and what courts can sit, and who make out the cause lists from day to day without any knowledge of the arrangements of counsel, or the disposition of briefs. And in England, except in very rare cases, trials are never adj ourned because of the prior engagements, or for the mere convenience of counsel, even though they are then actually engaged in the trial of cases in other courts. But the questions are asked whether, in spite of all these disadvantages, the cost of litigation is really greater in England than it is here, and whether the moral tone of the profession as a whole is not higher. That the cost ought to be less here I am quite sure, but I am not sure tha-t it is. Trials last much longer here (in spite of the Eng lish system of daily " refreshers " ) without anything more of care or thoroughness. To say nothing of the time occupied in selecting juries (for in the course of twenty years' practice in England I never knew the se lection of a jury occupy more than ten minutes), far more time is spent here in " ob jecting " and " excepting," and there is here less of ready and courteous deference to the rulings and suggestions of the judge. There, too, the judge in most cases interposes in the early stages of a trial to narrow it to the real question to be tried, and opens a straight cut to the real kernel of the case, either of fact or law. If of fact, the narrowed issue is of course submitted to the jury. If of law, it is, if substantial, reserved for argument before the court in bane. Thus trials occu pying several days are comparatively rare. And the proportion of appeals is much
smaller there than here, due in part at least, to the fact that the rulings and opinions of the judges at nisi prius are more respected by the bar, and less readily overruled or dis sented from by other judges on appeal. And in criminal cases there is no appeal, save on questions of law reserved. But that which more than all else secures respect for, and deference to, the English judges is the abso lute confidence of the bar and the public in their learning, independence, and high char acter. Thank God we have there no popu larly elected judiciary, and no one ever suggests or suspects an English judge of political party, or personal bias. He is appointed for life, is well paid (the salary even of the puisne judges being $25,000 a year), and his position is one of perfect in dependence. He cannot enter Parliament, or accept any other office, or take any part in politics during his judgeship, and can never return to the bar. After fifteen years of judicial service, he is entitled to retire on a liberal pension (¿3500 a year for the puisne judges), but most of them remain on the bench very much longer, either from the love of the work, or the hope of further pro motion. I am not about to pronounce an opinion on the respective merits of the systems of the two nations. Each may be the better in its own place. They have borrowed largely from each other in the past, and knowledge of both enables me to see how they may do so with mutual advantage in the future. H. L>. J.
A LEGAL INCIDENT. THE following incident is told of the early professional life of a distin guished lawyer of Charleston, South Caro lina. He had worked on in his profession for two years conscientiously and laboriously,
but for the past few months almost without hope of success. The bar in that city was very conservative, a large portion of the practice being inherited, and this young man, coming as he did from the country, had found it impossible to get a foothold.
