proceeded against, in the
civil action. The jury found for the plaintiff, damages fifty pounds. In
summing up, the judge reasoned exactly contrary to what I am inclined to
think would have been the case had the matter been tried before you. He
gave it as his opinion that the action was frivolous, and ought never to
have been brought; that the affair should have been settled out of
court; and, in short, left the impression that it was not, as such, so
great a hardship for a constable to be struck by a peer, that his honour
might not be satisfied with the offering of a guinea or two. The jury
thought differently; from which I infer that the facts did not sustain
the judge in his notions. Now, the reasoning at home would, I think,
have been just the other way. The English judge said, in substance, a
man of Lord ----'s dignity ought not to have been exposed to this
action; you would have said, a senator is a law-maker, and owes even a
higher example of order than common to the community; _he_ insinuated
that a small reparation ought to suffice, while _you_ would have made
some strong hints at smart-money.

I mention this case, for I think it rather illustrative of English
justice. Indeed, it is not easy to see how it well can be otherwise:
when society is divided into castes, the weak must go to the wall. I
know that the theory here is quite different, and that one of the boasts
of England is the equality of its justice; but I am dealing in _facts_,
and not in theories. In America it is thought, and with proper
limitations I dare say justly, that the bias of juries, in the very
lowest courts, is in favour of the poor against the rich; but the right
of appeal restores the balance, and, in a great degree, secures justice.
In each case it is the controlling power that does the wrong; in England
the few, in America the many.

In France, as you probably know, juries are confined to criminal cases.
The consequence is, a continuance of the old practice of soliciting
justice. The judge virtually decides in chambers, and he hears the
parties in chambers, or, in other words, wherever he may choose to
receive them. The client depends as much on external influence and his
own solicitations, as on the law and the justice of his case. He visits
the judge officially, and works upon his mind by all the means in his
power. You and I have been acquainted intimately from boyhood, and it
has been my bad luck to have had more to do with the c