‘But,’ continued our friend, ‘three-fourths of the Clerks get less than 100_l._ a year.’ ‘Now,’ said Mr. Ficker, ‘tell us what you do for all this money?’ ‘Altogether,’ said the clerk, ‘the Courts sat in 1848, 8,386 days, or an average for each Judge of 140 days. The greatest number of sittings was in Westminster, where the Judge sat 246 days. At Liverpool, there were sittings on 225 days. The number of trials, as I have before mentioned, was 259,118, or an average of about 4320 to each Judge, and 528 to each Court. In some of the Courts, however, as many as 20,000 cases are tried in a year.’ ‘Why,’ said Mr. Ficker, ‘they can’t give five minutes to each case! Is this “administration of justice?”’ ‘When,’ said the Clerk, ‘a case is undefended, a plaintiff appears, swears to his debt, and obtains an order for its payment, which takes scarcely two minutes.’ ‘How long does a defended case take?’ ‘On the average, I should say, a quarter of an hour: that is, provided counsel are not employed.’ ‘Jury cases occupy much longer.’ ‘Undoubtedly.’ ‘Are the jury cases frequent?’ I enquired, some feeling of respect for ‘our time-honoured institution’ coming across me as I spoke. ‘Nothing,’ said our friend, ‘is more remarkable in the history of the County Courts than the very limited resort which suitors have to juries. It is within the power of either party to cause a jury to be summoned in any case where the plaint is upwards of 5_l._ The total number of cases tried in 1848, was 259,118. Of these, upwards of 50,000 were cases in which juries might have been summoned. But there were only 884 jury cases in all the Courts, or one jury for about every 270 trials! The party requiring the jury obtained a verdict in 446 out of the 884 cases, or exactly one half.’ ‘At any rate, then, there is no imputation on the juries,’ said Mr. Ficker. ‘The power of resorting to them is very valuable,’ said our friend. ‘There is a strong disposition among the public to rely upon the decision of the Barrister, and that reliance is not without good foundation, for certainly justice in these Courts has been well administered. But there may be occasions when it would be very desirable that a jury should be interposed between a party to a cause and the presiding Judge; and certainly if the jurisdiction of these Courts is extended, it will be most desirable that suitors should be able to satisfy themselves that every opportunity is open to them of obtaining justice.’ ‘For my own part,’ said I, ‘I would as soon have the decision of one honest man as of twelve honest men, and perhaps I would prefer it. If the Judge is a liberal-minded and enlightened man I would rather take his judgment than submit my case to a dozen selected by chance, and among whom there would most probably be at least a couple of dolts. By the way, why should not the same option be given to suitors in Westminster Hall as is given in the County Courts?’