Expense of the Administration of Justice.

Of this enormous sum of £33,000,000, it has been stated that there is now £10,000,000 in the Bank, which, from the procrastinated delay of suits, should either have belonged to persons deceased without representatives, or of persons living, but ignorant, from the books not being open to them, of their claims altogether, or if acquainted with their claim, ignorant in what manner or names their property is vested. This is, no doubt, a prodigious evil; it is an evil not only to the parties who are thus withheld from the possession of their property, but it must be a serious loss to the country from such an immense amount of capital being locked up from active and productive employment.

The delay in chancery suits appears to be wholly unnecessary, and arises solely from a reluctance to abridge the enormous emoluments of the Lord Chancellor. The business of that officer has so increased of late, from the increase in bankruptcies and other causes, that it cannot possibly be discharged by an individual. An attempt was made last session to relieve his lordship of that part of his business which related to bankruptcies. This seemed more reasonable because his jurisdiction in these matters had only been conferred by a recent statute. This was opposed; and solely, we believe, because bankruptcies put annually into the pocket of his lordship five or six thousand pounds, and into the pocket of his clerk £1700 a year. The enormous expense of proceedings in this court is well known; and an individual had generally better sacrifice his right altogether than attempt to obtain it through the medium of this court of equity, or more properly court of iniquity. Sir Francis Burdett, in the speech already referred to, mentions a suit then pending, in which the parties had demanded what is termed an office-copy of certain accounts, and for which officecopy the moderate sum of £29,000 was demanded.

Delay and expense, however, are not confined to courts of equity. In the King's Bench it seldom happens that all the causes set down for trial are got through; and in the sitting in London the arrear of special jury cases is usually very considerable. Justice is still more shamefully delayed in the northern and midland circuits. In the counties of Westmoreland, Cumberland, Northumberland, and Durham, the assizes are only held once a year; and persons committed to prison in those counties for crimes not falling under the jurisdiction of quarter sessions, have frequently been confined for seven, eight, nine, and, in many instances, for a much longer period before they were brought to trial. The delay in civil causes is equally injurious to the pockets, as such a mode of administering criminal justice is to the persons of individuals. Of five causes, for which

Expense of the Administration of Justice.

special juries had been summoned in Northumberland in 1816, three of them went over till the following assize, that is for the space of twelve months. • In the following year, 32 actions were entered, only one of which was brought to trial. At the last Spring Assizes at York, six Special and three Common Jury causes were made remanets.* The delay in these cases must be a source of the greatest anxiety and inconvenience to the parties, and from the assembling of witnesses, and the preparations for trial, they must have incurred exorbitant, and in some instances ruinous expense.

The next legal abuse to which we shall advert, is the expense and inconvenience attendant on the recovery of small debts.

The law in this case appears to have been most cunningly devised, not for the protection of the honest, but the dishonest part of the community. According to the present system, if the debt exceeds 40s.. the action may be brought in a superior court, where, if contested or defended, the expense at the lowest computation must be upwards of fifty pounds. If the debtor wishes to avail himself of all the resources of the law, for ruining his creditor, he may put him to a far greater expense. The following receipt is usually given to debtors, who wish to be troublesome, and to weary out their creditors by an expensive process:—

When arrested and held to bạil, and after being served with a declaration, you may plead the general issue, which puts you on for trial sooner than any other plea; but if you wish to vex your plaintiff and put him about, put in a special plea; if you are in custody, order your attorney to plead in person, this will cost you £1:1s. and run your plaintiff to £30 expense. If you do not intend to try the cause, you have no occasion to do any thing more till the plaintiff gets judgment against you, which he must do the term after you have put in a special plea. The plaintiff is obliged to send you a paper book, which you must return to his attorney with 7s. 6d. otherwise you will not put him to more than half the expense. When he proceeds and gets judgment against you, then order your attorney to search the Final Judgment Office in the Temple; when searched and found they have got final judgment signed against you, then give plaintiff's attorney notice for him and your attorney to be present with the Master, at the time the plaintiff taxes the costs; at which time your attorney must have a writ of error with him, to give to the plaintiff's attorney before the master, at the time the master taxes the costs: it will put the plaintiff to great expense, which he will have to pay or go the ground over again. The writ of error will

* Report on the Administration of Justice upon the Northern Circuit, p. 3.

Expense of the Administration of Justice.

cost you £4: 4s. by a London attorney; but if you wish to be more trou blesome, make the writ returnable in parliament, which will cost you £1 : 18. more, and your plaintiff £100. If he has the courage to follow you further, you may then file a bill in Chancery or Exchequer; if he does not then give his answer, your bill will get an injunction against him: you may then get an attachment from the court where your bill was filed, and take his body for contempt of court. The costs incurred by plaintiff and defendant respectively, will then be as follows:

It is calculated, that betwixt six and seven thousand persons are annually arrested in Middlesex alone, one half of whom are for debts under twenty pounds; and in the kingdom at large, the number arrested in the course of a year for trifling debts is not less than Forty Thousand. The expense of these arrests, on the lowest computation, is enormous; and not unfrequently sends both plaintiff and defendant to gaol for the payment of Attorneys'

bills.

In settling the costs for actions, the rule is to allow the same costs for a debt of 40s. as for a debt of £10,000. Hence it follows, that large sums are recovered at a far less expense than smaller. In the county of Middlesex, in the year 1793, the number of writs, the cost of actions, and the amount of debts sued for, stood as follows:

From this statement, it appears, that in the first class, when the aggregate

Expense of the Administration of Justice.

of the debts amounts to £81,791, and the bailable writs and executions to 5719, that the mere cost of the actions, though made up and not defended at all, would be £68,728. And if the actions were defended, the expense to recover £81,791 must be no less than £285,905; being considerably more than three times the amount of the debts sued for.

From the fourth class, it appears, that one million of money is recovered at considerably less than half the expense of £81,791 in the first class.

This statement exhibits "the perfection of human wisdom" in a beautiful point of view. Such an absurd system of jurisprudence, may be termed English law, but surely it would be a libel on the people to term it English justice.

We shall next speak of another description of legal abuse. We have already made some remarks on the multiplicity and inquisitorial nature of our Revenue Laws, Excise Informations, on which we are going to give some account, are the practical consequences of these laws.

These informations are filed in the Court of Exchequer for real or supposed frauds on the revenue. The prosecutions are almost invariably instituted, either on the testimony of hired spies or the Excise officers. They form a principal source of emolument to the law officers of the crown. Every prosecution costs the country about 50 guineas. Of this sum, 10 guineas are for a brief to the Attorney General; to the Solicitor General 10 guineas; to two counsel, 8 guineas each; to two other counsel, 4 guineas each. And to these sums must be added another item of £7 13s. 6d. for the court-crier. Let the case be ever so simple, this is the usual counsel which appears for the crown, and against which the accused has to contend. In one year there have been no less than 761 information under the Excise Laws, laid by the Attorney General; and the law expenses on each case were not less than £120, making an annual sum of more than £120,000. The nature of these proceedings will be best illustrated by a few examples, which we shall select from many others, which were brought forward during last Session of Parliament.

The first case we shall mention, is that of Jeremiah Abell, a small farmer, in Norfolk. This man was prosecuted by the Excise for penalties to the amount of £1000, on account of an alleged smuggling transaction. He was able to prove most distinctly by 17 witnesses, against the single testimony of the informer, that he was 30 miles from the place where the offence was sworn to have been committed. When the case was tried, his counsel most unaccountably consented to compromise the matter with the Board for £300, contrary to the express injunction of the defendant. Afterwards, the

Expense of the Administration of Justice.

matter slept for a year, when Mr. Abell was taken into custody; and at the time his case was mentioned in the House, he had been confined 16 months in Norwich gaol. Of his innocence there could not be the slightest doubt. He had the most satisfactory evidence to prove, that the informer was at Norwich at the very time he had sworn to have been 30 miles from that place, watching the defendant and six others engaged in smuggling."

Mr. Henty, another sufferer, and a most respectable gentleman of Sussex, had a very narrow escape from a gang of wretches, patronized and employed by the Excise. He was found guilty of an attempt to defraud the revenue, and sentenced to pay fines and costs to the amount of £2400. The evidence on which he was convicted was of the most infamous description, and such as none but the agents of the Borough System would ever think of employing. One of them was accused of the murder at Greenwich; others were afterwards convicted of perjury; some transported for robbery; and others (there being seven witnesses in all) we believe were hanged. The conduct of the Excise in this case was the more unjustifiable, because they had been apprised of the characters of these miscreants: nevertheless, the Solicitor of Excise commenced his prosecution against Mr. Henty, and on their evidence he was found guilty. When an indictment for perjury was preferred, the Excise came forward and offered bail for them; and no doubt they would have absconded, and Mr. Henty been deprived of all means of proving his innocence, had they not been committed ‹ to prison on a charge of felony.

A great number of informations were filed, apparently for no other motive than to obtain heavy costs from individuals, and add to the enormous emoluments of the law officers of the crown. A case of this description was brought forward by Mr. Harvey. An information was laid against a merchant for retailing a certain vegetable powder, the illegality of which the accused was wholly ignorant. The penalty was £100. The merchant mémorialized the Board of Excise; admitted that such a powder had been sold, but protested his ignorance that the practice was unlawful; and prayed that the commissioners would investigate the case, and mete out such a punishment as the case deserved. In answer to this he received a private circular, which, among other things, said, that "the petition makes no offers, and as the Board has already ordered proceedings, it cannot now stay them, there being no offer to pay fine or costs, or both." The merchant reiterated his memorial, offering £10, which was refused, but in lieu of which no other sum was suggested; he was merely told that it could not be accepted. He then made an offer of £20, which was also negatived, but with a hint