In recent months, many a lawyer has turned misty-eyed in defence of the jury and invoked Lord Devlin's famous words that it is 'the lamp that shows that freedom lives'.

In a similar vein, it seems the lay magistracy's lack of democratic credentials lies at the core of the campaign not to touch juries.For a long time, civil liberties lawyers have been giving the lay magistracy a hard time.

The argument goes that for the most part, magistrates are white, middle-class and middle-aged, and sit in judgement on young, working-class, and often black defendants.Such legal luminaries as Michael Mansfield QC have called for the abolition of the magistracy and compulsory jury trials for all defendants who plead not guilty.

Fellow silk Geoffrey Robertson condemned magistrates as 'ladies and gentleman bountiful' and Helena Kennedy QC recently argued, in a more moderate attack, that there is a danger that they become too 'case-hardened'.Harry Mawdsley, chairman of the Magistrates Association, might have an image problem on his hands, but he is undeterred.

If home secretary Jack Straw gets his way, he argues, defendants will still have their jury trial, 'albeit a small jury of three magistrates'.But many would argue that it is hardly a jury that it is representative of the wider society.

Mr Mawdsley refutes the stereotyped view of magistrates that is often bandied about, and argues that the 30,000 volunteers that comprise the lay magistracy are a far more socially diverse bunch than might be portrayed in, for example, the television police series The Bill.On the bench in Crewe, Cheshire, where he sits, there are train drivers, postal workers, nurses and supermarket staff among his fellow magistrates.

There are even two from ethnic minorities which, he adds quickly, is not such a bad statistic considering only 1% of the local population is black or Asian.

Elsewhere -- particularly in urban areas -- the representation of ethnic minorities is far more impressive; for example, they constitute 16% of the bench in Hounslow and 12% in Manchester.A recurring argument over the past few months has been that there is a greater possibility of acquittal by jury.

He argues that this is a 'self-perpetuating myth' which guarantees that a defendant with a good case will go for trial by jury.

Mr Mawdsley, a magistrate of 25 years, also refutes the suggestion that magistrates become cynical or case-hardened.

He has sat 36 times in the past year but only twice in trials, and in one of these the defendant was acquitted.Last October the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, halted plans to abandon the practice of asking candidates for magistracy about their political allegiance in an attempt to ensure a social mix on the bench.

The concern for political balance is not as great as it once was, says Mr Mawdsley.

He says the government's huge majority at the last general election must have meant that an enormous number of people within the magistrates' court arena voted for the present government.Criminal defence solicitors bear witness to they way the magistracy has improved over the past few years.

Franklin Sinclair, chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, says that ten years ago magistrates' courts were 'police courts'.

If a police officer gave evidence in the court -- 'no matter how unlikely the evidence might be' -- the magistrates would swallow it.He believes the problem with magistrates' courts lies not with the justices but the structure of the courts.

Where there are que stions of law or evidence, it is the 'luck of the draw' as to whether there is a clerk up to the job, he maintains.

If you end up with a clerk without experience, the magistrates tend not to understand the questions of law and 'decide things as they want to', he claims.Black people still get a raw deal, he maintains.

In central Manchester, a black youth is almost twice as likely to end up in jail as his white counterpart.

That situation is exacerbated outside the cities, he says, where there are fewer ethnic minority magistrates and the average age of the bench increases.It is a pattern that Colin Reynolds, president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, has observed.

When he leaves the metropolis, he often encounters a 'squire of the manor approach'.

He says: 'They really do take the view that they are running a fiefdom, and "this is how we do things here".'But in London, he reports, there is a much greater spread of age and background of those on the bench.

He is often 'pleased and surprised' that people in their early thirties volunteer for service.

The 'dinosaur' figures on the bench who would say something inappropriate two or three times in a morning are much scarcer than they were ten to 15 years ago, he says.

'You used to sit there and cringe,' he recalls.

'Certainly, I don't get the feeling that it happens so much.'He challenges the prevailing and cynical view of the magistracy as a 'cheap form of justice' as something of a myth.

By way of an example, he mentions a stipendiary magistrate in Brighton who goes through a morning list, which would take a lay magistrates five hours, in a couple of hours.

Rather than being regarded by defence lawyers as a menace, he is just seen as incredibly efficient.

Franklin Sinclair is however more concerned about the stipendiaries in general than the unpaid volunteers.

'They think they know all the tricks and tend not to listen,' he says.The 'democratic undertow' of the magistracy has its benefits for the justice system, says Malcolm Fowler, chairman of the Law Society's criminal law committee.

'They are very independent, which can be very inconvenient,' he says.

'Sometimes they produce inconsistent results but, by and large, it is healthy for the system'.Mr Fowler says there is something of a 'turf war' between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) over the future of the lay magistracy.

The LCD is supporting the volunteers, but the Home Office favours an all-professional magistracy.

He has heard three models being debated; first, the 'big bang' approach, in which the lay magistracy would be scrapped altogether; second, increasing the penalties for certain cases in the magistrates' court and reserving these 'higher echelon' cases to the stipendiaries; and finally, having the 'higher echelon' cases chaired by a stipendiary.

He says the 'orthodox theology' was that the lay magistrates were cheaper, but he believes that the Treasury has been re-doing its sums.

A future without lay magistrates would be a 'damn shame', he says.'I don't think he looked like your average wife-beater,' one magistrate said of a defendant who came before the court, in Without fear or favour, a BBC Radio 4 programme on magistrates aired last month (see reviews, page 42).

It was one loose comment in a programme which otherwise reflected well upon magistrates.

'In any profession there are some good people and some not so good people', Mr Mawdsley says with a laugh.

He recalls a recent conversation with a leading civil liberties lawyer who said pointedly that he had met 's ome' good magistrates.

'I pointed out to him that I had met some good lawyers too.' Touche.