The daily work of a County Court judge is not less difficult than that of his High Court brother. The complication of a case does not depend upon the amount at stake, and the County Court judge has, if anything, to have a somewhat wider knowledge of law and a far greater knowledge of the lives of the poor than any other judicial person, since the legal subjects he deals in are more varied in character than those met with in other Courts, and he naturally sees more of the daily life of the people. Certainly the High Court judges get better a.s.sistance from the Bar, or rather, I should say, more a.s.sistance--or should it be a.s.sistance of greater length?--but the County Court Bar of to-day contains the pick of the younger men, and is really the nursery of the common law Bar since it is only in the County Courts that a catholic experience in civil advocacy can be obtained. I noted with some interest that in a recent batch of silks seven or eight had been before me, some of them several times within a few months of their taking silk.
When there is a divorce case of any importance--in the same way as if it were a libel case of importance--great advocates with no special knowledge of the mysteries of divorce law are called in to lead the specialists.
What is wanted is advocacy, not knowledge of divorce procedure, and the County Courts have excellent advocates to-day. If there is one special branch of law where one would think expert knowledge is essential it is Admiralty, yet important Admiralty cases belong to County Court districts where for aught anybody knows or cares the learned judge and the advocates may not know the difference between a bowsprit and a rudder.
But the real reason why the County Court should be chosen for this work in the interests of the poor is to my mind the real reason why the County Court is popular with business men and the High Court is not. In a properly managed County Court a case is set down for a certain day and, except on rare occasions, it is tried on that day. As Mr. Dendy, the learned registrar, pointed out to the Commission, "There"s no doubt it is of very great advantage to a poor man to know the day on which his case is likely to be tried." It is indeed essential. The man himself and his witnesses do not belong to a cla.s.s who can spend leisured hours flitting about Gothic corridors or waiting to be fetched from public-houses day by day until their case is reached. Certainty of trial and reasonable speed in reaching and disposing of the case are worth much more to business people than abstruse technical knowledge or long experience of the habits and manners of those who commit adultery. No one has more reverence than I have for the views of Lord Alverstone, who thinks divorce jurisdiction should not be given to County Courts, yet one must not forget that not only is the opposite view supported by a large number of men and women who know the wants of the poor very intimately, but experts, like Sir John Macdonell and Sir George Lewis, both recognise that if you are going to give a whole-hearted measure of reform with the intention of really putting divorce at the disposal of the poor there is no other Court to which these cases can honestly be sent.
Not only must this be done, but if we are to bring ourselves abreast of what already exists in foreign countries we must do a great deal towards cheapening the procedure even of the County Court for those who are poor.
The French have a very complete system of divorce for poor people, known as "_a.s.sistance Judicaire_." The effect is that the persons to whom a.s.sistance is granted do not have to pay anything whilst they remain poor.
The State advances the necessary money. The _avocat_ and _avoue_--barrister and solicitor--work for nothing. In case the a.s.sisted person comes into better circ.u.mstances he may be obliged to repay the State. If the poor litigant succeeds in his proceedings, the unsuccessful party pays the costs. In 1907 there were 20,464 persons who applied for a.s.sistance, 11,726 of which were in relation to matrimonial proceedings, and relief was granted to 9,205 poor people, of whom 5,136 were seeking different forms of matrimonial relief.
In Germany and the Netherlands divorce is equally open to poor people, who receive State aid, and in Scotland there is a well-known system which is known as the Poors Roll, which is said to have existed since 1424. The Scots Parliament Act, which inst.i.tuted this excellent procedure, commenced as follows: "If there be any poor creature who for lack of skill or expenses cannot nor may not follow his cause the King for the love of G.o.d shall ordain the judge before whom the cause shall be determined to purvey and get a leal and wise advocate to follow such poor creatures causes: and if such causes be obtained [won] the wronger shall indemnify both the party injured and the advocate"s costs and travail." It is amazing to find in Scotland of the fifteenth century laws for the poor that we are only dimly thinking about in our vague uncertain timid way at the present day.
What actually happens to the poor man of the present day is set out in the following case--a very common one:--
Summoned in the City of London Court for the non-payment of forty-five pounds, his wife"s costs in a divorce suit in which he was the successful pet.i.tioner, a City messenger said that he received one hundred and seventeen pounds a year, and while the divorce suit was pending he paid his wife as alimony two pounds ten shillings a month. He had paid sixty-five pounds for his wife"s costs, and still owed forty-five pounds.
He had obtained an order for payment of his own costs against the co-respondent, but as that person was only earning a few shillings a week he did not know if he would get anything.
Judge Lumley Smith, K.C.: "Does a successful husband always have to pay his wife"s costs?"
Mr. Seyd (for the defendant): "Yes."
Judge Lumley Smith: "That is rather hard on him."
The defendant added that while the suit was pending he had to borrow fifty pounds from his friends.
Judge Lumley Smith said a judgment debt must come in front of those of his friends, and ordered payment of one pound a month.
This man could not have proceeded _in forma pauperis_, as by our then system this was not open to anyone with more than thirty shillings a week with no means above twenty-five pounds and clothing. If he had done so he would have had neither counsel nor solicitor to plead his cause and the only real benefit he would have obtained would be that he would not have had to pay Court fees.
The self-respect of working men in many cases hinders them from applying for a.s.sistance rendered nominally distasteful by the pauper taint. They manage these things better in France, and what the poor want in England, in fact as well as in name, is "a.s.sistance." The new rules that have come into force this year go a little way to provide this, but it is too early as yet to say how far they will meet the wants of the case.
There was no need for any Royal Commission on Divorce to explain to any reasonably educated citizen what ought to be done, but I agree that the labours of many good men and women have given chapter and verse for the want and the remedy in a convenient form. Too much time was wasted over the moot points of the theologians, for most citizens are agreed that ecclesiastical opinions on the contract of matrimony as it affects the State are of the same value and no more as ecclesiastical opinions would be on such contracts as a bill of sale or a hire-purchase agreement, which may equally from time to time affect adversely or otherwise the moral conduct of human beings.
"Marriage is nothing but a civil contract. "Tis true "tis an ordinance of G.o.d: so is every other contract: G.o.d commands me to keep it when I have made it." Worthy John Selden did not mean by that that it was to be kept for ever and in all circ.u.mstances, but that it was to be kept until such time as the law released the parties from it in the same way as every other civil contract. Nothing is more true and necessary to be repeated in these days than the citizens" view of marriage law. Whatever codes different religious men and women wish to observe they are free to follow.
But the marriage law is a question of citizenship for citizens to settle for themselves. It is therefore satisfactory to read in the Majority Report that English laymen seem generally to base their views, not upon ecclesiastical tradition or sentiment, but upon general Christian principles coupled with common-sense and experience of the needs of human life. It is the conclusion of these men and women--not the anathemas of priests--that want parliamentary attention. They have told us "that there is necessity for reform in this country, both in procedure and in law, if the serious grievances which at present exist are to be removed, and if opportunities of obtaining justice are to be within the reach of the poorer cla.s.ses. So far from such reforms as we recommend tending to lower the standard of morality and regard for the sanct.i.ty of the marriage tie, we consider that reform is necessary in the interest of morality, as well as in the interest of justice; and in the general interests of society and the State."
When shall we find time to ease these heavy burdens of the poor and let the oppressed go free?
CHAPTER VIII
FLAT-TRAPS AND THEIR VICTIMS
Will you walk into my parlour Said the Spider to the Fly "Tis the prettiest little parlour You ever did espy.
The way into my parlour Is up a winding stair, And I have many curious things To show you when you"re there.
Will you? Won"t you?
Will you? Won"t you?
Walk in pretty Fly.
_Nursery Rhyme._
If we could remember half the wise saws and moral jingles that nurse and granny taught us in the nursery and not forget to act upon them in after life, what sensible citizens we should be! Some day there will be cinematograph lectures to the young people just leaving the elementary schools, exhibiting not only the real spider, but his many human prototypes, who are lying in wait for the working-cla.s.s man and woman at every corner of their career. A nature lesson an the smaller tally-man would be far more practical in a city school than a botany lecture on the lesser celandine. Nevertheless, I doubt if it will do much good when it comes about. Human beings are naturally divided into spiders and flies, and of the two the latter really have the best of it. There is not much fun to be had out of a cramped life in a dingy web counting your gains, even if a white waistcoat and a gold chain conceal your evil conscience.
At least the fly buzzes round a bit and thinks he is seeing life before he biffs into the web. And no one need care much about the gay young sportsman bachelor variety--except perhaps his sweetheart, and she has a lucky escape, poor thing! But the silly old married fly who gets caught in the web and leaves a young wife and family starving at home, or, worse still, the house-mother fly who rushes into the web just to look at the spider"s latest fashions which she knows her old bluebottle cannot afford--these are sad cases.
Thomas Carlyle was mightily pleased with himself, I doubt not, when he hit upon that phrase describing his fellow citizens as "The twenty-seven millions, mostly fools." Those last two words are constantly in the mouth of the odd fool in reference to the 26,999,999 other fellows. Still a long life in the County Court compels me to the conclusion that the fool is not extinct; he is, indeed, but too prevalent. Furthermore, the old world saying, "that a fool and his money are soon parted," is, like many another old proverb, a true saying.
These being the facts, why does the law side with the inappropriate knave who preys upon the harmless necessary fool?
Scientific sociologists will no doubt tell me that if the law were to protect the fool the effect would be to increase and multiply the breed of fools, whereby the human race would become a bigger fool race than already it is. To which my reply would be that the law as it now stands makes the trade of knavery such a lucrative one that the business of it is fast becoming overcrowded, and the best hope of the extinction of the knave seems to lie in the fact that he will soon have to work nearly as hard for his living as the honest man.
It is all very well to smile at the simplicity of the fool, and admire the cunning of the knave, but let us remember that the poor fool has in each generation to discover for himself that this is a world in which skimmed milk is constantly masquerading as cream, and that faith in the honesty of human nature in business affairs is in the poor man the first step on the road to ruin.
I do not want the law to mollycoddle the fool and deprive him of the birthright of an Englishman to make a fool of himself in his own way, but I should like to see the law doing more to stamp out the knave, especially--O, yes, especially--when he is a respectable, pious, well-to-do knave clothed in broad cloth and a well-boiled shirt, tempting the working man to part with his savings in the name of thrift and the preparation for the rainy day.
What misery has been caused by well-advertised and wicked schemes of investment introduced to the working man by lying promises garnished with much prayer and psalm singing!
If a chartered accountant could make out a balance sheet of the losses of the working cla.s.s from frauds connected with building societies, insurance schemes, house-purchase companies, and the like, from the days of the Liberator onwards, what a terrible indictment it would be of the way in which the law permits the rich knave to rob the poor fool! And yet how few of the promoters of these schemes arrive at their proper destination--the gaol.
We open our prison doors readily enough to the poor debtor, but the rich man who lives on the stolen savings of the poor finds it as difficult to enter the gates of the gaol in this world as he will to reach the wicket gate in the hereafter.
Many societies have been formed under the Limited Liability Companies Acts offering working men facilities for buying their own houses or obtaining old age pensions or future lodgings in some glorious castle of Spain.
These have gathered in for years the savings of working men, and when the directors were called upon to redeem their promises it was found that the money had been spent in directors" salaries and commissions, and there was no provision whatever for the policy-holders.
For as the law stands you may make nearly any wild promises you like, for that is not the contract. The contract is the long-worded, obscure policy which is sent to the workman later on. The gaudy booklet with its golden promises and pretty pictures of villas with bow windows which the poor man treasures up has nothing to do with the case.
Sentimental judges may try to find a way out; juries may give verdicts returning the poor man his money; but all to no purpose. The law stands firm for the solemn contract under the seal of the company, the policy which the poor man has never read and could not understand if he did; and the sleek directors chuckle at the angry working man, and with the blessing of the Court of Appeal remind him in Shylock"s own words:
Till thou canst rail the seal from off my bond, Thou but offend"st thy lungs to speak so loud.
And certainly as the law stands it is necessary to have a Court of Appeal stern and unbending in judgment to uphold the sacred nature of the contract. The doubt in my somewhat sentimental mind is whether transactions of this character between knaves and fools are in any practical business sense really contracts at all; and if they are to be deemed to be contracts whether power should not be given to Courts of Justice to release the victims from the flat-traps in which they have been snared, and give them at least some of their fur back again.
This has been attempted with the moneylender, but not at present with very great success. For myself I have always thought that the moneylender, if he be a real moneylender and not merely a fee-s.n.a.t.c.her, is by no means the worst setter of flat-traps. I have an uneasy feeling that if moneylenders were Nonconformists or Churchmen, instead of being Jews, we should love them better.
For if you get an actual sovereign from a moneylender you have at all events got some concrete thing that you can exchange for food and drink or clothing, and the token has an ascertained value; moreover, if you know a little arithmetic you know what you are paying for it. But if you buy clothing from a tally-man or a watch from a travelling jeweller, or a walnut suite from an instalment furniture dealer, or a family Bible in parts from an area tout, you can have no idea whatever of the value of the thing purchased or the percentage of profit on the deal.
And, though I should like to see all this cla.s.s of trading done away with, and know that it causes great ruin and misery, yet to my mind the moneylender and even the lower cla.s.s of tally-men are angels of light compared with the directors of insolvent collecting societies, who take the savings of the thrifty poor on promises that any sensible person must know to be incapable of performance.
As I have shown elsewhere, the bulk of the smaller flat-trap poachers could be quietly exterminated by the abolition of imprisonment for debt.
That alone is the artificial manure which enables these social weeds to flourish. Withhold it from them and they would wither and die, and the world would be well rid of them.
If the man in the street could listen, as I have had to do for the last twenty years, to tales of misery and wretchedness brought about by our absurd credit system he would understand something of my impatience at its continuance. I remember a small household that was ruined by a gramophone.
A poor woman, a widow, earned twelve shillings a week, and a son was doing well at fifteen shillings a week. There were two little children. As things go in their world they were well-to-do. The Devil, in the form of a tout, came down the street one Sat.u.r.day afternoon, with a beautiful gramophone. It was only a shilling a week, and all that was to be done was for mother and son "to sign just there at the bottom of the paper, and, of course, if they did not want to keep it they could send it back."
However, later on, they found that they had signed to buy it; the boy fell out of work, the case was put in Court, and judgment was entered against both mother and son in default of appearance for two or three pounds. Then the son enlisted and went to India, and I first heard of the case when they brought the widow up on a judgment summons. I asked her why she had signed the guarantee, and her reply was: "Tom was such a good lad and he was in work, and he was that keen to have it I couldn"t deny him." Anyone who has ever been any kind of a father or mother will not cast a stone at her for her folly.