"I don't know that there is," replied the Chairman, "but go on!"

This was, no doubt, rather an extreme case of want of experience, and yet who but a professional man could appreciate the true absurdity of the answer?

But it may be said, even assuming that occasional mistakes are made on points of law and evidence, is not substantial justice done under the present system?

This question brings me to the discussion of what is by far the most difficult and responsible duty wnich the Chair. man of Quarter Sessions has to perform, namely, to sum up cases to the jury. And this is where practice is, above all things, necessary-practice which can only be obtained. by conducting cases oneself in Court, and by hearing judges sum up in the cases that come before them. In other words, to be able to sum up efficiently a man must be in practice as a barrister or as a judge. For he has, as I have remarked, to lay down the law correctly-not an easy matter by any means and for a layman very difficult -might not one say impossible?

Next, he has to marshal the facts of the case so as to present them to the jury in a concise and intelligible form; he has to sift the evidence of the witnesses, and to point out to the jury the weight to be attached to this or that piece of testimony; he has to guide their minds in the right direction, and he has to meet the arguments of the defence, especially when, as is generally the case, the defence has the last word. For, although it may be perfectly true that it is better that any number of guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should be convicted, it is none the less true that every criminal who would be convicted if tried before a judge at Assizes deserves equally to be convicted when tried before a chairman of Quarter Sessions.

I will appeal to that part of the profession that practises

at Quarter Sessions, whether it is not in their experience that in the cases tried there, when a prisoner is defended by an able counsel, he almost invariably escapes conviction? It is no reflection upon the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions that this should be so. It is simply due to the fact that the art of summing up cases is a lesson which he has never learnt, and has never had the opportunity of learning properly; and that, therefore, his well-meant efforts to place the points of a case clearly before a jury too often have the effect of obscuring the issue.

I make these remarks with all diffidence. I know that the tribunal capable of passing a judgment on these points is a very limited one. It consists solely of those members of the Bar who have practised and are practising at Quarter Sessions in the counties; and they, of course, do not represent public opinion. Nevertheless, such is the tribunal by which public opinion, if it is wise, should be guided in this matter.

Now if our first question, whether the present Court of Quarter Sessions performs its duties efficiently, be answered in the negative, we must then pass to the second, namely, would it, if equipped with a paid chairman, perform its functions any better?

Some of the Chairmen whose opinions I have had the opportunity of studying seem to have thought it was contemplated that the present Chairmen should be paid. No one, however, would suggest that if competent Chairmen can be secured without payment, they would give any better services if paid than they do at present. The question really is whether any Court in which cases are tried by a jury should be presided over by any but a trained lawyer. At present the Court of Quarter Sessions is the only one of such courts in which laymen are allowed to preside.

Should they continue to do so? Is not the present state

of things rather the relic of a bygone age than suited to modern ideas and requirements?

My suggestion then, would be that the qualification for every Chairman of Quarter Sessions should be not less than five years' standing at the Bar, thus assimilating the practice in Counties to that in Boroughs

If, as is sometimes the case, a duly qualified person can be found to accept the post of Chairman without salary, let him be elected by all means. Otherwise let there be a paid Chairman attached to every Court of Quarter Sessions.

There is another important consideration which should not be lost sight of here. Complaints are frequently heard from time to time of the delay in the conduct of business in the Law Courts. It is a subject which has occupied the attention of law reformers during many years; and many and various have been the remedies and reforms devised and applied from time to time, and yet the complaints continue. And there can be no doubt that the absence of the Judges on circuit is one of the most fruitful causes of such delay as exists. And yet it would be very undesirable to abolish circuits altogether: the presence of a Judge in the country districts exercises a most beneficial influence; the confidence felt in his administration of justice causes his decisions to be respected in a way that would not be the case with those of lesser men; the fear of him is a potent deterrent to criminals; and his great ability makes his conduct of cases a shining example to those who practise before him, and who may in their turn be called upon to administer justice.

But, granting all this, are we not to some extent using a sledge hammer to crack a nut? There are certain cases such as murder and other of the more serious crimes which are two weighty to be entrusted to any lesser tribunal than one presided over by a Judge of the High Court. For

the trial of these, his presence is necessary. But if it were possible to extend the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions to include all but the most serious class of cases, what an amount of judicial time might be saved, and incidentally what a great saving in expenses would result?

And why is this not done? The remedy for the waste of time is palpable. Why is it not applied? Is not this the true answer, that it would not command the confidence of the public in the administration of justice if the criminal jurisdiction of the Courts of Quarter Sessions as at present constituted, were extended any further?

And, if this is so, must not the reason be that these courts are not thoroughly efficient?

Sir H. B. Poland, K.C., whose opinion on such matters is entitled to the greatest weight, wrote a letter on this subject to the Times a few years ago. Recognising the necessity of relieving the Judges of some of their Assize work, and objecting, as he did, to the appointment for such purposes of Commissioners of Assize, he proposed some sort of intermediate tribunal-something between an Assize Court and a Quarter Sessions Court-to be presided over by specially appointed harristers of experience, and to sit simultaneously with the Judge at Assizes.

No doubt an excellent suggestion, but, if applied generally, rather an expensive one; for such men would require full compensation for the loss of and disturbance to their practice before they would consent to accept such an appointment.

And yet to quote the opinion of one of the existing Chairmen of Quarter Sessions on this point :-" If you give a salary to your chairman, he should be not only a barrister, but one who has had considerable practice in Sessions and Assize Courts, and you may also reasonably impose upon him further duties."

If then it be granted that it is desirable: (1) To improve

the administration of justice at Courts of Quarter Sessions; (2) to increase their jurisdiction; (3) consistently with economy, to appoint barristers of experience in criminal. work to preside over the Quarter Sessions Courts, where shall we look for the men who will satisfy these conditions? Does not the answer lie simply in assigning to each Court of Quarter Sessions in the counties, whose Chairman is not a barrister of at least five years' standing, one of the Recorders of the County Boroughs to preside over it? In the Recorders you have a body of a hundred and eleven trained men, all of whom have had considerable experience in Sessions and Assize Courts; most of them in practice in those courts at the present time; and if it be desirable that each court of Quarter Sessions should have a professional chairman, no easier or more economical method of providing such a chairman could well be devised. Indeed, it is so simple a means of meeting the demand, that it is somewhat remarkable that it has not been put forward more prominently ere this.

All that

What then, would be the mode of procedure? would be necessary would be to have one day, or when necessary, two or more consecutive days for the trial of Quarter Sessions cases at the court of the principal Borough or Boroughs within the county. There would come as at the Assizes at Norwich, the grand and petty juries for city and county respectively; the court would sit on the regular Quarter Sessions days, and Bar, solicitors, witnesses, and others, would be delivered from the inconvenience caused at present by the practice of some Recorders, who fix the days for holding their courts at such times as may happen to fit in with their engagements of the moment, without reference to regular times and seasons.

What would be the cost of such a scheme as this? The cost would be infinitesimal, and more than compensated for