1
results found in
17 ms
Page 1
of 1
5 June 1804
Evidence
Ch. Basis
[...?] 5. Rejection Causes
History
Judges, judicial Clerk officers, r[...?] [...?] officers called Sheriffs Advocates and Attornies of different descriptions and determinations: all consulted by habitual intercourse, all brought together by professional sympathy and bound together by mutual interest - all joined hands, made common cause and occupied themselves on plundering the suitors. The suitor being that one of course and all personal responsibility along with him, no lie too independent for the Attorney, or Advocate to utter - no[?] so too ulterior for the Judge to accept, and take for the warrants of his practice. At first useless writings were manufactured /false importance commonly by Judges committed to papers/ that the suitor might be /for/ charged: is security and with it [...?] encreased. The gibberish /jargon/ was not so much as written, but the suitor was charged for it at the same justice. Money was thus regularly obtained as false premises under the eye and to the profit, /found and [...?]/with/reduced to a system/ and with the approbation, and more that the approbation of the Judges. As to the suitor whose [...?], ignorance through [...?] - or if honesty had been known through honesty, should have omitted /or mismatched by truth/[...?]/ any established lie. In a case like these Judges were inexcusable: the miserable suitor lost his cause.
Similar Items
-
Title: [4 June 1804 Evidence 1]Description: 4 June 1804 Evidence 1 Enquiry Mode Ch.5. Objective 3. Impracticability It is a maxim among lawyers, and I have found the most honourable and best respected as strongly impregnated with it as the hard can be, that a non lawyer a suitor is universally and radically incapable of understanding /[...?]/ his own business. The propsition is but too near the truth /has but too much truth in it:/ but the incapacity /but the fact/, whose wish is it? Not the work of nature, but /nature's but/ the work of the very class of men who plead it: they stop a mans /blow dust into mans //stuff a mans ///our/ eyes with dust, and then laugh him to scorn for being blind /insult him with the reproach of blindness/. Like astrologers they scrape together /make up //manufacture a/ a sham /gibberish/ science, composed /made up/ of falshood /lies/ and nonsense: and possessing the monopoly of their own produce, they add insult to depridation reproaching their fellow subjects for their ignorance: for their ignorance? of what? of a jargon which power alone indeed will [...?] can cover from contempt, but nothing but that ignorance and the imposture grounded in it, could ever have covered /screened/ from natural abhorences /unusual [...?] and abhorences/ //wants only to be known to/ be covered with /turned from/ abhorences//.
-
Title: [1819 Mar. 27 To Erskine Lett]Description: 1819 Mar. 27 To Erskine Lett. IX Whigs self-condemned antireformists Earl Greys change 2 Is this rhetoric my Lord? Is this eloquence? my Lord is this rhetoric? No, my Lord: if a name of art or science must be found for it, it is logic: in it is no fallacy: it is close reasoning: find if you can a flaw in it. In current language, rich is synonymous to virtuous; powerful is synonymous to virtuous: poor to vicious. That which a man may be punished for is wrong: that which a man can not be punished for is right: and no man now is or can be punished for any thing he does in Parliament. To tell a lie out of Parliament is wrong and shameful and inexcusable, always excepted those lies into which men are forced, or to which they are invited by Judges or by Parliament. To tell a lie in Parliament especially if it be for the concealing the imperfections and corruptions of the system of Parliament is even on the opposition side not wrong, if on the ministerial side not only meritorious but indispensable. The whole frame of Government rests on false pretences: the machine could not keep itself at work for two days together were it not for false pretences. The education of the rising generation – the holy Church itself is placed /seated/ on the rock of perjury. + Without /But for/ Perjury the University would be a desert. But for declaration and subscription notoriously false, the whole spiritual branch of the official establishment would be a desert. + For proof see “Swear not at all”. London 181| |. [marginal note:] There my Lord
-
Title: [Dec 1805 Evidence Introd. False]Description: Dec 1805 Evidence Introd. False Ends Ch . Opposition of interests between the authors of the system and the people subject to it. What grosser or more fatal delusion than for a man to take his natural and irreconcilable enemies for his most /several/ faithful and zealous friends? upon that supposition to think and speak and not upon every /the most important/ occasion of life? with content and confidence to behold in these his enemies the arbiters of his fate? the afflictions, the grievous and ruinous afflictions, which to their profit (not to say for their profit) he is suffering dearly at their hands, to refer them to the wrath of Providence, is the perversity of [...?sable] nature[?]. On this head a distinction seems to be commonly taken by the public mind. Lawyers are divided /are in their as in that [...?] of [...?]/ by it into classes: Attornies Advocates Judges. With the interest of the suitor the interest of the Attorney is ended but too [...?] at variance. The Attorney is accordingly a distinguishable[?] man. Between In regard /relation/ to that same public interest the /and/ interest of the Advocate there may perhaps be a little difference, but if there be, the effects of it are outweighed by the known [...?] /[...?]/ of their characters attached to their branch of the profession, and the Advocate if not the constant friend of the public, is at any rate not the constant enemy. and the Advocate, according to the scale into which the fee is dropped, is as ready /no loss/ to shew himself the friend of the public than the enemy. So much for the professional lawyers -
1
results found.
Page 1
of 1