date

1 July 1811 7 V. ad Juperbriam Fallacies
1 July 1811 7 V. ad Juperbriam

Fallacies 7 Ch. 1. Generalia

Exposure

Of the ement[?] this broached, let it not be imagined, that either in tendency or in design, it was an innoxious /other than a mischievous/ one. For its design by every eye by which a portion of the works of men of law can represented /drawn/ in that point of view that which is never absent from the mind of the English lawyer, nor in particular of all such lawyers ever was from that of Lord Chief Justice Coke, that of giving extent and stability to arbitrary power in the hands of lawyers. Or[?] Admitt the principle though it be in but this one application of it, you invest them with this power. Reason being equally out of the question in all cases, with them rests the choice of the laws on which this attribute shall be conferred. Thus in each instance they set up their own authority in opposition to and at a height superior to that of the legislature for the time being: and whosoever it is be by whom in relation to any /this or that/ particular law this doctrine of theirs is acceded to, by that man in so far as in him lies /on him depends/ two things are in their favour done - in the first place in the individual instance in question the advantage of negativing or repealing any particular law which is not to their taste, in the next place in virtue of the general[?] principle, a permanent authority superior to that of the legislators, an authority by exercise of which it depends on them to [...?] it /at their choice/ the same fate /a/ as many other acts of authority as by any future legislature would be exercised in opposite to any them[?] subsisting laws.
Similar Items
  • Title: [4 June 1811 18 Note (a) Fallacies]
    Description: 4 June 1811 18 Note

    (a)

    Fallacies V ad Juperbriam

    Ch. 2 Jephthah Vow Pleaders

    8

    4. Coronation Oath

    Note \T

    (a)

    T\

    Mention has been of Jesuits But Jesuits? - what need can a King of England have of Jesuits, so long as he has Blackstone?

    With the word /the name of/ God in his mouth, what is it that man can /may/ /who have power/ not do?

    Is a law troublesome to him? He takes up /consults with/ /Consulting/ his Blackstone and finds that it need not be troublesome to him any longer: the word /name of/ God is pronounced; and immediately the law becomes null and void: the state of things is exactly as it would have been had there never been any such law

    Turning to /Opening/ the Introduction ' 2, p. 41 he finds /sees/ "a law of nature ... dictated by God himself" ... spoken of in the character of an existing law, the authority of which is such that "no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this. /T (p. 42)T/ "Upon these two foundations, the law of Nature and the Law of Revelation depends all human laws: - that is, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these."
  • Title: [4 July 1811 1811 July 4 + + F 12 V. ad Juperbriam]
    Description: 4 July 1811 1811 July 4 + + F 12 V. ad Juperbriam

    Fallacies Fallacies 7 or 1 Ch.2 Posterity Chainers

    ' 6. Fallacy - how included in the attempt to nullify future laws.

    Towards the producing of this effect whatsoever is done by the sovereignty itself by the /a/ sovereign legislature itself acting as such is indeed not an argument and therefore not a fallacy

    Under the denomination of a fallacy (it must be admitted) nothing can with propriety be ranked, but what comes under the denomination of an argument. An act by which legislative power is exercised or endeavoured t be exercised, is not itself an argument, and therefore can not be itself a fallacy.

    True: but on this occasion exists in which an argument and thence a fallacy may be raised in two cases /there are two cases on what ground/:

    1. In the first place, if the state of thing thus attempted to be upholden /upheld/ is in itself, besides being an undesirable one, an impossible one, on this supposition /in this case/, even supposing the sovereignty in question to have done its utmost to establish /to give establishment to/ such a state of things, any argument by which the actual establishment of it is assumed, must in the eyes of /by/ every person to whom the assumed /supposed/ fact presents itself as an impossible one, be considered as fallacious.

    In the next place, the fallaciousness of the argument will appear still more unequivocal, of so it be, that in express terms no endeavour of this sort has been employed by the legislature, and that by the argumentater it is only in the way of interference that /on the part of the legislator/ the existence of any such attempt is endeavoured to be established.
  • Title: [16 July 1811 17 V. ad Juperbriam Fallacies]
    Description: 16 July 1811 17 V. ad Juperbriam

    Fallacies Ch. 2. Jepthah's Vow

    7

    2. Coronation Oath

    Ante Outter[?] so far[?][ are [...?] in the name of restriction[?]

    If such were the construction put upon this third clause, that by force and virtue of it, in his endeavours "to maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel and the Protestant reformed religion established by law" the King were /ought/ to hold himself not only at liberty, but bound to pursue his own judgment howsoever contrary to the judgment of those his legitimate advisers, nothing /no construction/ could be more adverse to the most especial and annoxious wish oath[?] which in the hearts if the majority of both Houses, as well as that of the King himself are so well known to have been Pealding[?] /occupying/ the highest place on that very occasion, and place at that very time and this was the maintaining the Protestant reformed religion against all such dangers as that from which it had so narrow an escape.

    Suppose a James the 2\T dT\ or 3\T dT\, or any other King with a Catholic heart mounting at any time the throne. What form of words more favourable to his purpose need he require? Here (says he) and without aid of a Jesuit Privy Counsellor at his elbow) here (says he) are three things all which as far as they can be maintained together, I am sworn to maintain, viz.[?] the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Unfortunately to maintain them all together is impossible. The laws of God, yes: and so accordingly I will: the true profession of the Gospel, yes again: but the Protestant religion reformed as they call it; and which is so unhappily established by law, it is in a state of perpetual repugnancy to them both. Of the Oath then to keep inviolate all three parts is impossible: what then remains possible and at the same time proper and advisable? - to maintain those two parts which together are not only are together double in number, but superior, each, of them in dignity.

    The

    The laws of God! the profession of the Gospel! where is their equal? what shall in competition with them?