date

Jan y 1807 Scotch Reform To L d Grenville
Jan y 1807

Scotch Reform To L d Grenville

Facienda

Juries why on appeal only

But how is this, (I think I hear your Lordship saying) how is this, Sir, Juries in your place according to you on Appeal only, and never in the first instance - You an Englishman, and so much behind[?] English, and even as now it appears Scotch lawyers, in your attachment to that grand /so fundamental a/ security for English liberties?

My Lord, with your Lordship's leave though I flatter myself with the thought of having been already in no inconsiderable degree anticipated by Your Lordship's discernment, I will state to Your Lordship very distinctly why my notion of the proper use of Juries has these limits, and why on the part of lawyers, Scotch as well as English the fondness for Juries has no such limits.

The ends of justice, my Lord, these and no others are the ultimate objects to which my attention is universally /throughout/ directed: to any others, how dear so ever to me, no otherwise than a means conduces to that end. So far as they appear to me thus conducive, so far my attachment cleaves to them: no sooner do they appear to me to cease being conducive to these ends, then there my attachment leaves them.
Similar Items
  • Title: [5 Jan y 1807 Scotch Reform To L d]
    Description: 5 Jan y 1807

    Scotch Reform To L d Grenville

    Facienda

    Jury why on appeal only

    Having confessed to your Lordship my notions concerning the abuse as well as the use of the institution, as applied in the case of a country to /in/ which it is not yet in use, I will now tell your Lordship what it is makes lawyers so much in love with Juries: English lawyers to whom they are so familiar /their [...?]// they are such old acquaintances/, Scotch lawyers to whom they are new /so [...?] and so/.

    My Lord, trial by Juries is trial with lawyers. Trial in the existing Courts of Natural Procedure, trial under their limited jurisdiction is in almost every instance, in the most unlimited field of jurisdiction it could be in nine or more instances out of ten, trial without lawyers.

    In this as in all other predilections, there is an object of jealousy and aversion expressed /declared/ or implied. Now then my Lord what is the object /counter// rival/, the object to be depreciated in this case? is it Equity? Ah, no my Lord: for some hundred years /ages past/ at least, no English lawyer has ever under valued Equity. The best that Juries can give is but Common Law: and Equity blooming maid! ever smiling Equity! how is so much sweeter /richer/ and more delicate! Why? because much as Common law affords, Equity affords more work still for lawyers

    So, my Lord: it is that odious thing natural procedure under the name of summary, that is the real object of that irreconciable /inextinguishable/ hatred, which learned gentlemen can never cease to feel, nor venture explicitly to avow. Why? because from the soil in Natural procedure factitious delay, vexation and expense are unknown /banished/. No work for the lawyer /any more than for the lawyer/: /learned gentlemen may cry till they are hoarse, who has need of one?/ nothing going forward from which profit /any thing beyond limit/ can be extracted.
  • Title: [12 Feb y 1807 Letter IV Resolut]
    Description: 12 Feb y 1807

    Letter IV

    Resolut 6.7.8.9

    Juries

    Lawyers fondness

    It remains for me to submitt to Your Lordship what the cause is of the fondness shewn for this institution, even its present deformity /even under its present deformed shape/, by the Lawyers: by the people, at least by thinking people of all classes /in general/.

    My Lord, they suck it in with their mother's milk: they take it with their pap from the hands of Nurse Blackstone. Is it necessary to state why Mahometans are fond of Mahometonism?

    No institution how purely soever absurd and wreckeded, no institution to /for/ which authority is not of itself sufficient to secure in attachment; much more where the institution having an intrinsic virtue, rendered pernicious only by an extrinsic circumstance - the mode of its application, Authority if questioned, can never be without Reason for her support.

    In criminal cases, the utility of Jury trial /in point of utility in point of security/ stands on stronger, still stronger grounds than in civil cases: but in England nothing calling upon the people to make the distinction, they do not make the distinction of themselves, still less are lawyers to whom it is of use in all cases, disposed to make it for them.

    Thus it is that lawyers and non-lawyers and lawyer learned and unlearned, and learned dupes /imposters/ and duped /deceivers and deceived/ agree in their fondness for this instrument of oppression and injustice, (I speak of it in its present state, grafted as it is in technical instead of natural procedure) for this instrument of injustice, [...?] for different and even opposite reasons: non-lawyers because for want of that discrimination which has been rendered impossible to them, they believe it to be, in its present state subservient to the ends of justice: lawyers, because without any such discrimination as would to them would be worse than useless, they feel it to be so universally subservient to the ends of judicature.
  • Title: [Jan y 1807 Scotch Reform To L d Grenville]
    Description: Jan y 1807

    Scotch Reform To L d Grenville

    Facienda

    Juries why on appeal only

    Whosoever chooses to have /submitt his cause to/ a Jury may provided the cause /question/ is of the number of those that are physically speaking capable of being tried by a Jury, may have one if he pleases. To any useful purpose what more need any man wish to have to do with Juries?

    Whosoever finds himself /sees cause for being/ dissatisfied with the decision of a single Judge may betake himself to this superior or supposed superior, security against misdecision, if he pleases.

    But if a man is not dissatisfied /before it is in his power to have been dissatisfied/, with the decision of a single Judge, why force him into any other hands? But with the opinion of a single Judge, I will not ask how can he possibly be dissatisfied, but I will ask, with what reason can he be dissatisfied, before he knows what it is.

    The question being, how far and in what respects is the part borne by a Jury conducive /subservient/ to the ends of Justice, the first thing to be done is to advert[?] to the distinction between the different ends of justice.

    This done my Lord, my answer is very simple /short and simple/. In the first instance I do not employ Juries. why? because in the first instance the employment of /giving employment to/ Juries is inevitably attended with that factitious delay, vexation and expense which by the profit attached to it (has begotten in the heart of lawyers /heart of English lawyers/ his impassioned love for Juries.) has secured to that object of interested idolatry the devotion of the English lawyers and his dupes.