the Court of Quarter Sessions grants a special case to go to the Court of King's Bench for its decision. A special case consists in a summary statement of the facts, as they appear on the Chairman's notes of evidence, with the decision: this is drawn by the counsel who applies for the case, revised by the counsel on the other side, and ultimately agreed to by both. On this statement, after argument, the Court of King's Bench decides whether the decision of the Sessions be right or wrong.

There could not, we will admit, be a better form of appeal than this, if it were not for the primary and grand objection, that the consent of the parties whose decision is appealed against must, in the first place, be asked and had. And so far is it from being granted as a matter of course, that it is about as often refused as given. There is no mode of compelling the Sessions to grant a case; and, whatever may be the hardship or injustice arising from the decision, there is no redress whatever. We will-for the case, though on a technical point, is exceedingly clear and simple-quote one of the two cases from Burn, which finally set the matter at rest. We recommend our readers to give it their attention: it is very short, and it serves to show the extremity to which the evil we complain of may be carried :

"If the justices will not state a case specially, though it may be blameable conduct in them in some instances, yet there are no means to compel them. As in the case of Oulton and Wells, M. 9 Geo. II., two justices removed three children of Francis Ailmer, from Wells to Oulton, and the sessions upon appeal confirmed the order, generally, without stating any special case. The counsel for Oulton excepted at the sessions to their refusing to state the case specially, and delivered into the court a bill of exceptions under their hands, which was read and received by the court...... These exceptions were returned up, toge ther with the order. And it was moved to quash the order of sessions, together with the original order of the two justices. The court were inclinable to come at this case if they could, as there seemed to be a determination against law. But, by Lord Hardwicke, oh. 9. 'to what purpose should we make a rule to show cause why this order of sessions should not be quashed? for I do not see that we can ever make such a rule absolute; because this that is alleged to have been the real state of the case does not appear to us to be the fact. And how can we take it for granted that it was the real fact? to be sure it is a thing very much to be censured and discommended, when an inferior jurisdiction endeavours to preclude the parties from an opportunity of applying to a superior. But still we must go according to due course of law.' And Mr. Justice Page said, he never knew an instance that this court could force the justices against their will to grant a special case. Burr. Settl. cap. 64. 2 Bott. 731, pl. 820*, p. 17.

We are the farthest in the world from desiring to impugn this decision, as such. The law being as it was, it was impossible for the judges to determine otherwise-for they must administer the law as it stands, however bad it may be. That they felt its evil in this case, we think both the facts and the language of Lord Hardwicke tend most

Burn's Justice, Vol. III.

clearly to prove. And we are convinced that our readers will join in the wish of that great judge, expressed in the other of the two cases mentioned above, "that a bill of exceptions would lie to the justices at their sessions; because it may sometimes happen that they may determine in an arbitrary manner, contrary to the resolutions of the courts of law. For if the justices will not state the facts specially (though requested so to do) when the matter is doubtful, this is a very blameable conduct in them, and it is to be wished that it might be avoided." It is true that Lord Hardwicke, who is, as it were, stating what might be said on both sides of the question, adds that, on the other hand, inconveniences might arise from the abuse of the bills of exceptions, by which the question of the settlement of the poor, instead of being cheap and speedy, might become dilatory and burdensome. But, besides that this very expense would prevent bills of exceptions being brought in trifling instances, it seems to us clear that if, as the present practice admits, appeals from the justices are sometimes to be allowed, it ought not to be the very persons against whose judgment it is to be brought, to decide whether or not it should be made at all. We have known strong instances of injustice occur in this mannerand yet the evil has been, as we have just seen, fixed in its present state since the 9th of Geo. II.

So strongly, indeed, are we wedded to the principle that no court should have the power to say aye or no, to an appeal against itself, that, even with the assessor, with all his additional knowledge and advantages, we would still have, in these cases, a power of appeal to the court of King's Bench, arranged in the simplest, speediest, and cheapest form. We think there are many points constantly arising under the Poor-Laws, which render requisite the safeguard of the power of appeal to a higher court than that of Quarter Sessions would even then be: how much more necessary we deem it now, it is surely needless for us to say.

In the criminal trials, a professional chairman is equally, if not still more, necessary. If it were only for the sake of a little regularity of proceeding, this would be desirable. For as the chairman, for the most part, knows nothing of law, the counsel may, if it suit the interest of his client, commit all manner of irregularities at will; and, when a point of law is argued between two of them, it is sometimes even ludicrous to see the despair of the chairman, at having to decide a question of which he knows nothing-and, of course, it is a toss-up whether the decision be right or wrong.

But far more important interests than these determine that there should never be a person ignorant of law sitting as a criminal judge. We ourselves know instances of the most preposterous errors, some carried into effect, some prevented only by the gratuitous interposition of counsel, in consequence of the law being administered by gentlemen who had never studied or practised it. And these without the slightest ill-intention on the contrary, some of them where the party in error was in the highest degree upright and humane. The Court of Quarter Sessions tries all cases of felony, short of those which are subject to capital punishment: and it depends solely upon whether the Assizes or the Sessions fall first after his committal, whether a pri

soner be tried at the former, by one of the twelve judges of the realm, or at the latter by a country magistrate. We are far from wishing to keep the wretched prisoners in gaol an additional four or six months for the purpose of being tried by a judge-but we think it is the duty of the government to make the minor tribunal fit for the purposewhich at present we cannot consider it to be.

Of course, in what we have said concerning the chairmen of Quarter Sessions, we do not mean to be universal in our remarks. There are many gentlemen occupying that station, who by study as well as natural abilities fulfil their duties most ably. But it is equally notorious that there are others who are totally unfit for it;-and even the better class, of whom we have just spoken, must occasionally find themselves at fault, on points with which no one but a man who either is, or has been, a practising barrister can be familiar.

We wish likewise to extend our exceptions to what we have said of the general competency of the body as magistrates. We are quite aware that there are many gentlemen in the commission who are as excellent justices of the peace as, under any system, it would be possible to procure. But the checks and regulations of any body of men are not formed for such as these. They are, or should be, established for those who from ignorance, indolence, petulance, caprice, or positive oppression, neglect or betray their duty. The temptations held out to the magistrates under the present system are almost proverbially irresistible-the possession of irresponsible power. And, it will be remembered that all that we have proposed as alterations with regard to the magistrates as a body, has had for its object to render their power responsible. We have conceded that we think, with the exception of clergymen, the present class, on the whole, the most eligible wherefrom to select the magistrates. There are many objections to it-some strong ones, but we do not see any mode to which objections still stronger do not apply. But we would trust to no men power of the extent, and of the almost incalculable variety of application, which is possessed by the magistrates of this country, it being at the same time so nearly irresponsible even in name, so almost totally irresponsible in fact. Neither do we think that any of the restrictions, which, after all, consist merely in a magistrate being fairly answerable for his conduct, would deter any desirable person from entering into the commission. If a gentleman takes upon himself the office of a magistrate, with fair preparation, (-and, although we do not wish to make them book-worms, or quill-drivers, we think it a moral duty for all magistrates to have a moderate knowledge of general law,-) and with intentions of uprightness, and duly-regulated activity, he need and would fear no responsibility for his actions. That that responsibility would not be urged to any vexatious extent, we are equally convinced: the very expense would prevent this-to say nothing of the certainty that the Court of King's Bench would, and properly, put down, with the strongest reprehension, anything approaching to frivolous complaint. The only fear, indeed, would be lest it should be inclined to class too many applications under that designation.

With regard to the amendments we have proposed in the constitu

tion of the Court of Quarter Session, we need not, we think, say anything in the shape of qualification or apology. Nobody can judge so well as the members of those courts of the extreme advantages that would accrue from such an arrangement as we have suggested. Nay, we even incline to think, that were it not perhaps from a feeling of prejudice at the idea of having a dd lawyer to preside among them, a very considerable body of the magistracy would receive the proposition with cheerful approbation. Let us hope-if we cannot expect a similar measure directly from parliament-that there may be another committee or two next year, on some of the topics of Mr. Brougham's great speech, which may produce this, among some other of the important amendments which, though not at all individually proposed by him, the investigation which he recommended cannot fail to produce.

NOTE. We are quite aware that, if we had entered into the details of the duties of the magistracy, we might have produced a far more elaborate essay. But, if we had once gone into them, there was no reason for leaving out any,—and, if we had discussed them all, it would have required at least a volume of our work to give them, after all, something less than due consideration. Burn's Justice is in four volumes, royal octavo, of a thousand pages cach,

DRAMATIC LITERATURE.

We are really astonished that, in the rage for legislation, something is not done in parliament, to rescue the English character from the disgrace reflected upon it by the state of the law with regard to Dramatic Literature. There are ten or twelve theatres in the metropolis; and at three of them only is the regular drama, upon which England prides herself, allowed to be performed. The manager of the Cobourg Theatre, within the last two months, was prosecuted by the patentees of Covent Garden, and fined, for the representation of Shakspeare. Such prosecutions are defended upon the principle that these patentees have a right to protect their property. But, with a consistent spirit of despotism, they are equally upon the alert to invade the property of others. The instant a writer publishes a play—and there are many obvious reasons which prevent any but the established hacks of the green-room writing with a view to representation-the managers of the two patent-theatres claim a right to seize upon it-to mutilate it, to miscall it, to puff it, to force it down the public throat upon the strength of its reputation-and yet to deny the author one shilling of reward. Whenever a dramatic writer transfers his production from written to printed characters, he loses his property in it, as far as "His Majesty's servants" are concerned. Is this justice?

Mr. Bucke, who, some ten years since, underwent considerable persecution from the people of Drury Lane, with regard to his tragedy of the "Italians," has again been placed in a situation which calls upon him to appeal to the public, against the gross despotism of the manager of the same theatre. He has confided to us some particulars

66

relative to the tragedy of Julio Romano, in a Letter to John Henry Wilmot, Esq. of Florence." The subject is too curious, and in our view too important, to allow us to hesitate in giving publicity to his statement. It is as follows:

MY DEAR FRIEND,

You remember, no doubt, (for you were in England at that time,) the manner in which the committee of Drury-Lane Theatre seized upon my tragedy of the Italians; acted it, contrary to my earnest entreaties, in the face of an opposition they had themselves excited; and, after drawing two considerable sums of money, (£1150,) the fruits of my labour-contrary, as I think, to all justice-refused to allow me the smallest compensation for the journeys I had taken, the money I had expended, the time I had devoted, and the inconveniences to which they had personally exposed me.

Time, however, reconciles us to most things; and, since the injury has neither been justified, nor repeated, I derive consolation from the reflection, that as I neither provoked it in the first instance, so I have never attempted to revenge it in the second. But having, one day, amused myself in turning over the leaves of that ill-fated tragedy, I thought I perceived that it was not quite so worthless a production as it had been the policy of some to persuade others to believe; and I resolved, in consequence, on writing another tragedy, partly grounded on the same foundation: that is, I employed, as it were, some of the old marble, wherewith to build another temple.

Having finished this new structure, there remained some difficulty as to the best method of disposition. For if to cause it to be performed would subject the labour of my thought to great hazard, to publish it might have effects more permanently disastrous; since proprietors of theatres assure us that they possess the right of appropriating all published dramas to their own use-entailing all the personal hazard, and all the disgrace, in case of failure, on the author; and retaining for themselves the pecuniary benefit in the event of success. Sic vos non vobis.

Having, on mature consideration, determined not to encounter the perils of the stage, I applied to a celebrated reader of Shakspeare, to know whether he would honour me so far as to give my tragedy a public reading at the Argyle Rooms and Freemasons' Hall.

sure.

Previous to giving an answer, Mr. — desired a perusal; and then did me the honour to say that he would read it with very great plea In consequence of this, I adopted measures for a public reading, last May; but it having struck me, that unless the whole of my drama were recited, (which is seldom or never done, in what is called a dramatic reading,) it would be impossible for an audience to have a true idea of the characters, or a just conception of the plot, I wrote, therefore to Mr. —, and received the following letter in reply :

"DEAR SIR,-I have, at your request, re-perused your play. I have been delighted with the spirit of poetry, caught from the study of nature, which breathes through the whole of it. I acknowledge the characters of Romano and Schidoni to possess great dramatic force; and that a strong interest is created by the story, and kept up to the end;-and