takes his place at the opposite box. They are in full sight of each other, separated by the registrar's desk. There are no written pleadings, but only the names and descriptions of the parties, and the plaintiff's bill, made out like a shop bill, and sworn to. The judge reads over the bill to the plaintiff and examines him upon it, and requires him to tell his story, when and how the contract was made, the goods delivered, and why the bill was not paid. He then asks the defendant if he wishes to examine the plaintiff. Mr. Brown is quite ready to do so, and a series of questions is put and replied to, which developes the real issue quite as well as the best special pleading. Perhaps the very first question by the defendant shows that he has no defence, except as to the mode of payment; or else, that the dispute turns on the value or condition of some of the articles.

"Mr. Lucas, didn't my wife tell you that the pitcher was broken, and that the plates were not worth more than two shillings?"

"Then you admit," says the judge, "that you received all these articles, Mr. Brown?"

"I don't deny that, your honor."

"Have you got them now?"

"Yes, sir."

The judge then intervenes as a day's-man between them, and after a little talk between the parties and the judge, and perhaps an examination of Mrs. Brown, as to the condition of the pitcher and plates, the plaintiff deducts a little from his bill, and takes a judgment by instalments, at £1 10s. per month.

The next case is not contested. The defendant has been duly summoned, but does not appear. Still, judgment is not given by default, but the careful and conscientious judge examines the plaintiff under oath, and if need be, his witnesses, and gives judgment in foro conscientiæ, perhaps, too, by instalments, unless the plaintiff shows that the defendant is well able to pay at once, or is open to a suspicion of absconding, or of concealing property.

Several intermediate cases are rapidly disposed of, there being no defence, or a defence easily yielded to, or easily broken down by a few inquiries; and then comes one of more difficulty, whether certain services were gratuitous or for pay. Both parties and their wives are examined, indeed all of both households. Here again the earnest and unskilful testimony of the wives, and the untutored

questions put by the parties on cross-examination, let much light into the case, and the judge is able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Indeed, with a little watch against irrelevance, the case seems to try itself. The next is a tort, and here it is soon plain enough that an assault was committed, but after a provocation offered, and that it is only a question of damages.

In another case, the defendant owns that he ought to pay the debt, and complains that the plaintiff, being a rich man, has pressed him. This statement, the rich man, who is a grocer at the street corner, denies, and to show his truth, offers a 'large extension of payment by instalments without interest, which the judge advises the defendant to be satisfied with; and judgment is entered accordingly, and both parties go away better satisfied than they came.

Then comes the case of a man who has obtained a judgment some time before, which the defendant does not pay, and a sort of chancery examination is made into the state of the defendant's affairs, on a charge that he has secreted property.

After this fashion, in a session of six hours, from ten o'clock in the morning until four in the afternoon, the learned judged dispatched a trial list which I am quite sure one of our courts, aided by two counsel on each side, and by twelve citizens called from their business on purpose, would have needed as many days to dispose off.

There was but one lawyer in attendance, and he appeared only in two causes, and rather shabbily in those. In one, he cross-examined the plaintiff and his witnesses severely, and when called upon for the defence, had none to offer. His only hope was to break down the plaintiff's case. In the other, he attempted a defence by calling witnesses to some indirect matter; but the judge told him that if he did not call the defendant and his wife, who knew all about the main facts, he would not trouble him to go into an indirect defence. In each case, I am quite sure there would have been no defence but for the attorney, and the only effect of his intervention was that his clients had his services to pay for, and a larger bill of costs adjudged against them.

If the amount at stake exceeds £5, either party may require a jury as matter of right; and the judge may in any case, at his discretion, order a jury, on motion of either party; yet, in no case on the entire docket for this

term, was a jury demanded; and I was told that it is very rarely that one is called, although the jurisdiction of the court extends to £50, which, on a comparison of the condition of the humbler classes in the two countries, is worth more than $250 in America. It would not be just to say that this results solely from greater confidence in a judge's decision. The delay, increased costs, and the expense of counsel which a jury renders almost necessary, also contribute to the result.

I could not but be struck with the evident and decisive advantage of admitting, which ususally amounts to requiring, the testimony of parties. It prevents many suits being brought at all, prevents many defences being attempted, and shortens trials. When this system was introduced, making a revolution in the common law, it was opposed by many of the judges of the superior courts. The last Parliamentary examination showed that twelve of the fifteen judges of the Westminster Courts were satisfied of its advantage, and now, I believe, all doubts are removed. One of the most eminent of these judges told me, at the Cambridge assizes, that he had been the last, or one of the last, to give in to the change; but that the balance of the advantages, as developed by several years experience, was so decidedly in its favor, that nothing would justify a return to the excluding either of parties or interested persons. Mr. Adolphus told me that the practice of admitting wives to testify in their husband's cases was almost essential in a large portion of small contract causes in cities, in which such affairs are often managed by the women solely. Even under the stricter rule of the old law, married women could trade in their own right by the custom of London. He said that the wives were usually biased witnesses, but that beside being often necessary witnesses, their earnest and unskilful testimony usually brought out the truth. One would hesitate long before breaking down entirely the rule of public policy and humanity which secures to the relation of husband and wife the reposal of absolute confidence, even in cases of misconduct. This is often of more importance to society than is the full development of testimony. Nor is it a small matter that the wife is protected against the means a husband may employ to secure or prevent or qualify her testimony, and that he is saved from the temptation. But it cannot be doubted, that in merely civil causes not of momentous interest to the parties, the admission of this testimony works well.

Leaving the court room, I passed into the registrar's office. This presents a scene something between a large collecting attorney's office, and a savings bank, as the court room reminds one of a Probate Court. The course of proceedings is the best explanation of the system.

When a person has a demand for which he wishes the aid of the court, he goes to the registrar's office and presents his bill. The names of the parties and their residences, with a brief memorandum of the case, is entered in the books, after the manner of an attorney's collecting-book. The plaintiff makes an affidavit to his demand, pays a small fee, and goes his way. The registrar files the bill, issues a summons to the defendant, and the bailiff serves it. Payments must be made into the registrar's office. If the defendant pays the debt, or any part of it, it is credited to the plaintiff, and notice is sent to him. If he declines. the tender, or if the defendant makes no tender, and the plaintiff choses to proceed, the case is put on the trial list for a certain day, and the parties notified to be present with their witnesses. When a judgment is rendered, it is entered in these books, and the costs taxed. Each payment made by the defendant, where judgment is by instalments, is duly credited. These small accounts require a good many assistants to the registrar, and the books and business of paying and receiving, remind one of our savings banks. If the defendant fails to pay any instalment, execution may issue for the whole debt; but the registrar of this court, who was a barrister, and a man of character and intelligence, told me that the plaintiffs seldom required it, and found it usually for their interest to extend the time. In the arrangements between parties at this office, the registrar often exercises an advisory jurisdiction.

This system discloses the secret of the non-appearance of attorneys. The provisions requiring the registrar to receive and file the demands in the first instance, and to issue the summons, without formal written pleadings, and requiring that all monies shall be paid to him, whether voluntary payments or on execution, leave nothing for the attorney to do. If not so intended, it yet has had the effect of keeping down a class of practitioners that these courts of large business in small amounts would inevitably have generated. There is nothing to prevent the employment of counsellors, either in advising as to the commencement or prosecution of a claim, or in conducting the trial

and arguing the cause to the court, but attorneys, as such, are not needed; and even counsellors, where there is no jury, no pleadings, small amounts at stake, and an intelligent jurist on the bench, are hardly worth their charges, except in a few peculiar cases. And the judge, somewhat like our Judges of Probate, is expected to be the adviser of both parties.

These County Courts, which are of recent legislative creation, and must not be confounded with the Sheriff's Courts of the old law, were established in the year 1846, by the act of 9 & 10 Victoria, with a jurisdiction to the extent of £20. Being found to work very well, this jurisdiction was raised to £50, and extended over a larger class of causes, by the act of 13 & 14. Victoria. There is a still further enlargement of their jurisdiction over classes of causes, though not of the limit of pecuniary value, in the act of this year.

As the courts now stand, their chief characteristics are the following:

Their general jurisdiction extends over all "personal actions," when the "debt, damage or demand, does not exceed the sum of £50, whether on balance of account or otherwise." From this general jurisdiction, have heretofore been excluded causes in which the title to land, or to "any corporeal or incorporeal hereditaments, or toll, fair, market or franchise, shall be in question, or in which the validity of any devise, bequest, or limitation, under a will or settlement, may be disputed; or for any malicious prosecution, or for any libel or slander, or for criminal conversation, or for seduction or breach of promise of marriage." But by the act of this year, the County Courts may try any causes, except for criminal conversation, which may be brought in any Superior Court of Common Law, upon a written agreement to that effect being signed by both parties or their attorneys, and filed in court. And if the title to land, or to any corporeal or incorporeal hereditaments, toll, fair or franchise, comes incidentally in question, the judge may decide the question upon the written consent of parties, but such decision, incidentally given, is not evidence of title in another suit. A man cannot split up a large demand so as to bring it within £50, but the court has jurisdiction if the plaintiff waives the excess over £50 in his original bill; or if a demand originally exceeding that limit, is reduced to £50 or less by credits, or by an off-set admitted by the defendant.