JB_084_053.xml

Title: [[lxxxiv. 53] 1821 Decr 3 Codification]

Description: [lxxxiv. 53]

1821 Decr 3

Codification Proposal

penult

?.5. Draughtsman Single

Lawyers interest begotten prejudice

In no country, until an all comprehensive and rationalized body of law shall have been established in that same country can the sinister influence © of the body of imaginary law with which that country is infested be altogether extinct. /extinguished./ From /In/ the mass of legal matters belonging to that country is every man forced to resort /under the necessity of resorting/ for the explication of those several terms that are employed in speaking of the several rights and obligations which by the force of legislator and the Judge are brought into and put out of existence

To that same mass of legal matter is the legislator under a necessity of resorting for the subject [?] matter [?] of his power his science and his art: for the common [?] aggregate mass of the several cases by which a demand for the exercise of legislative authority /operation/ is created or has been supposed to be created

Compared with the Rome©bred, the English©bred species [?] is in a prodigious degree the [...?] in respect of both these classes of elements: In respect of one class this opulence /abundance/ is productive of evil: in respect of the other class it is productive of good.

1. It is in the article of technical terms that the abundance /The article the abundance of which/ is productive of evil is the stock of technical terms. Inappositeness, absurdity, thence incomprehensibility by any force of reason are attributes common to both stocks. But in respect of the degree in which they are possessed, Rome©bred law stands at the [...?] of the scale In the English language there is a portion which appertains in an exclusive manner /is exclusively in use/ by the unestablished and punishable class of depredators. Is is called the thieves cant, or the slang or flash language There are dictionaries in which the terms are ranged in alphbetical order with their respective definitions Besides serving for entertainment the [...?] idea [?] serves for an instrument of secret communication to those who are instructed in it and thereby for covering their operations with a veil of secrecy, The same ”Exactly•

JB_084_024.xml

Title: [[lxxxiv. 24] 1821 Decr 5 Codification]

Description: [lxxxiv. 24]

1821 Decr 5

Codification Proposal

penult

?.5. Draughtsman Single

/Appendix/

III Lawyers interest

Relation of lawyers interest to aggregate aristocratical interest

III. Lawyer's sinister interest.

As members /In the character of a branch/ of the Aristocracy the class /fraternity/ of Lawyers have a sinister interest coinciding with that of the aggregate body composed of all the other /several/ branches

But over and above /in addition to/ this particular and thence sinister interest the lawyer class has a sinister interest peculiar to itself, and acting in opposition /operating in a different way/ not only to the interest of the people but in some

JB_084_056.xml

Title: [[lxxxiv. 56] 1821 Decr 3 Codification]

Description: [lxxxiv. 56]

1821 Decr 3

Codification Proposal

penult

?.5. Draughtsman Single

Lawyers interest begotten prejudice

The instance in which on the field of Constitutional law the evil inseparable from the use of the instrument has found some diminution © the [...?...?] inseparable from the use of it some excuse is that of the maxim /celebrated/ maxim The King can do no wrong. Taking advantage of the ambiguity attached to the two words ”can• and ”wrong• especially to the word ”can•, on /into/ a declaration of spotless and imaginary virtue they have they have stolen an /a scarcely efficient/ insinuation of [...?] impotence of impotence in his instance; and of responsibility to the purpose of exposure to punishment, in the instance of his instruments. 4 What the King has done can never be wrong, by his doing it that which in itself is wrong is converted into right. That which is wrong the King has not power to do: wherever wrong begins, there his power stops 3 If in the commission of any thing that is wrong the King has been a party though he himself is not punishable for it, some one else some servant of his in every case is.

The most opposite parties agree in to admitting of this production of absolute wisdom, because the most opposite parties each putting his own interpretation upon it, makes application of it to his own purpose.. Each swells and looks big, and in his own eyes and in the eyes of his dupes shews by the impunity [?] with which he employs the instrument the honor due to the inventor of it.

With or without her consent suppose the King to violate another mans wife. For this misdeed of the Master who is the servant that is to be punished? The Archbishop of Canterbury for instance or the Lord High Chancellor? This is among the question by which as yet no decision has been received

It remain what it has ever been an inexhaustible mine of controversy of endless and aimless [?] argument, and so will continue to be so, until with the rest of the flash language it is [...?] in that gulph of oblivion which awaits the whole mass of this [...?] part of the language.