The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-10 00:00:00

I do not mean to find fault with the present Ad.
ministration. On the contrary, I believe the'country
owes to them a lasting debt of giatitude for estab-
lishing these courts—more especially to Lord Cotten-
tam, whose retirement from the Chancellorship will
be so great a public loss.
I believe that they were compelled to act as thby
,tha hy influence o* th4e_ve37- interestsF4liich
are
a now rib intent not lnerely on -freeppfek the
of Law-Reform, but also (si I am firmly co, vinced)
on extinguishing these courts altogether by glamour,
and misrepresentation,
As a specimen of the treatment the County Courts
haVe received, I' may mention that their funds. are
actfially liable to pay tents for court.houses (which
are furnished to ali other tribunals at the expense of
the . Government or of the counties), though they
are essentially the courts of the poor, by whom nine
tenths of their funds are eventually contributed. -
To compare the fees of the County Courts with
those of any other tribunals is pure sophistry,
cause no intelligent person imagines the advantage of
those courts (considering that at present they'are self-
supporting) can consist solely in the lowness ti the
mere court fees. They constst in the complete ex-
emption which the County Courts afford front the in-
cidental expenses of litigation, compared td which
court fees are a light burden. ,
Local courts were advocated by Bentham' on the
ground that the expenses involved in a judge travel-
ling and devoting his time to 'try causes in each
locality, would be far inferior to the loss and inconve-
nience from which the residents in such locality
would be thus protected, by having justice adminis-
tered near their own homes.

The working of the County Courts, in spite of their
limited jurisdiction, and of every other disadvantage,
has fully justified the anticipations of the father of
the principle of locaLeourts.
Hence it is that the court fees paid in the County
Courts are felt-to be of little moment, when weighed
against the delay, risk, and expense of the superior
courts, the Cost of travelling- and of employing pro-
fesSional advisers. In connexion with this subject I
beg to submit to you (as I have done on former oc-
casions) a'few facts derived from my. experience as a
judge of the County Courts.
The number of causes I have tried during the last
three years has been. immense* probably more than
twenty times the number commenced for sums under
201. by the suitors of the same district •in the superior
courts during an equal period of time previously to
the passing of the County Courts Act.
Excluding a'short period after the first opebing of
the new courts (during which the business was rather
larger than afterwards) there has been no diminution
in the average number of causes in my circuit.
The principal plaintiffs now are for the most part
the same persops who'ivere plaintiffs three years ago.
It is kicam-rtion occurrence now, as it was then, fig
the same plaintiff to bring a great number of actions
at the same time. ,

I need hardly inform you that the individuals
alluded to are the chief tradesmen of the town in
which my courts are held. '
How will you reconcile these facts with the' state—
ments of your report? Are these individualA in
error in not preferring. as your report does, the
charges of a London attorney to the'process of a
court at their own doors in which they can speak for
themselves ?—I remain, Sir, &c.,
A JUDGE OF THE COUNTY COURTS.
June 4, 1850.