date

18 March 1807 9 Lumped in this
18 March 1807

9

Lumped in this manner together, what the two words frivolous and vexatious, do more for, is to mask the disapprobation excited in the mind of the legislator by the aontemplation of the conduct in question, and thereby in a loose and general way to mark[?] it out for censure. What they do not both or either of them, is to mark out with sufficient distinctness the causes[?] of conduct imputed, nor consequently the ground of whatever censure may come to be applied in consequence. Here as in every other case of blameworthy conduct the delinquency admitts of the two[?] shades or degrees above described, shades the difference between which is material, clear and wide.

A circumstance that renders the enquiry the more worthy of attention /contradicts in no small degree towards goving importance to the enquiry/ and to the distinction which is the subject of it, is that the words frivolous and vexatious are the words that so often recurr in [...?] judgments pronounced /grounded/ on the the Grenville Act.
Similar Items
  • Title: [18 March 1807 4 Frivolous and]
    Description: 18 March 1807

    4

    Frivolous and Vexatious

    And now, my Lord, after the distinction which to my conception, in which fortunately I hope I am not singular is both clear and useful, comes the other which to the same humble conception, is so far from being clear, as to be but little calculated /ill qualified/ to be useful /of use/. Of this distinction one term[?] is that sort of Appeal which is at once frivolous and vexatious. Looking for a /the/ correlative for it, I find myself immediately at a loss. Is it the sort of Appeal that is neither frivolous nor vexatious? So far so good: but there remains a deal behind. The two words are they exact synonymate[?] /exactly synonymous?/ What a pity that one of them had not been lefy out! One of them, either of them might in that case have been rejected as surplusage. Are they not synonymous? Here we have two sorts of Appeal besides: the Appeal which is frivolous without being vexatious, and the Appeal which is vexatious without being frivolous.
  • Title: [18 March 1807 As to the determining]
    Description: 18 March 1807

    As to the determining on this or that occasion which of these distinguishable states of a man's mind has [...?] place in fact in some instances /cases/ doubtless the task of drawing the time will be attended with no inconsiderable difficulty: and in these cases the determination on the side of simple temerity as being the safer side will be the most eligible.

    But frequent indeed are the case in which the determination admitts not of the smallest doubt.

    In the cases of /for[?]/ transgressions of all tact[?], decisions pronouncing, or at least assuming[?], the existence of malâ fides, and thereby [...?] /[...?]/ the existence of simple temerity[?], are in every day's practice.

    But were the difficulty of pronouncing between the two pleas strongly marked and distinguished shades of delinquency ever so much greater than it is, it would afford no eligible ground for the neglect /discarding //rejection/ of the two terms there respectively expressive of them, and the acceptance of any such terms as frivolous and vexatious, both or either of them indeed. For still the terms[?] frivolous and vexatious will be found in the first place not to have in any way any such clear /distinct/ meaning at all applicable with propriety to the subject, any otherwise than thorough the medium[?] of those other really distinct terms, one or other of them.
  • Title: [[...?] March 1807 Injustice Causes]
    Description: [...?] March 1807

    Injustice Causes?

    Letter V?

    Resolut 10 to 11

    Advocation

    Frivolous and vexatious

    In the use of those eopithets a sort of division /class [...?]/ is implied, which if my humble conception of the matter should happen to be right will turn out to be ilusory, and productive of practical error upon a vert extensive scale. I will first submitt to Yuor Lordship the classification which presents /has presented/ itself to be one or the one for use, and from that should it really appear fit[?], any other, the one here in question included, will appear /be seen/ not to be so.

    When on any occasion it happens to a mans conduct to be unlawful or in any other respect blameworthy, either it appears to himself so to be, or it does not. The [...?] of this distinction and at the same time to its importance is a view to practice, all men have been more or less [...?], and in particular all legislators. Bring[?] the Remnants the source of it may be seen to have provided with more or less consistency the whole body of their jurisprudence, in particular the universal branch in which the occasions for calling it into action are most frequent. When the individual in question is regarded as being consiouc of the illegality blame-worthiness, impropriety of his conduct any one of these and divers other names /terms/ may alike serve, they speak of him as being in malâ fide - of his conduct as being tinctured[?] with malâ fide - or to use a word in still more frequent use with /[...?]/ the lawyers of that school with dolus[?].