1832.] Legal Monopoly. 541 



love the business so much, that they monopolise it all j yet, all the business of 

 this great metropolis that flows into this channel, is shared among six attor- 

 nies and one or two agents, who pay very considerable salaries for being 

 allowed to practice in the name of one of the six. The inconvenience to 

 the public, as well as the hardship of being obliged to resort to one of 

 these legal monopolists, could any plaintiff have recourse to the less of 

 two evils, must be very obvious; what is more revolting, if possible, the 

 barristers of this Court, to the number of but four, exclude all competition ; 

 because they pay on an average, we are informed, about four thousand 

 pounds for the tenure of their situations for the exclusive privilege of 

 holding all briefs, and exacting fees upon every action brought into that 

 Court; so that you cannot choose either counsel or attorney, but must put 

 up with such as the monopoly can produce, be they never so inefficient. 

 Two of these barristers, upon each side, must be feed before you can intro- 

 duce one of your own choice. We dare not trust ourselves to comment 

 upon these facts. That cheap law, and a summary means of recovering 

 small debts are incalculable advantages to a trading people, no one can 

 dispute ; and the existence of this court is useful as an illustration of what 

 may be done : even this slight consideration of its malpractices affords 

 ample proof that such a thing as administering cheap justice is possible. 

 For our parts, we are at a loss to account for so glaring- a species of 

 traffic in the hard earnings of the indigent and the suffering. We 

 have often uttered complaints loud and deep, but party interest has been 

 hitherto overpowering. Before we conclude, we cannot help noticing 

 the persevering demand of compensation made by these monopolists for 

 the losses they may sustain by any change, the difficulty of satisfying 

 which, perhaps, is one cause, among others, of the continuation of these 

 evils. We say, if men are bold and callous enough to enter upon such a 

 system of exaction, and hesitate not at plunder to live in luxury, let them 

 adventure with the risks always attendant upon unjust dealings ; but we 

 should add, that it would be more prudent to sacrifice to the nest of hornets 

 the honeycomb of the industrious, than be eternally harassed by their 

 sting ; dole them out some renumeration, if it must be so, but by no means 

 let them continue to wrench from the poor, the injured, or the unfortunate, 

 their whole substance, by such scandalous indirection. In fact the evil 

 has grown so enormous, that it must, ultimately, remedy itself. We 

 would propose that the fees upon actions instituted in the Courts 

 of King's Bench, Exchequer, and Common Pleas, be reduced to fair 

 renumerative rates upon debts under sixty pounds, as recommended 

 by the Common Law Commissioners $ that such actions be tried by 

 one of the puisne judges j and allow the Palace Court, and other like 

 monopolies, to remain entirely disregarded. Could any monopolizer have 

 the effrontary to ask renumeration for the beneficial effects produced to the 

 public by regulations or legislatorial enactments, touching the chief courts 

 only ? The city has its Court of Requests for the recovery of debts 

 amounting to five pounds, where many actions are determined in the course 

 of a morning ; why should not other parts of the metropolis possess a like 

 advantage ? If the costs in the Marshelsea Court, for the recovery of debts 

 amounting to fifty pounds, be but twenty or under, with all the un weeded 

 powers of the monopolists, in the absence too of all interference, may we 

 not reasonably expect that one half, or even a less sum, would be a suffi- 

 cient remuneration ? when bribes are unnecessary, court fees are not taken, 



