to £100, permitting both suitors, if willing, to proceed up to £1000, any extension to be safeguarded by the introduction of Order 14, as in the Superior Court.

I concluded my article by a passing reference to the essay of his Honour Judge Yate-Lee, printed in the May number of this journal under the title of " A Practical Scheme for the Extension of the Jurisdiction of County Courts," the main scope of it being to show how the present courts would be sufficiently manned if all the cases up to £10 were relegated to the registrar, a proposal so far in advance of any suggestions in the same direction that the scheme requires minute and serious consideration.

Let me at once say that there are many points in Judge Yate-Lee's paper commanding my sympathy, but as to conferring deputy judgeship wholesale on the registrars—practically the duty of trying between eighty and ninety per cent. of all the cases-(it being common knowledge that actions up to £10 form the bulk of the whole business), I am bound to say that I am entirely at issue with the learned Judge.

But let us first see how far his Honour deals with the problem of extended jurisdiction, discussed fully in my previous article. He touches lightly on the difference between the scheme of extension put forward by the Associated Chambers of Commerce and that of the Incorporated Law Society, contenting himself with expressing a general approval of what those two bodies propose, without noting their extreme divergence. I have already pointed out that the Society does not by any means endorse the Chambers; on the contrary, it only assents to the jurisdiction being made absolute up to £100 instead of £1000, with an unequivocal demand for the benefit of Order 14-a cardinal variance, without which any extension whatever is stoutly opposed. As to the latter point, it is rather strange that the Judge suggests a stronger measure than Order 14 for small default cases, but approves

of the larger cases now taken to the High Court being turned over to the County Court without any such protection.

The other feature of the paper-the elevation of registrars to the position of judges in cases up to £10-must now be examined. From the earliest times to 1846, the County Court was a small-debt court, where every subject of the realm had a right to the services of a judge, practically as now, though the jurisdiction embraces larger figures. His Honour's remedy is to send adrift probably nine-tenths of the cases for which the County Courts were originally established, by depriving all those suitors of their right to a judge's services. In effect he says that the judges of the County Court are quite able to do the work which has been added to the jurisdiction since the courts were instituted, if the bulk of the original jurisdiction can be wiped out or turned over to some one else. The proposition amounts to the registrar being clothed with everything but a tithe of the original jurisdiction, the judges taking that much only, plus the growing incubus. What are the small litigants likely to say to this?

I agree with the Judge that one must avoid "interfering with the efficiency of the Courts for poor men," and that "the uneducated suitor ought to be convinced by his own observation that he has been fairly and impartially heard." Will he consider himself "heard" by anybody short of a judge? But assuming him to be willing, how many of the registrars throughout the kingdom would be qualified for this. new duty? Some of us could point out registrars who are every bit as fit to give decisions as the judges themselves. But who is to say who are fit and who are not fit? His Honour proposes to ignore these questions, and lays it down that all the registrars are fit, and that the suitor and the profession will be satisfied.

It is true that the Incorporated Law Society reported that

in their opinion the Government stopped unnecessarily short when they gave the registrar the infinitesimal power to dispose of cases up to 40s., clogged with the necessity of both sides consenting. But the Society's committee went to the end of their tether when they suggested that the registrar should be entrusted with jurisdiction up to £5 with or without consent. Even this change was much debated and considered by many to be a large experiment; but when it is proposed to confer double such jurisdiction upon registrars, all other reforms are put in the shade. I cannot for a moment think that the country would accept such a measure.

The confidence which Judge Yate-Lee reposes in the competency of the registrars to perform these new and enlarged functions is remarkable. As to trial by jury, his Honour very rightly draws attention to the fact that suitors in the County Court, like those in the High Court, are gradually showing themselves so content with the decision of the Judge that in cases up to £10 the right to a jury is rarely exercised; but when on the strength of this he not only turns over the £10 suitors to a registrar, but positively suggests that the option of a jury should be taken away by statute, I must confess to astonishment, notwithstanding my great respect for the writer.

Let us examine some of the reasons advanced in support of so extensive an innovation. It is alleged that the local knowledge of the registrar would strengthen his position. Hitherto it has been urged in support of the Assize system that the Judges, not being residents, are thus more impartial than if they were intimate with the personal surroundings of the litigants. If there were any solid reason why registrars should have their jurisdiction increased to such an extent, it would be necessary to limit the imposition of the new functions to registrars of front rank experience, such, for example, as those whose courts exercise bankruptcy jurisdiction, and the Metropolitan Courts.

Compelling litigants to travel some little distance in order to work out this principle is no hardship in these days of railways. The old cry about bringing justice to the poor man's door is nearly stamped out. Things to-day have no sort of resemblance to the condition of matters half a century back. A man is now nearer a court a dozen miles away from his residence than he was fifty years ago with but a tithe of that distance to traverse. Of course, on the eve of the twentieth century nobody would start County Court districts on the present lines, but a few members of the community must put up with some trifling inconvenience for the benefit of suitors at large.

Not only am I unable to support the suggestion of increasing registrars' jurisdiction beyond £5, but, speaking with some knowledge, I say that there would be numerous County Court Judges who would unfavourably regard this interference, even assuming that the registrars would themselves consent, a matter by no means certain. Theoretically, of course, the Government can do what it pleases with its own servants, but practically it is impossible to cut about an existing system if there be friction at all points of the compass. I am afraid there would be an astounding outcry if any member of Parliament dared to voice the proposals of Judge Yate-Lee. I regard them as prompted by despair; a rash attempt to get away from the present block, which is certainly growing intolerable.

It is well known that from many quarters there has been a suggestion that the position of a County Court Judge should be made a stepping-stone to the High Court Bench. An intermediate stage is shadowed out in the resolutions of the Chambers of Commerce, under which enlarged County Court districts have been proposed, with special judges at increased salaries. To put it in a word, the scheme amounts to the creation of a sort of junior or intermediate High Court of Justice. I must say that I cannot follow

these ideas, for, apart from the Treasury question, which here comes into action (not that I think the Treasury should not be coerced when things demand), there is the natural jealousy which would be engendered among the County Court Judges not selected for the new and enlarged duties.

Theoretically, the appointment of judges to these special positions accords with the argument previously adverted to (which the Law Society's Committee any time these fifteen years have affirmed), namely, that in proper cases the position of a judge of a County Court should be a prelude to elevation to the High Court. But there are difficulties even here. Besides the jealousies above referred to, there is a strong belief on the part of some of the judges of the High Court that the mere possibility of a County Court Judge being able to look forward to the prospect of a High Court judgeship, would beget a spirit on the part of every judge who considered himself eligible for advancement (and who would not?) which would lead to disadvantages at present unthought of.

It must, however, be remembered that this principle of advancement was endorsed by a very strong governmental committee, of which no less a person than the late Lord Bramwell was spokesman. The idea, nevertheless, seems to have been obscured of late years, and it will require some material change in the political horizon to resuscitate such a scheme. I, as chairman, naturally adhere to the prominent part of the Law Society's programme. The members of the County Court Committee know exactly what they are dealing with, and have, I believe, the confidence of the profession.

But what is the trend of the whole position? And who are the people to be reckoned with in any material change? The Bar, rightly or wrongly, speaks in no uncertain tone of any seeming encroachment upon their preserves by the solicitor branch. The most uncompromising opposition was