think that the county court judges have reason for their complaint, that so much additional work should be cast upon them annually without a corresponding increase of salary. We suppose the public are satisfied that all this multifarious business can be done efficiently in the time allowed by the constitution of these courts, and are content to accept a speedy termination of their disputes at the expense of some few mistakes in point of law, or in point of fact. That they are willing to accept this alteration at the present moment appears clear; but we foresee, that if this heaping up of subject upon subject is to continue, one of two effects must result-either the business will be done in a hurried and perfunctory manner, or it will be postponed from month to month, until the suitor, wearied with delay, and sick at heart from the hope of the end being so long delayed, will at length discover that the constant small attrition has worn away as much of his substance as would have been carried off at once if he had been content to abide in Westminster Hall, and he will in disgust prefer to abandon the assertion of his right, and to bear the present loss, instead of incurring indefinite future expense; or, perchance, if he is fortunate enough in the end to get any decision, he may not after all be satisfied that his case has had justice done to it. If such be the alternative, it is difficult to see who is the gainer.

These observations apply to matters of civil procedure, as to which, it is idle to suppose, that in a large and old country like England, any complete amalgamation of the functions of a court of law and a court of equity can be effected. There has of late years sprung up among our lawyers a mania in favour of American jurisprudence. A scheme, just set on foot across the Atlantic, for the entire fusion of the legal and equitable systems-albeit, scarcely tested by experience-is extolled as the highest effort of human genius. Without refusing assent to the authority of many of the United States' decisions, founded as they are upon the common law of England-without denying that American writers of the greatest learning, and American judges of the highest ability, have illustrated or enunciated doctrines of law strictly applicable to questions arising in our own courts, it may be permitted to us to doubt whether we ought, by so indiscriminate an admiration of their system, to abrogate at once institutions which have stood the test of centuries, in favour of a plan, which, however specious and attractive, must savour somewhat of crudity and novelty. We are far from saying that, because a system is of long standing, all alteration should be repudiated. On the contrary, we believe, that by no means can ancient and valuable institutions be so effectually preserved, as by modifying

them from time according to the requirements of the day. But where a system has been long established, and where it has been in the main successfully administered, its age should at least give it a title to be duly considered before it is rudely swept away. Tacitus, in speaking of a totally different subject, says, "Hi ritus quoquo modo inducti antiquitate defenduntur." In like manner it may be reasonably asked, that a course of proceeding, originally applicable to a different state of society, should not be swept away, root and branch, until, at least, it has been endeavoured to render it applicable to our present wants. The presumption is, that the old system, properly adapted, will be more effectual than a new and untried scheme. On this principle, a judicious reconstruction of our own tribunals is surely a safer and wiser policy than the erection of these model judicatures. We cannot deal with judicial questions as we do with manufactures,-introduce a machine, which shall unite in one comprehensive action all the processes which were before performed singly. In legislation, especially on such subjects, there can be vestigia nulla retrorsum, at least, without vast inconvenience and uncertainty; therefore it behoves law reformers to introduce changes gradually, carefully to weigh their effects, and to wait to judge of their practical effect before proceeding to further and greater alteration. Such are the observations which, it appears to us, arise upon this part of the proposed legislation of the session which is now abandoned. It is to be hoped, that before these measures can be again introduced some effective plan may be promulgated for rendering more accessible and speedy the superior courts.

To the criminal law reforms, which have been of late years enacted, many of these remarks are inapplicable. In these matters there is no tendency to alter the constitution of the existing tribunals, except in a few instances, where an increased power of dealing summarily with minor offences has been given to justices of the peace. For the general criminal business of the country, it seems to be assumed, that a trial by jury in the courts of assize or quarter sessions is satisfactory, and that justice is, in the main, effected according to the mode in which the law is in this respect ordinarily administered. Indeed, we believe that all who have had any experience in criminal courts will agree, that when juries err in their verdicts it is most commonly on the side of the party accused. It is rare, indeed, that a person is convicted against the evidence; but it is by no means unfrequent, that he who is-morally speaking-clearly the perpetrator of an offence, escapes either by some defect of strict proof, or by one of those loopholes which are afforded by

a system, which, necessary as it may have been in the days when courts of criminal justice were made the vehicles of oppression and tyranny, or even before the time when the accused had a right of making his full defence by counsel, in the present day can scarcely find sound reasons for the retention of its technicalities. The current of statutes affecting criminal proceedings has, therefore, generally been directed to two objects: first, to obviate failures of justice by formal objections, which are beside the merits of the case tried; and, secondly, to provide appropriate punishments for offences which the altered state of society may have produced, and the repression of which has not been adequately secured by any law previously existing. The legislature has been employed upon both these subjects during this session of parliament; in the latter class alone has any bill as yet actually passed into a law. With a view, therefore, of carrying out our proposed intention as detailed in a former article, we shall proceed to consider the provisions and explain the working of two statutes recently passed for the purpose of supplying defects in the law, by creating and defining new classes of offences.

The first of these is the 14 Vict. c. 11, and is intituled “An Act for the better Protection of Persons under the care and control of others, as Apprentices or Servants, and to enable the Guardians and Overseers of the Poor to institute and conduct Prosecutions in certain cases." It received the royal assent on the 20th of May, 1851, from which date its provisions have been in operation. The history of this statute will best exemplify the class of cases to which it is directed. The immediate cause of its being passed was the recent occurrence of two cases where great cruelty had been practised upon young persons hired as servants from an union workhouse. The facts of these cases were probably known at the time when they occurred to most of our readers. That of the Birds, tried at Exeter, has become the subject of a serious diversity of opinion among the judges, and has been already more than once referred to in this Magazine. The other case, which led more directly to the passing of the present measure, so plainly exhibited the existing defects in the law, that we will very briefly refer to its leading features. The peculiarly revolting details of the story, as well as the position in life occupied by the Sloanes, invested the history with a fearful interest. The victim of their cruelty was a young girl, named Jane Wilbred, who had been hired by them as a servant, from the workhouse of the West London Union. Her employers were, by virtue of their contract, bound to provide her with a home, board and clothing. Unknown, friendless and

uncared for, the poor girl performed the whole of the menial offices at that strange establishment; and, as the details which afterwards came out prove, suffered during the time that she lived with them the most dreadful privations, and underwent the most disgusting and abominable cruelties. Scarcely allowed sufficient raiment to protect her from the inclemency of the weather, forced in this state to rise at all hours of the night, in all seasons of the year; allowed for food only the bare morsels left from the miserable meals of her employers, and forced to hide herself while she ate even this wretched pittance, scarcely sufficient to keep body and soul together; compelled (it will scarcely be credited), and that by one of her own sex, to swallow the most disgusting and loathsome matter; beaten on her bare shoulders by those who were bound to protect and provide for her ;—under all these inflictions it cannot be wondered at that her health failed, her body wasted away, and her mind sank into helpless imbecility. Such refinements of torture had broken her spirit and emaciated her frame. Although almost a woman in years, she was a child, or less than a child, in physical and mental capacity. Cruelty and starvation will degrade a human being almost to the level of an inferior animal, just as kindness and attention will raise a horse or a dog to a nearer approximation to man. Such was the effect of the treatment of this unfortunate creature, that when repeated suspicions had forced themselves upon the attention of the woman who had the care of the neighbouring chambers, and were communicated to a gentleman occupying rooms in the same staircase, who, with equal humanity and discretion, most promptly inquired into the circumstances, he found her lying neglected and untended in this abode of filth and cruelty, wasted almost to a skeleton, and on the verge of death from starvation. Happily and providentially he intervened in time to save; medical aid was instantly procured, and those who were the authors of these atrocities were spared from answering for the life of a fellow-creature only to incur the universal execration of all classes, high and low, and to stand their trial for the minor offence of ill-treatment and aggravated assault. It is not our purpose to refer to the exhibition of public feeling which was manifested when Mr. Sloane appeared in the justice-room in the city, nor to the manner in which he was hunted like a wild beast through the streets and lanes as he departed. While we cannot wonder at the existence of such feelings, it is a cause for regret, that in any case a mob should be thus allowed to prejudge the guilt of an accused person, or to endeavour to inflict summary vengeance with their own hands. The law should have its course fairly and dispas

sionately, and the public conservators of the peace should be responsible for the safety of any person brought to justice. But our present object is to show how this case was dealt with at the trial. The accused parties were arraigned at the bar of the Central Criminal Court, upon an indictment which charged them with an aggravated misdemeanor, in neglecting to provide proper food and sustenance for Jane Wilbred, "being an infant of tender years," such an averment being necessary in order to affect them with the breach of duty; and also with assaulting, beating and ill-treating her, alleging the various acts of disgusting brutality before alluded to. To the part of the indictment which charged the assault and beating the prisoners pleaded guilty, thereby admitting the complete truth of all the acts alleged against them. But they pleaded not guilty to that portion which alleged a breach of duty to provide proper food and sustenance for her; and it was ruled by the learned judges before whom the case was tried, that such part of the charge could not be sustained, because, the servant not being of tender years, there was no obligation to supply her with food and raiment in respect of which her employers could be liable, except in a civil action. The offence of which these parties were guilty amounted, therefore, in law only to a common assault, for which they could be punished by fine or imprisonment, but not with hard labour.

It was to meet cases similar in circumstances to that just detailed, that the act 14 Vict. c. 11, has been passed. The first section provides

"That where the master or mistress of any person shall be legally liable to provide for such person, as an apprentice or as a servant, necessary food, clothing or lodging, and shall wilfully and without lawful excuse refuse or neglect to provide the same, or where the master or mistress of any such person shall unlawfully and maliciously assault such person, whereby the life of such person shall be endangered, or the health of such person shall have been or shall be likely to be permanently injured, such master or mistress shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, in the common gaol or house of correction for any term not exceeding three years."

This section creates two new offences. The first part of the clause renders it criminal for any master or mistress, who is under a legal liability to provide food, clothing or lodging for an apprentice or servant, wilfully to refuse or neglect to do so without lawful excuse. This provision appears to be pointed to cases where the employer, having acquired a right to the services of another, is in return bound to provide for that person; and the