“Well, it’s very onconvanient our coming here. Couldn’t yo call?”
The idea of calling personally on the litigants—especially in these days
of motor-cars, when every registrar is probably an expert chauffeur—is a
very attractive one, and not much more absurd that the present system of
sending Judges to Courts that have no real use for them.
But from my point of view, the difficulties of dealing with the smaller
Courts, if they exist, should not hinder the development of the larger
Circuits. It is clear that the problems of providing adequate Civil
Courts for Central Wales and Norfolk is not the same as the problem of
providing similar tribunals for Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds. I have
shown that there are a large number of districts where the Courts are
increasing yearly in usefulness and in public favour, and there is, I
think, a strong case that from a business point of view Circuits that are
dealing with large amounts of work should be specially considered.
I do not think there will be any great difficulty in dealing with the
great urban centres when the legislature makes up its mind to make the
County Courts district Courts working directly in touch with the High
Courts. No doubt it will mean the providing of money for further and
better equipment, but it has certainly to come about, and there are
signs that it is being faced. The problem of the rural Courts is more
difficult, but I think the grouping of several Courts under one resident
permanent registrar with extended powers and allowing him to gather
together in one place a day’s work for the Judge who is to travel his
Circuit with a business regard for the actual wants of litigants from
time to time is a statement of the general lines upon which reforms can
be carried out. The rural Courts will always be costly to the community,
out of all proportion to the services rendered, but they are necessary
and the expense must be borne; the urban Courts, on the other hand, might
be made to pay their way, and might be of far greater service to the
business communities around them than they already are.
It is difficult, of course, to write upon such a subject without personal
bias, and it has been my lot to take an official position for the sake
of its comparative leisure, and to find that leisure taken away by
successive Acts of Parliament without compensation for disturbance.
Still, experience of legal reform leads me to believe that I cannot be
writing this with any personal motive, for I cannot hope to be presiding
in any County Court in the latter part of the twentieth century, when,
according to recorded precedent, such reforms as I propose will be about
due.
Why, then, do I commend the future of the County Court to the attention
of the legal reformer? Because I see in the County Court, and in that
Court only, a growing and popular tribunal favoured by the business men
of the country. Because in that Court there is a crying abuse calling
aloud for reform, namely, imprisonment for debt, which abuse, when
abolished or mitigated, will release Judges from odious duties, and give
them time for more honourable services. Because in great urban centres
there has long been a demand for continued sittings, which the High
Court has been unable to comply with, but which the County Court already
satisfies to some extent, and with reasonable equipment could supply in
full measure. The record of the County Courts in the last fifty years
is a very remarkable one. In the face of keen professional opposition,
Parliament has given them year by year more important and onerous duties.
These have been carried out in the main to the satisfaction of the
business man in the business centres. It is because the urban County
Courts are live business concerns, carrying on their business to the
satisfaction of their customers, that I believe in the future of the
County Court.