date

18 May 1807 + + 4 4
18 May 1807

+ + 4

4

Letter V

I. Plan for the Letter

Yes, my Lord:- In the benefit of this old-established and approved remedy, sanctioned by

the wisdom of ages

, the lieges will already find a sufficient compensation for whatever little additional delay and expence may happen to be produced by the proposed

Chamber of Review

: but, to make sure, let us give them two other indemnities into the bargain.

2. Of the load of

appellate-jurisdiction

business that presses at present upon the time of the House of Lords, a very large proportion is produced by

Appeals against interlocutory judgments

called for shortness

Interlocutors

. Of all these Appeals the time of the House might with perfect propriety be exonerated. I say -

with perfect propriety

. For it is time enough for a man to complain when he has lost his cause. But, till final judgment is pronounced the cause is not lost to any body. All these appeals therefore may be struck off. And here your Lordship sees another great relief to the

lieges

:- another compensation for whatsoever little additional delay and expence may be supposed to be attached to

our Chamber of Review

Italics still
Similar Items
  • Title: [27 Feb y 1807 (5 Letter V]
    Description: 27 Feb y 1807

    (5

    Letter V

    Resolut. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

    4 th. That as to Resolution 13 th, inhibiting Appeals to the House of Lords from interlocutory judgments, not excepting those from the Chamber of Review, the inhibition it imparts is inconsistent with the very principle of appeal, and can not be defended on any other ground than that the supreme appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords is unnecessary in toto, as well in its application to final judgments as in its application to interlocutory ones:- for that the distinction between an interlocutory and a final judgment is not in its nature so fixed and determinate, but that the effect of a final judgment may be given to an interlocutory one.
  • Title: [18 May 1807 5 Letter V]
    Description: 18 May 1807

    5

    Letter V

    1. Plan of the Letter

    3. dispatch by substituting Appeals to Advocation and Suspension.

    3. I have not done yet, my Lord: another little

    bonus

    for the lieges.

    In the

    Bill Chamber

    , the mode in which the superintending jurisdiction of the Court of Session is exercised over the causes originally brought before the local judicatures is (it must be confessed) rather slower than could have been wished:- yes, and many are the impertinent things that have been said about it. But, my Lord, be pleased but to look at the Circuits, there you may see the Justiciary Court, travelling post, - a very pattern for expedition: like

    Time

    and

    Tide

    , Circuit Courts stop for no man. In the room of the solemn and steady, indeed, though, to be sure rather slow-paced Justice, which without change of place vibrates and in a stile of vibration rather complicated, it must be confessed, between the Bill-Chamber, the Inner House, and the other Outer-Houses, give the lieges the option of that which travels post - Good souls! how delighted will they be! - All for the

    lieges

    , this part, my Lord:- this little

    bonus

    :- all for the poor dear lieges! - Your Lordships have had

    your

    share:
  • Title: [PRIVATE [...?] Dec r 1806]
    Description: PRIVATE

    [...?] Dec r 1806

    Scotch Reform To L d Grenville

    (8)[?] (1)

    Resolut.

    Interlocution [...?]

    VI [...?] [...?]

    A circumstance that may perhaps be not altogether void of instruction, is - that of the bar so inexorably opposed to Appeals against Interlocutory Judgments considered as addressed to the House of Lords, is not in any the smallest part of its extent opposed to Appeals against Judgments of the same description when considered as addressed to the projected Chamber of Review. To the Chamber of Review Appeals against Interlocutory Judgments may pour in without stint[?]: from that seat of novel justice to the House of Lords not a single one must transpire.

    Here then comes a dilemma for the solution of which I must beg leave to refer Your Lordship to the learned Author of this plan of reformation:- if appeals against interlocutory judgments are not necessary to justice, how can they be allowed to the Chamber of Review:- if necessary, how come they to be prohibited to be made to the House of Lords?