who has prosecuted not for himself but for the King, to the amount of a single penny. He returns home ruined and heart-broken: for the labor of a quarter of a year will hardly make up for the money, which he has unavoidably spent in asserting the protecting authority of the law.

But the evils of the present state of the law on this subject, may seriously affect the rich as well as the poor. Suppose a man to be travelling at a distance from home-suppose an inhabitant of Cornwall, for instance, to be carried either by business or by pleasure into Northumberland-and there to be grossly assaulted, soon after the termination of one of the Quarter Sessions. He must prolong his absence from home some months, or travel a second time from one extremity of England to the other, before he can obtain redress.

It is easy to say, in these and many similar cases which might be put, that it would be wise to pass over the aggression, and that passive endurance is recommended by worldly prudence, as well as by Christian meekness. But what then becomes of the protection of the preventive efficacy of your laws? Does not the present state of the law on this subject, in a majority of cases, amount practically to an absolute denial of justice, against the express words of Magna Charta, and the whole spirit of the English Constitution?

The obvious remedy for these evils would be found, in giving Justices of the Peace the power of hearing and determining all common cases of assault in a summary manner. I would not give this power to a single Magistrate at his own house, but I would give it to two-perhaps even to one-at the usual place and time at which the Petty Sessions of the Division are customarily held. Then and there should the complaint be heard and determined; the Magistrates, or Magistrate, being invested with the power of sentencing the offending party to indemnify the complainant (up to a certain amount) for his loss of time, and any other expenses actually incurred, and to pay a fine either to the parish, the county, or to the King, or to submit to imprisonment. In short, with respect to punishment, I would nearly adopt the words and the limitations of the Act against wilful trespassers. (1 Geo. IV. cap. lvi.) Certainly I would give a right of appeal to the Quarter Sessions; and would also allow the Magistrates a discretion as to sending the case to the Sessions in the first instance.

But whatever may be thought of the expediency of giving to Magistrates the summary jurisdiction which I have recommended, it appears to be most desirable that the Quarter Sessions should have the power of awarding costs in all cases of misdemeanor, or of paying from the county rate the reasonable expenses of prose

cutors and witnesses. In misdemeanors, no less than in felonies, the prosecutor prosecutes for the King, and not for himself. This power in the Sessions would remedy a part-but only a part)of the evils which I have ventured to point out.

Will it be said, on the authority of Blackstone, that the summary jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace is already too extensive? that the Legislature views it with jealousy?-But, unless you are prepared to overturn almost the whole of the present system of the administration of justice in cases of comparatively little importance, these objections are too late. You empower a single Magistrate to imprison a man for three months for appropriating to himself for the purpose it may be of satisfying the hunger of his family-certain animals feræ naturæ which at present are the property of nobody; You allow a single Magistrate to send a man to the tread-wheel for three months, for carrying off a post or rail which appeared possibly to him to have fulfilled the purpose for which it was originally destined. You allow a single Magistrate to confine a man for a whole year for cutting a sapling, the size of a walkingstick, which might in process of time become a timber tree. I am not finding fault with these enactments; but is it wise, is it equitable, to give this power of summary punishment for the protection of the property, and the amusements of the rich, and to refuse to give similar protection to the persons of the poor? Will you suffer the lower orders to feel that protection is given only to those who can pay for it ?—that in all minor cases of personal injury they are not entitled to justice, unless they are qualified by the possession of property?-Will you allow the Magistrates, whose peculiar office it is "to conserve the King's peace, and to protect the obedient and innocent subjects" from force and violence, practically to feel, that a breach of the peace is one of the few offences which they cannot punish, and cannot check?

It will, perhaps, be said that the evils which I have mentioned are practically but little felt, inasmuch as cases of Assaults are generally compromised in compliance with the advice of the Magistrate before whom the complaint was originally laid. It is true that Assaults are frequently so compromised; partly because the aggressor, feeling that he has done wrong, is apt in his ignorance to take it for granted, that the law must have provided some ready punishment for such wrong-doing; and partly because the complainant is privately made to understand, that by following up his complaint, he will only expose himself to inconvenience, and to an expense which he has no means of defraying. But if the defective state of the law facilitates such compromise, is that a reason why the defect should not be remedied?

And, after all, is this method of compromise a method which, in

an advanced state of society, ought to be avowed and acted on ? To compromise an invasion of property is, in many cases, "to be guilty of the heinous offence of theft-bote," and exposes him who is so guilty to condign punishment. Surely it is, not according to the spirit of our jurisprudence to avow the practice of compromising invasions of the person, and flagrant violations of the king's peace. Speaking of the practice of allowing the defendant, after conviction, to speak with the prosecutor, Judge Blackstone says, "But it surely is a dangerous practice; and, though it may be intrusted to the prudence and discretion of the Judges in the superior courts of record, it ought not to be allowed in local or inferior jurisdictions, such as the quarter sessions." The compromises of which I have spoken, take place before conviction, though after the legal process has been commenced; and are sanctioned, not by the Judges, not even by the quarter sessions, but merely by individual Magistrates.

I am aware that it will be objected, that to give the quarter sessions the power of allowing the prosecutor's expenses in cases of assault, as well as in cases of felony, would bring a heavy burthen upon the county-rate, which, by the enlargement of gaols, the reparation of bridges, and other claims, has already been carried in many instances to so formidable an amount. But is there any way whatever, in which public money can be expended more properly than in protecting the meek and the feeble from violence? Is not such protection the very object for which men are united in civil society? And does not the refusal of such protection, (and it is refused to the poor, if only to be had at an expense which they have no means of defraying,) tend to throw them back into a state of nature? This, in fact, actually is the result of the present state of the law in Ireland, and not unfrequently in England also. A poor man is violently beaten by one stronger than himself. The law affords him no redress, since he cannot pay for it. He therefore calls upon his friends and neighbors to avenge him. The aggressor also has friends and neighbors who assemble for his defence, and a deadly feud is begun, followed, perhaps, by years of rancor, and by deeds of violence on every occasion for them that presents itself. Nothing appears to be more incontestable than that man, living in a social state, should receive protection from that state. Perhaps it is not greatly material, whether the expense of extending this protection in any particular instance should be defrayed by the country at large, by the county, or by the parish in which the violence is committed. There might, possibly, be some advantage, in levying the expense of prosecutions for assaults on individual parishes, which would thus have an interest in preserving peace and good order within their respective limits. This

would, in some measure, bring back Alfred's institution of frank pledges, wherein the whole neighborhood or tithing of freemen, were mutually pledges for each other's good behaviour." To take the expenses of Assault prosecutions, however, from the county-rate, would be the readiest method of proceeding, and most in accordance with our present practice and institutions.

With a view to the prevention or non-encouragement of trivial complaints, much discretion, with respect both to the commence ment of any proceedings, and the giving of costs, should be allowed both to individual Magistrates and to the quarter-sessions.

Forgive, Sir, the freedom with which I have addressed you. I consider the present state of the law on this subject as a serious evil, which ought to be remedied. I wish to see the remedy applied by some Member of his Majesty's Government, or by some friend of Government, rather than by any gentleman who is in the habit of a direct opposition to its measures. The subject, upon which I have addressed you, I have not taken up hastily. It has long been in my mind; and nearly two years ago I entertained some expectation that it would have been brought to the notice of Parliament by a personal friend. That expectation having been disappointed, I now take the liberty of respectfully submitting my sentiments to you, as the immediate organ and representative of the Sovereign, "the fountain of justice, and general conservator of the peace of the kingdom."

I have the honor to be, Sir,

Your most obedient and humble Servant,