Picot and Bertram in poor Peter Brouard's case, in refusing to facilitate the ends of justice, that the damages might be assessed, conformably to the order in council, ought inevitably to lead to the dismemberment of those rotten charters and laws which have so long disgraced an island belonging to the British crown.

I am, Sir, yours,

J. B.

[No. 6.]

To the Editor of the Jersey News—Oct. 1, 1842.

SIR, I notice in the Jersey Gazette the following critique on the effect of the Habeas Corpus Acts in Jersey.-"We are rather of opinion (say they), that in strict constitutional law the correspondent of the News (Mr. Bowditch) is right, and that the judges of the Queen's Bench have supreme control over all Her Majesty's subjects; but what benefit would it be to Captain Collins, to be brought before Lord Denman upon a writ of habeas? The judge could only inquire whether he was in legal custody, according to the custom of the island, and as that cannot be denied, he would be remanded back again."

This is the point which I have been endeavouring to explain: Captain Collins is not in legal custody--he is arrested for a debt arising out of the island, which I think I have clearly shown to be his case. It may be sanctioned by the custom of the island, which is bad, and must give way to a registered act, the 56 Geo. III., for more effectually securing the liberty of the subject. Captain Collins can be brought before the superior courts at Westminster, where the right would be tried. It is idle to talk of the court of Queen's Bench not having the power to remove by writ of habeas.

The great lawyer of the day, Mr. Advocate Godfray, must admit this; and to him the thanks of the whole community are due, for his spirited and able elucidation in the states, of the dangerous two-fold duty of legislator and judge. He justly adds, "that the greatest and most vexatious abuse in the island, was, that the jurats should be allowed to sit in the legislative assembly, and for the same persons who made the law to administer it." This is also what I contend for; and although I admire his zeal in the cause of Captain Collins, why does he not insist, that upon his claiming to make cession, and after filing his schedule, that his client should be set at liberty? This is the case in England; as soon as the debtor files his schedule, he is admitted to appear.

The jurats who have wilfully misconstrued the ordre provisoire, ought to be impeached-in first arresting a man, who at the time had goods in the island, on which to make the caption. Here, again, they plead a barbarous custom, wholly unsanctioned by the very instrument which the lieutenant-bailly allows to be put in motion. Why is not the question fairly met, whether causes arising out of the island can be noticed in it—and why a man (if they shrink from the inquiry) should be incarcerated in a prison, ad infinitum, when he has claimed and been allowed to make cession? Is it not a disgrace on these men in authority thus to torment a fellow-creature? An open bar and an independent judge, with trial by jury, are the best safeguards. Let Mr. Godfray persevere in his demands for reform. A correspondent of the News justly observes, that the old system (like a thread-worn garment) is past improvement, and wholly unfitted for the times. "It must altogether be a new polity—a new state of things." Can anything be more necessary than this, when we find, in the instance of the procureur of Mrs. Sarah Fiott, there is a wrong without a remedy; and where, as Mr. Adv. Godfray observed on the 5th of July, "that as all the jurats were tenans of the fief, they could not administer the law? Will these men, let me ask, who cling to such obsolete and absurd customs, deny the fact, -that it is time to reform such abuses? Would it not be to their credit, seeing that Her Majesty's subjects are entitled to a remedy, and to have their wrongs redressed, immediately to represent this to the advisers of the crown and to the home-secretary?

Phillips on Evidence is quoted in the royal court, as well as Chitty on Contracts, Burn's Justice, and the like: why then not adopt the means further to secure justice; and, as in the mother country, if they are dissatisfied with a trial at Nisi Prius, possess the advantage of appealing to a full court of judges in Banco, to whom matters can safely be entrusted?

The truth is, the royal court is a court of common law-a court of equity-a court of admiralty-a prerogative court-a police courta coroner's court—a grand jury—a petty jury—a court of judgment -a court of appeal-finance-building-road-making-and numerous other characters-a power grasped and held by an irresponsible body of men on the one hand, who give decisions one day, and annul them the next—whilst on the other, the people are bound in the most humiliating state of thraldom.

I am, Sir, yours,

J. B.

[No. 7.]

To the Editor of the Jersey News.

SIR,-The old war-cry, "our privileges are in danger," seems to be the watch-word of the constable of St. Helier's, whenever an attempt is made at improvement in the civil affairs of the island. Thus, on seeing the Copyright Act carried into effect in Jersey, he exclaims," Although the act is registered here, it can be of no avail, since there is no power to put it into execution."

This I deny; and I should hardly have thought it necessary to tell this great lawyer, after his stating in Pirouet's case, "that it would be dangerous to decide contrary to established precedents, and allow a niece to impeach her uncle for rape," that he is altogether wrong in his law, in questioning the right of the officers of the customs to make seizures on land as well as on water; for, by Geo. IV., c. 114 (registered in Jersey), it is enacted, "That all vessels and boats, and all goods liable to forfeiture, under this or any other act, shall and may be seized, in any place, either upon land or water, by any officer of His Majesty's army, navy, or customs."

By 3 and 4 Wm. IV., "An Act for the prevention of smuggling," it is enacted, "That all persons resisting officers, or rescuing or destroying goods to prevent seizure, shall forfeit £100. And that all penalties and forfeitures incurred or imposed by this or any other act, relating to customs, shall and may be sued for, prosecuted, and recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any of His Majesty's courts of record, at Westminster, or in the royal courts of the islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark or Man, in the name of His Majesty's attorney-general, or in the name or names of some officer or officers of His Majesty's customs, or (if in England) before two or more of His Majesty's justices of the peace, or before any governor, deputy-governor, or deemster in the Isle of Man."

There is no need of the assistance of the bailiff, or an ordre de justice, accompanied by the sheriff, who would always refuse to interfere, as infringing upon "our valuable privileges." This was done to my knowledge in 1826, when Mr. Williams, the comptroller of Portsea, went over to Jersey, to make an extensive seizure of silks that had been landed and traced into the warehouse of Mr. This sub

terfuge will not avail in 1842, and the constable of St. Helier's may spare himself the trouble of referring the matter to the committee of the public library, whom he considers will not allow these important privileges to be infringed with impunity.

Why should Jersey be freed from a search on shore, any more

B

than Southampton, when the act of parliament applies to both? Are they to put at defiance the enactments of the British parliament? All officers, whether of the customs, army, or navy, may seize goods instanter, and not wait for Mr. Sheriff this, or Mr. Sheriff that; but may, after such seizure, in case of resistance, insist upon having the superior aid of these notable functionaries.

As regards the Habeas Corpus Act of 56 Geo. III., registered in Jersey, the sheriff dare not resist its authority, although Guernsey once escaped its fangs under a feigned compromise. This act was made especially for better guarding the liberty of the subject, in all the dominions of Great Britain, and especially the Channel Islands, for they are named. Will the constable of St. Helier's presume to say that, in spite of the law, he would withhold a person removing himself under this act, when he has been wrongfully seized, on a cause arising out of the island, and deprive the subject of one of his greatest privileges known to the British constitution?

These by-gone charters (if ever they had existed) must yield to the superior claims of right and common sense; and let me repeat (it cannot be too strongly impressed on the minds of every one) that, by 7 and 8 Wm. III., c. 22, it is enacted, "That all laws, by-laws, usages, and customs, which shall be in practice in any of the possessions of the crown, repugnant to any law, made or to be made in England, relative to the said possessions, shall be utterly void and of no effect." If anything were wanting to close the door for ever upon the argument of the learned constable, Lord Coke has held, that whenever the islands are especially named, it has the effect of law, and they are bound by it without registration. And, says a great historian, on the laws of the Channel Islands, "The laws have been so often debated for the last fifty years, and the royal courts have in so many instances adopted and enforced the provisions of acts of parliament, that to contest it, would be the height of obstinacy."

I am, Sir, yours, &c.,

London, Oct. 28, 1842.

J. B.

[No. 8.]

To Thomas Le Breton, Esq.-November 19, 1842.

SIR,--The great principle for which I have hitherto contended, has fully developed itself in the sister island, Guernsey, wherein it was sought to charge the defendant with a debt arising out of that island. The case to which I allude is that of Clugas, attorney of

Messrs. Le Breton, of Jersey, against Bazille, reported in the Guernsey Star of 11th September.

The arguments adduced by that able and enlightened lawyer, Mr. Jeremie, will set both you and the most sceptical for ever at rest, on the extent of your jurisdiction, and prove a bar to your indiscriminately suing every person, from whatever climate, whether the debt originated in the island or not.

Mr. Jeremie contended, and very justly, too, that the courts of Guernsey were not competent to take cognisance of this case, inasmuch as that the transaction on which the action was brought did not take its origin there.

"We must (says he) be guided by the recognised law. We live in critical times, when it became necessary to ascertain the limits of our jurisdiction, not only in civil and criminal cases, but in political ones also. Now these limits were clearly traced in the Precepte d'Assize, which the law officers of the crown were accustomed to look upon as the great charter of the islands, and which confined the authority of the court to cases originating within the island, and not elsewhere."

This was admitted by the Queen's procureur, and also by the court, who unanimously fell in with Mr. Jeremie's definition of the law. A new era therefore presents itself in the future administration of the law in Jersey, to which I can look back for numerous cases, both from France, America, and elsewhere, where litigants have prosecuted their claims through you from these countries, on precisely similar grounds, and obtained full countenance by the royal court, whose dictums have incarcerated the widow and the stranger, who had no possible opportunity of defending themselves, through absent witnesses. I remember the case of Lean v. Robinson, who was condemned on the oath of the party alone, contrary to Terrein, your great lawgiver, who has distinctly laid it down that "toute chose qui est proposé en cour sans temoins (meaning two witnesses, at the least) est jugée pour vaine.”

Numerous persons have fallen victims to this injustice; and if any such there be at this moment within the walls of St. Helier's prison, let them remove themselves to this country by writ of habeas corpus, and I will defy the bailiff, Sir John De Veulle, to resist it.

These are critical times, says Mr. Jeremie, when one ought to ascertain the limits of our jurisdiction. In this I concur; not that I wish to destroy or abolish it, but it must be reformed-it is impossible such miserable and unjust methods of administering justice can be tolerated.

Why do not you, sir, as Her Majesty's attorney-general, seeing these