The distinction between attorney and counsel does not generally prevail in America, although it is common for some men of superior ability to be entrusted with the argument of the most important cases, which are prepared for trial by other members of the profession.

In England the counsel divide the labour minutely. One prepares common-law pleadings, another equity pleadings, a third attends to conveyancing, a fourth conducts common-law cases in court, a fifth is engaged in the chancery courts, a sixth in the criminal courts. Very few members of the bar have practice enough to become good lawyers. Some of them act as chairmen or presiding judges at the courts of quarter sessions, and as recorders or judges in borough courts; and practice as advocates. The county court judges also practice as barristers when they can find time to do so; this is a vicious practice. The fact is, that an entirely new and comprehensive judiciary system is imperatively demanded, for whichever way we turn we see nothing but glaring defects and anomalies.

III.

The Court of Chancery.-One cannot help being astonished at the existence in this, the nineteenth century, of the English chancery system, with all its anomalies and deformities. No man is safe from its clutches, and to be clutched is almost certain ruin to the man of moderate means. The most careful man cannot always avoid being dragged into a chancery suit, and thereby overwhelmed with anxiety and costs. For a contempt, as it is called, of this court, a man may be imprisoned for an indefinite period. It is actually treated as a contempt for a man to marry a minor suitor in this court, without the consent of the chancellor.

Lord Brougham, in his recent remarks upon chancery reform, complains chiefly of the proceedings in the masters' offices. Most especially he dwells upon "the indiscriminating reference of matters for enquiry, and the mischiefs that thence result to suitors by delay so endless, that the clerks of some masters being lately examined, have not hesitated to declare that it is wholly in the power of a solicitor, whose interest might