093-325.xml

Title: [24 April 1807 Lawyers judged]

Description: 24 April 1807

Lawyers judged

Letter 2

The first point /proposition/ that presents itself is - that in the instance of neither of the contending parties is the good of the people in their character of suitors, the ruling object. In reality and at bottom, it could not reasonably be expected that with either of them it should have an object in any degree: but as to its being the prime an predominant object, this is not in the instance of either of them so much as professed.

First as to the learned Memorialists, the Judges. Of /To/ the interests of the people to the ends of justice - as the proper and prime standards of reference /rectitude/, no reference next to no notice/ any where. Reference by words too vague to afford instruction /answer any good purpose, in the way of list[?] check or guidance instruction, check or guidance, yes in Art. 2. The proposed division pronounced unnecessary and inexpedient. │ │ [...?]

In Art. 14. the expediency in general stated as doubtful: if carried to the extent proposed, consequences calamitous.

In Art. 20. In Jury-trial, if instituted /applied/ to causes commenced in inferior Courts pronounced inexpedient, dangerous, impracticable.

In Art. 38. Something which they understood to have been proposed to be done viz.: by Parliament, is remonstrated against as " illegal" and " unjust". An act of Parliament illegal! and this from Judges!

Unjust, perhaps so: you must go to some one else, if you wish to see it proved that Parliament can make justice, can turn injustice into justice - can make justice. But does not Parliament make law? or do those Judges propose to take to themselves a monopoly of the manufacture?

words expressive of nothing but the heat raised /exited/ in the mode[?] of the penner and his associates/

093-337.xml

Title: [April 1807 Lawyers judged That]

Description: April 1807

Lawyers judged

That is their own interests that they pursue /aim at/, and not yours - their own sinister ends - not the ends of justice, is rendered plain - but too plain - by the following considerations.

That the ends of justice possess no share in their regard is evidenced /demonstrated/ not only from their situation, as above described, but from the tenor of their Memorial.

1. Were the ends of Justice the leading objects of their regard, those ends would be throughout spoken of and appealed to. But of all the ends of justice as above [...?], not one is spoken of in any one of the 50 articles.

What they have no /not any/ regard for then is - the ends of justice.

My friends - I your sincere well-wisher and humble advisor have a regard for the ends of justice: and the proof of it is - the mention I thus make of them: the pains I am taken, and from first to last in the course of my labour upon the subject have [...?...?] to take, to point your attention /keep your attention fixt/ to nail[?], to nail[?] it to those sacred ends.

[ Add so in regard to interests?]

093-327.xml

Title: [29 April 1807 Lawyers judged]

Description: 29 April 1807

Lawyers judged

What are the predominant - the professedly predominant considerations? the considerations that stand /put[?]/ foremost not in the learned hearts only but in the paper in which they are portrayed?

1. The personal interests of the author of the address - the Judges the personal interests of the whole body or of the leading Member or Members: the personal interests in respect of power, consideration, and above all in respect of ease.

2. The Union - the perverted letter of the Union - with its precursor /the other dead letter/ the claim of right.

First as to personal interests.

1. Art. 7. Parcelling out the jurisdiction of the President, as proposed by the proposed division into 2 or 3 Chambers is pronounced subversive of the President's right. How of his right? and wherein consists the mischief and the injury to which the Right Honourable is so acutely sensible? Chambers 2 or 3, with Judges in them all together 15 in number as at present, or some lesser number, will he not still rank above all of them? Yes: but when he is no more, his successor in the 1 st Chamber will not rank it is apprehended so high as the learned persons whosoever they may be, to whom it may happen to find themselves in the situation of Presidents of the 2 d and 3 d Chambers. Tremendous /Momentous/ objection! but is it not in the power of Parliament to remove it. Why vamp up /put forward into/ this character of an objection, a consideration which whatever were the importance of it could have no claim to attention in any other character than that of an amendment?

Art. 8. Thereupon it is, that in the next ensuing article the office the office of President as it now stands is flatly pronounced "unabolishable and indivisible: like the great Commonwealth that so lately we saw crushed to atoms, one and indivisible. "Indivisible?" what by his Majesty in Parliament? The negative, the very idea of which though not to be exercised but with the advise of a set of responsible and cross-examination ministers, can not enter the royal mind without pain, has it been made over to the presiding member, or to all the members put together of a Bench of Judges?

For the imaginary rights and unconjecturable feelings of his unknown successor, how tender /acute/ and tender the sympathy of the Right Honourable Judge! how trifling /light/, when weighed against it in the ballance are all public considerations /the ends of justice/!