There are two very marked differences between the administration of justice in Holland and in England. The first is that what are called 'petty offences' are not tried and disposed of summarily in the former country. There the offender in such cases is subjected to a process known as 'verbalization'--that is, his name, address, age, and all particulars of the offence are noted by the police; and he is thereupon informed that he will be called upon to give an account of himself later. A week or two may pass before the offender receives verbal or printed notice requiring his presence before the Court of the Cantonal Judge, which answers somewhat to the English Police Court. This delay in the administration of justice is regarded as a great defect even in Holland, and one which is more and more being recognized. The establishment of the Police Court as known and conducted in England is felt, therefore, to be a great desideratum, and it is by no means unlikely that it may be introduced before long, since the Dutch have always shown themselves ready to adopt any modification of their own institutions which the experience of other countries may prove to be clearly desirable.

The second difference is that trial by jury as Englishmen understand it does not exist in the Netherlands. But here the Dutch are not likely to abandon their own tradition. The jury in Holland is composed of experienced and qualified judges, who are not apt to modify their opinions as to the guilt or innocence of accused persons owing to the tears of the latter or the passionate appeals of their advocates. Rightly or wrongly, the most eminent lawyers in Holland ascribe the often-recurring cases of miscarriage of justice in some countries which have adopted the jury system to this system itself, and it is very improbable, therefore, that in this respect the Dutch will copy any of their neighbours.

The organization of justice in Holland originated in the Code Napoleon, which was introduced shortly after the country's annexation to the French Empire. In the judicial system in vogue to-day, which is the result of modifications introduced at various times during last century, and particularly by a law of the year 1895, the administration of justice is vested in the High Court (Hooge Raad), the Provincial Courts of Justice (Gerechtskoven), the Arrondissements (Rechtbanken), and the Cantonal Courts (Kantongerechten).

The High Court consists of a President, a Vice-President, from twelve to fourteen Councillors, a Procurator-General, three Advocates-General (who form, with the Procurator-General, the 'Public Ministry' or Office of Public Prosecution), also a Greffier, or Clerk of Court, and two deputy Greffiers. Most of the appointments are made by the Sovereign, and are for life. The High Court is situated at The Hague, and its principal duty is to control the administration of justice by the lower Courts, a process known as 'cassation.' If, for example, one of the lower Courts has pronounced a sentence from which there is no appeal in that Court, and one of the contending parties is of opinion that the sentence is excessive, that party may require the High Court to cancel or annul (casseer) the verdict. When an appeal for cassation or annulment is thus made, the High Court has not to go into the question of the guilt or innocence of the contending parties, but merely into the question whether the lower Court has judged rightly or whether it was competent to judge the case at all. Such 'cassations' occur almost daily, not because the High Court has a reputation for reversing the verdicts given below, but because the process offers at least a good chance of getting a sentence reduced. The Public Prosecution, however, has power to set in motion the process of cassation without being called upon so to do if the interests of justice should in its opinion require it. To the jurisdiction of the High Court belong also piracy cases, the apportionment of prizes made in war, and the determination of accusations against State officials of abuse of power.

Of Provincial Courts there are five, each composed of officials similar in name, though not in rank, to those of the High Court, and they, too, are for the most part appointed by the Crown, though not all for life. These Provincial Courts pronounce judgment in the second instance--that is, when the decision of a lower Court has been appealed against. This is, in fact, their principal function, though they also pronounce judgment in the first instance in cases of difference between the Cantonal Courts or Arrondissement Courts. The latter are so named from the divisions into which the country was split up for administrative purposes during the Napoleonic rÉgime, for the existing arrondissement boundaries are virtually the same as those of ninety years ago.

There are twenty-three Arrondissement Courts, thirteen of the first-class and ten of the second class. Their principal business is to pronounce judgment in the first instance, even in criminal cases, but they also decide in the final instance in cases of dispute between the Cantonal Courts, which are under their jurisdiction. They likewise adjudicate upon claims for compensation up to a certain amount, upon disputes regarding the boundaries of land and property, and upon complaints relating to water-supply, drainage, and the like, while cases of mendicancy, vagrancy, and evasion of taxes are decided by these Courts summarily.

The Cantonal Courts are, as already stated, the nearest equivalent in Holland to the English Police Courts. Their members, however, are legally trained and salaried men, though attached to each Court are several unsalaried deputies. The Judges of these Courts are appointed for life by the Crown, and the minor officiais for a term of years. All the petty cases which in England come before the Police Court are in Holland adjudicated upon by the Cantonal Courts. Poaching, personal violence, cruelty to animals, damage done to dwellings, trees, or crops, are all cases for these Courts, and so long as the fines imposed do not exceed two guineas, their judgment is final, but in other cases the right of appeal exists.

Mention has just been made of the fact that even from the lowest Court of Law in Holland the amateur judge is rigidly excluded. No one who has not acquired the diploma of Doctor of Laws from one of the Dutch Universities is allowed to assume any responsible duty associated with the administration of justice. The same severe requirement is imposed upon the legal profession in general. The possession of the diploma of Doctor of Laws and Letters alone entitles a man to practise as advocate. Amongst themselves the members of the legal profession also exercise a sort of mutual surveillance by means of their Councils of Supervision and Discipline, whose duty it is to take care that nothing is done by an advocate which is contrary to the law or to the honour of the faculty. These Councils are chosen from amongst the lawyers themselves in all towns where there are more than fourteen resident advocates, but in smaller places their duties are discharged by the Provincial or Arrondissement Courts. Should a lawyer be guilty of any serious misdemeanour he is promptly expelled from the Community of Advocates, and he may be even refused the right to plead in any of the public Courts. In passing, it is an interesting feature of the Dutch judicial system that in every place where there is a Court of Justice, higher or lower, there exists a Consultation Bureau where people without means may obtain gratuitous advice in legal matters. Unless a charge laid before this Consultation Bureau appears on the face of it to be unsustainable, the Bureau appoints one of its members to act as legal adviser and counsellor to the applicant free of cost. In criminal cases the President of the Court concerned appoints a legal adviser for the accused, though the latter may choose another advocate if he pleases.

It will be interesting to enter one of these Dutch Courts of Law, and a Cantonal Court may perhaps best serve as an example, since that resembles most closely the English forum of the people--the Police Court. Let us assume that we are privileged persons, though engaged in serious legal business. We are bidden to make an appearance at a quarter to eleven o'clock in the morning, and, presenting ourselves at that hour, we take our seats on comfortable chairs, ranged round a long square table in the large public waiting-room. As many other people are coming in, and the room threatens soon to be crowded, a considerate attendant, knowing that we are in favour with the grave and reverend seigniors who preside over the Court, shows us into another and smaller room, where one of the deputy Clerks (Greffier) is seated working at his books. One by one other persons come in, pay small sums of money, of which the deputy Clerk evidently keeps an exact account, together with the names and addresses of the payers, the amounts yet remaining due--everything, in fact, relating to each person's case. We note that some of the payers inquire how much they yet owe, and the sum being told them, they forthwith take their departure. We learn that these are all people who were fined some time ago for petty offences, and who are, or pretend to be, unable to pay the full amount at once. Hence they are allowed to pay by instalments, and it is the duty of the Clerk to keep an accurate account of their contributions.

Our own turn having come round, we are now ushered into the Court, where we see His Worship the Judge seated at the head--which happens to be the middle--of a long table, covered by the inevitable green cloth. Papers, ink-stands, and pens are before him; at his left hand sits the Clerk, and next to him the first deputy Clerk. We observe, too, how carefully the proprieties are observed in the matter of dress. All the judicial functionaries present wear a costume consisting of a black toga reaching to the heels, with a white 'bef,' or collar-band, hanging in front halfway down to the waist, and also a black barrette, or square cap, as in France.

Five persons are seated in the chairs next to ours and opposite to the Judge. They have just testified that the last will of their parent has been duly carried out, and that each of them has received his share, being in this case '3887 guilders 71/2 cents'. (don't forget the half-cent, for attention to minutiae is one of those characteristics of the Dutch which strikes us at every turn). Presently the Judge asks the eldest of the party whether his name is not 'So-and-so.' The answer being in the affirmative, His Worship nods to the Clerk, who begins to read out in clear and measured tones--

'I, So-and-so (description and address follow), hereby declare and testify to have received as my share in the heritage of my parent the sum legally apportioned to me, being 3887 guilders 71/2 cents.'

Then the Judge asks: 'Are you prepared to swear that this is true, and that as far as you know nothing is kept behind so that justice is not fully carried out?' This is the legal formula in use upon such an occasion, and it produces the expected reply. 'Very well, then,' proceeds the Judge, 'repeat after me, "So truly help me God Almighty!"' The familiar words of the Dutch oath are accompanied by the uplifting of the right hand and the pointing to heaven of the first two fingers. Then follow the other four members of the family in order of age. All of them swear in the usual words, except the second daughter, who demurs, on which the judicial eyebrows are raised in surprise. It appears that the maiden suffers from religious scruples, being firmly of opinion that swearing an oath is forbidden by Holy Scripture. The Judge listens respectfully, and simply answers, 'Then repeat after me, "I hereby solemnly declare that the words read out to me just now are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."' The conscientious witness having no objection to a simple affirmation, the words are promptly repeated, the business is completed, and the party are all allowed to withdraw.

Now our own turn has come. One of our party, we will assume, has been appointed by the Cantonal Judge to be guardian over a minor son of another of our number. All declare who, what, and whence they are, and that the guardian has received his appointment with their common consent, while the guardian himself makes formal declaration of accepting the duty. He is thereupon sworn by the Judge in the occupation of his office, promising 'to act in all things as a true and faithful guardian should act, so truly help me God Almighty.' These several incidents are fairly typical of the sort of business which occupies the attention of these minor Courts. As we leave the building, however, we learn another piece of interesting information in the course of conversation with the deputy Clerk whose acquaintance we first made. It is that the principle of 'punishment by instalments' is applied in the case of the poorer classes, not merely in the matter of fines, but also of imprisonment, save in criminal cases. Many a poor man, for instance, who shortly after being sentenced to, say, a week's or a fortnight's imprisonment has happened to find employment would be ruined if compelled to go to prison at once. He is therefore allowed, as in Russia, to select his own time for surrendering himself to the prison authorities, and if, as often happens in poaching cases, two different offences have brought upon him two terms of imprisonment, he is allowed to come before the Judge, with the request that he may combine these two terms, beginning his incarceration at a fixed date. The Court to whose clemency he thus appeals generally grants the request, and the man is thus enabled to work for his livelihood whilst the demand for labour is general, and to go to prison when he happens to be out of work, and would only be one mouth more to feed at home, where his wife and children already find difficulty enough in making both ends meet. When imprisonment is thus post-poned the offender receives from the Court a document, on the presentation of which at the prison door the Master of the prison will admit him as a temporary occupant of one of the cells. Old gaol-birds, however, are not treated so tenderly, but the Judges soon learn by experience when and how to apply this merciful arrangement, and when to refuse it altogether.

In general the statistics of crime give Holland a decidedly favourable reputation. Serious misdemeanours are comparatively rare. Crimes like burglary, theft, and the like, are certainly committed often enough, but there is no evidence to show that they are on the increase, while life and property are at least as secure in the large Dutch towns as anywhere else in Europe. The Hague, though a city of 220,000 inhabitants, is sufficiently protected by the comparatively small number of 220 policemen. Rotterdam and Amsterdam both have a larger number of policemen per thousand inhabitants than The Hague, but this is natural, owing to the more heterogeneous character of the population of these great commercial centres. It is a notable fact that in every town in Holland the Burgomaster or Mayor is the supreme head of the police, and that the Chief Commissary of Police must not merely co-operate with him, but is in the last resort subject to his direct command.

In spite of the fact that Courts of summary jurisdiction of the English type do not exist in Holland, the police authority possesses a considerable amount of power. Mention has been made of the process of 'verbalization' as applied to common misdemeanours. In the case of drunkenness or fighting, however, the offenders are at once taken before the Commissary of Police, who promptly deals with them. Offences against which the police are entirely powerless are those of adulteration of food, household quarrels so long as they remain within certain bounds, and an offence of quite modern origin known as 'bottle-drawing' (AnglicÈ, 'long-firm frauds'). This last is an ingenious species of fraud which has become very common in Holland of late years. A person orders a quantity of goods from merchants of various towns on the pretence of opening accounts, which he promises will quickly assume large dimensions. Consignment after consignment of wares is sent, but never paid for, and when at last the too trustful merchant discovers that he has been playing into the hands of a swindler he gets no redress, for the artful schemer has disappeared, taking with him the proceeds of the goods received. For a time this sort of fraud was quite popular, but then the eyes of the business community were opened, and the strong hand of the law fell upon several offenders with crushing weight, after which 'bottle-drawing' lost in attractiveness. On the whole, the police in Holland are commendably energetic as well as dutiful, and the relationship between the police authority and the public is generally a friendly and trustful one.

It may be noted that the Dutch law strongly discourages divorce. In general the present generation is apt to regard separation and divorce with greater favour than its fathers did, but though this feeling may to some extent influence the decisions of Dutch Judges in divorce proceedings, the law itself, strictly interpreted, offers little hope to those who would weaken the marriage tie. When married people disagree to such an extent that a rupture between them is imminent, and a demand for divorce is made, proof is required that the demand comes only from one side, for divorce by common consent is against the law except in cases of adultery. In every other case the Judge of the Cantonal Court must do his utmost to effect a reconciliation. Should, however, a demand for divorce be repeated, this same Judge, or a Judge of a Superior Court, must again endeavour to bring the parties together, and only in the event of failure is judicial separation a mens et thoro pronounced, and this separation must exist for a number of years--as a rule seven--before actual divorce can take place. Nevertheless, both separation and divorce are far more frequent nowadays than ten or twenty years ago, owing largely to the judicial disposition to interpret the law more in accordance with what are known as 'modern ideas.'

Holland is one of the few countries which no longer tolerate capital punishment. It was abolished thirty years ago, and, in spite of the strenuous efforts of the reactionary party, it is not likely to be re-established. Quite recently, Mr. C. Loosjes wrote a pamphlet in advocacy of the reenactment of capital punishment, and his position at the Ministry of Justice gave to this work considerable weight. His contention was that since capital punishment was abolished, the crimes of murder, attempted murder, poisoning, and parricide had increased, but Mr. Loosjes failed to make sufficient allowance for the fact that during the period covered by his statistics the population of the country had greatly increased. The fact is that during the twenty years preceding abolition considerably more crimes punishable by death occurred than during the twenty years following that act of clemency, civilisation, and enlightenment, while as compared with other countries Holland takes a very favourable position indeed, standing, together with England, Belgium, and Germany, at the head of the nations having the smallest number of crimes of a kind usually punished by death.