for the recovery of land in Austria or in Lanarkshire; on the other hand, a man who is resident in England can be sued in England for a debt contracted by him in Paris put Peebles for Paris, the result is the

same.

But if we regard, not the competence of an English court to entertain a suit or prosecution, but the executive power of making persons and things which are not in England amenable to English justice, then Scotland and Ireland are more closely connected with England than are the colonies, and much more closely than the lands of foreign states. For the arrest of one who has committed a crime, England is organised as a whole, and the United Kingdom as a whole, and the British Empire as a whole. There are warrants for the apprehension of criminals which will authorise their arrest in any part of England; but the usual warrants issued by justices of the peace cannot at once be executed save within the district (usually a county or town) for which the justice is justice, or in case of fresh pursuit, a somewhat wider space. If the warrant is to be put in force in any place beyond these limits, it must first be "backed," endorsed, by one who is a justice for that place. Now, in this respect the United Kingdom is a whole. The warrant of a Yorkshire justice can be made an available authority for arresting a man in Caithness by the same simple process that would make it available in Kent. But if the criminal has fled to any of the Queen's dominions (let us say to a colony) outside the United Kingdom, the procedure for bringing him to trial in England is by no means so simple. In a case of grave crime he can indeed be arrested and sent to England, but the process is set about with safeguards

against oppression. It involves, first, a presumptive proof of the charge before a colonial magistrate ; secondly, an opportunity for applying to a colonial court of law, which has a discretionary power of discharging the fugitive if to send him back to England seems oppressive or too severe a punishment; and, lastly, an order by the colonial governor, who again has a discretion to exercise. In this matter there is reciprocity between the several parts of the Queen's dominions; and in sending a fugitive back from England to a colony, the Home Secretary plays the part which in the reverse process is assigned to the colonial governor. But if the fugitive is in a foreign land, then he will be beyond the reach of English or British justice. The foreign state may surrender him, and may be bound by treaty to surrender him. Great Britain has now many treaties with foreign states for the reciprocal extradition of those accused of certain crimes, and there is a definite procedure in this country for the extradition of those whom we are thus bound to surrender. But to execute its own coercive processes in foreign countries, English or British justice makes no endeavour, and of course there are good reasons why none should be made.

If we look at the means of compelling a person to give evidence concerning matters which are before an English court, we see again this triple organisation. A person may be summoned as a witness from any part of England, and if he does not come he can be punished by the court that summoned him. Then again, English courts can summon a witness from Scotland or Ireland, and if he does not come he can be punished by a Scotch or Irish court. From any of the Queen's dominions

outside the United Kingdom he cannot thus be summoned, but in aid of litigation in an English court a commission may be sent out to the colony to take his evidence there, and if he will not give it a colonial court can punish him. If however he is in the land of a foreign state, then it rests with that state to compel him or not to give evidence for the purpose of English litigation; we, for our part, do provide processes whereby a person in England can be compelled to give evidence to be used before foreign tribunals.

Again, the civil judgments of an English court can be made available in Scotland and Ireland, and those of a Scotch or Irish court in England, by a simple process of registration which involves no further litigation. But the judgment of a foreign, or even of a colonial court, cannot be thus enforced in England.

Speaking very generally, we may may say that an English court will treat the judgment of a foreign or colonial court as deciding finally between the parties to the litigation any question which it professedly decides; but if the person against whom it has been given has lands or goods in England, these cannot be seized until an English action has been brought and an English judgment has been given against him.

What, however, has here been said about the organisation of the United Kingdom as a whole for Justice and Police, and the looser organisation of the British Empire, does but indicate the effect of statutes for the more part quite modern. This organisation has been slowly created as failures of justice have brought home to Parliament the need of connecting together more closely the several lands over which it bears sovereign sway. Possibly

the connection will become yet closer. There was a time when each county in England might have been said to have an independent system of Justice and Police; but we who are to speculate about neither the future nor the past, shall do well to think of England as a territory which has one system all to itself.

CHAPTER II.

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

A NATURAL division of our subject has already suggested itself. The main objects of justice are to afford remedies for the infringement of rights, and to insure the punishment of crime. Now, the notion of punishment seems quite distinct from that of exacting redress. The criminal in the interest of the community is hanged or imprisoned. Any person whom his crime has wronged gains nothing by this punishment. The debtor, at the instance of his creditor, is forced to pay what is due; if he will not pay, his goods or lands will be seized in order that the claim against him may be satisfied. Here the creditor obtains something very definite, while the debtor is not punished, he suffers no harm or loss beyond what is necessary in order that another may have his due. This distinction between remedial justice and penal justice is likely to show itself in the law of every age and every country that we can compare with our own, by giving rise to two different systems; there will be criminal cases and civil cases, a criminal procedure and a civil, perhaps criminal courts and civil courts. This distinction is, in general, well marked in England. ‘It is true that for civil and criminal trials the same judges