Comment is frequently made on the assumed pettiness of a large proportion of the causes tried at 'assizes. The answer to that is two-fold. First, it is not for Judges or busy lawyers to estimate what is worth trying, or to consider that such intellectual persons as themselves should only be called upon to deal with important causes. This fallacious idea is based on the assumption that certain Courts are to be deemed " Inferior Courts" on account of the smallness of the subject-matter in dispute to be dealt with by them. The notion is one derogatory to the administration of justice. Courts, whether "Superior" or "Inferior," are constituted to sit and to try whatever disputes individuals may choose to bring before them. Courts are made for suitors, not suitors for Courts. Knowledge by the public that their grievances, real or imaginary to themselves, will be heard and dealt with by skilled lawyers, is of more advantage to the community, and tends to a clearer recognition of the principles of law and order than any "getting through the business" within the shortest possible time. No doubt there is a via media whereby a tactful Judge and wise "counsellors" can settle unnecessary disputes, but care should be taken that the settlement should be a genuine solatium to all parties and not the forcible "pooh-poohing" of a case out of Court, a course of action which often merely leaves a rankling sense in the minds of both parties that they have not had a fair hearing from a Court which they themselves have (indirectly) paid for that very purpose. The way in which a case is tried is of greater importance than the subjectmatter in dispute, so far as the maintenance of trust in and respect for the administration of justice is concerned.

The second answer to the above-mentioned comment is, that it is a mistake, in fact, to suppose that the average of substantial causes tried in London is higher, comparatively speaking, than those tried on assizes. London journals, no

doubt, make much of the pick of causes tried there, but there remain scores of petty disputes unreported, yet forming part of the daily fare. A learned Judge, after sitting for a whole term trying London common jury actions, has been heard to say that, in his opinion, threefourths had "absolutely nothing in them."

Another advantage derived from local trials is the alleviation afforded thereby to London jurymen and to jurymen at industrial centres. The lot of a London juryman is particularly onerous, liable as he is to enforced attendance at continuous London sittings, as well as to monthly Old Bailey and London Sessions, not to mention County Courts, Coroners' Inquests, and Sheriff's Assessments. Assuredly everything possible should be done to alleviate the burdens of jurymen in these days, seeing that they are, in civil cases, the one class whose enforced service is practically unpaid for. They are present by the choice of the litigants, and, pending at least the proper payment of their expenses, either by the litigants themselves or by the State, reformers should hesitate before imposing on jurymen in London or at a few large centres the duty of trying disputes from other parts of the country.

Assuming, then, that civil business on circuit should, for the reasons given, be encouraged rather than discouraged, what remedies can be suggested for lessening the uncertainties of such work?

Two practicable steps can be at once suggested: (1.) The compulsory fixing of days before which civil business shall not be taken at each assize town. (2.) A more scientific official forecast of the time likely to be required. for each class of business. The first suggestion has been attempted in a voluntary form in the case of a few Judges, 'but has latterly been allowed to lapse. Its merit is that it at least saves parties to civil suits from attending on the first day of an assize and probably from having a two day's

wait. So long as there is any uncertainty about judicial arrangements, and when, by the efforts of a wary and persistent counsel, a short common jury cause, or more likely a non-jury cause, can be slid through during a gap or adjournment in the criminal work, clients and witnesses are kept in a state of suspense. This can only be insured against by the official publication of definite days before which civil work will not commeuce. The possibility that a premature collapse of criminal work may leave a Judge with an afternoon to spare is of much less disadvantage to himself or the taxpayers than the fact that by the fixture of days he has saved suitors unnecessary expense and delay. Again, the order in which causes would be taken should be a well understood rule, namely, as "Common Juries," "Special Juries," and "Non-Juries." Solicitors on seeing the cause list are thereby enabled to calculate on the possible time in which any particular cause would be reached. These elementary principles of ordinary procedure are constantly overlooked.

A more important remedy, however, would be a real attempt to make a scientific forecast of circuit business in general. The scheme of fixed dates at present in vogue is no doubt a useful barometer as to the approximate time at which an assize will occur and of its probable duration, but the volume of business varies so much at different periods of the year that it is impracticable to keep to any permanently fixed rule. The nature and extent of both crimes and causes alter at times in particular localities owing to new surroundings and new classes of population coming into existence. A town which once produced customarily a substantial cause-list ceases to be litigious or finds the County Court a sufficiently effective tribunal. A forecast based on official knowledge of the average crime' and litigation at each assize town during the preceding five years and upon the returns to hand and the reported

prospects of causes for trial should be obligatory before any dates are fixed upon by the Judge in consultation with the circuit officials. For criminal business the gaolers' returns of the prisoners awaiting trial and the depositions forwarded by the magistrates' clerks afford a fair data on which to forecast the time required; but for civil business no such data are to hand before a circuit commences, since causes can be entered up to the eighth day before the commission day fixed upon for each place, and solicitors are unwilling to advise their clients to expend the entrance fee of £2 until such entry is found to be absolutely necessary, that is to say, until the last possible moment at which a hearing can be secured. It is, therefore, not until a week before arriving at an assize town that a Judge can know definitely the amount of civil business to be grappled with. As regards the large commercial assize towns this is no great drawback, since Leeds, Birmingham, Bristol and Cardiff all come at the end of their respective circuits, and at each of these places two Judges attend and "sit to finish." There are no necessary fixtures beyond them, and a fairly substantial cause-list can always be reckoned upon. Liverpool and Manchester stand in the same. category. The difficulty and inconvenience, therefore, is limited to the other provincial assize towns, and it is for these only that a forecast is necessary.

In order to obviate this difficulty, why should not circuits, apart from the cities above enumerated, be treated for the purpose of entering causes as analogous to law terms? Let all causes, at other than the last place on circuit, which parties wish to have tried on any of the winter assizes be entered at the district registries, or with. the respective associates, by January 5th in each year, and all those for trial on the summer assizes by June 5th in each year. The circuit officials, having before them the gaolers' returns and the number of causes entered for

trial on the whole circuit, and with quinquennial averages to hand as further data, would draw up a scheme of dates to be submitted to the Judge going the circuit, and, upon his approval, would at once publish the same, the time for both criminal and civil business being duly notified. Allowance would, of course, have to be made for future entries, as is now made for subsequent commitments, but later entries of causes should only be made by leave of the Judge going the circuit or, to save trouble and expense, upon application to the associate, who would grant the application or refuse it upon his knowledge of the existing entries, and of the time likely to be at the Judge's disposal. An appeal from the associate's refusal (but not from his consent) to the Judge going the circuit should be allowed as of right. The associate might usefully be empowered to offer trial at some place other than that applied for, where more time was likely to be available.

To make such a scheme practicable, some inducement must be held out to solicitors and their clients to enter their causes so long beforehand. For this purpose the present entrance fee of £2 might be reduced by one-half at least, and possibly to 10s.; the loss to the revenue could be made up by doubling the present fee of £1 for entering judgment, since that is a fee out of costs secured by the victory, whereas the entrance fee is based upon hypothetical security. Moreover, the increased number of entries at a low fee would serve to counter-balance the primary loss. That this scheme might tend to the entry of many causes which would not eventually come to trial is doubtless true, but here again the experience of circuit officials as to the average number of non-efficient causes at a given place, an experience based on the causes of action as well as on the names of particular solicitors entering such causes would serve as a check. The Home Office returns already include the number of causes withdrawn