date

7 June 1807 4 Letter V
7 June 1807

4

Letter V

Litigation - Prevent. Promot.

3. A third case that takes place not unfrequently, is that of a compromise. In this case, Mahar-shalal-hash-baz divided the plunder is the word.

The number of shares varies according to circumstances.

In the case which affords the largest number, the support afforded to Naboth has been not gratuitous, but mercenary.

1. Share the 1 st - the share of the destroying Angels.

2. Share the 2 d - David's share.

3. Share the 3 d: the share acquired according to stipulation by Naboth's supporter or supporters.

4. The share left to Naboth of and in his own vinyard, after distribution has been made of the other part, as above.

By a compromise previous to litigation, or at a premature stage, the destroying Angels would pro tanto be defrauded of their due.

Thus is that under the the technical system, almost always, the word compromise is an euphemism: misconception is as often the result of it. The supposition is that justice is done to each; and that each remains self-assured that what he has received is justice. The truth is - that what has taken place is oppression: oppression in the shape of extortion:- of extortion of which the power of Judge and C o has in every case been the instrument: and in the profit of which they have in many, and perhaps in most instances, received their share: only that in this case the extortion has not extended to the whole but has left a part untouched.

A compromise it is, if a compromise it must be called - such as that which has place between the passenger and the highwayman when the purse is yielded without a struggle. Purse and life being previously put into hotchpot, partition is thereupon made and without cost[?]: the purse is pocketed by the highwayman, the passenger goes off with his life.
Similar Items
  • Title: [PRIVATE 7 June 1807 Superseded]
    Description: PRIVATE

    7 June 1807

    Superseded?

    Scotch Reform 2

    Letter V

    II. Litigation Prevent. & Promot.

    2. Plff. malâ fide

    In the station in which they are placed it is impossible for them to avoid checking oppressors in a considerable degree. But the check they apply to it is of course on every occasion as weak and inefficient as they can succeed in rendering it.

    The principal distinction is that which respects the shape in which the advantage is reaped by the wrongdoer, the wrongdoer whose station is on the plaintiff's side. I speak of the distinction between oppression in the way of extortion, and simple oppression.

    Oppression in the way of extortion demands the first consideration, as being the original and basis of the other. The intended victim - the intended defendant - the Naboth - is in possession of some estate, or other article of value - some vinyard which is become an object of concupiscence to the oppressor - the David in this history. In every such David Judge and C o behold the man after their own heart. Costs to be advanced for the purpose of defence, so much; costs of suit to be advanced on the plaintiff's side, so much: if Naboth is either unable, or through terror unwilling to make the advances necessary on his side, while David is both able and willing to make those which are necessary on his, the conquest of the vinyard is assured.

    If Naboth be to such a degree destitute of all support, from without as well as from within, as to stand disabled or deterred from taking so much as the first steps in the track of defence, the destroying Angels - Judge and C o - get nothing for their share.

    To a man whose intrinsic means of defence are deficient or inadequate, it will sometimes happen to obtain support from without - that support will be either mercenary or gratuitous.

    In either case the expectation of David is pro tanto disappointed: in either case the work of destruction is entered upon, and the destroying Angels get their share.
  • Title: [7 June 1807 3 Letter V]
    Description: 7 June 1807

    3

    Letter V

    Litigation - prevent. & promote.

    In this case the result is susceptible of several diversifications.

    1. A case that will sometimes happen is the defence is successful: Naboth retains his vinyard.

    But if ever this happens, David has miscalculated. The destroying Angels his tempters get their share: the sinner is left by them in the lurch.

    Of the expence of defence a part is borne by David the wrongdoer. But other part is always either born in loss by Naboth, or shared in some proportion or other between Naboth and his supporters. For under Westminster Hall justice, a portion of the burthen is always reserved to fasten upon the shoulders of the innocent and injured: taxed costs are never equal to actual costs. I have heard £10 stated as a minimum and by amount and official practitioners where the cause has run out its length. But the subject is exposed to obscurities and uncertainties to which nothing short of sovereign power, applying itself to inquiry can give light and liquidation.

    2. The case that happens as often as the calculation of David has been well-grounded, and his conjectures fortunate is - he gets possession of the vinyard. Naboth loses his vinyard, together with what money he had to lose: if he has had supporters, the remainder of the burthen rests on the shoulders of his supporters. David and his friends the destroying Angels, sing each their alleluyahs. Both? - Yes together? - No: such concert would not be endured: happily it is not necessary.
  • Title: [7 June 1807 + Superseded? 6]
    Description: 7 June 1807

    + Superseded?

    6

    1 o

    Letter V

    Litigation - Prevent. Promot.

    Letter V

    II. Litigation

    2. Plff. malâ fide

    II. The next grand division of the case is - that of simple oppression.

    In this case either the Defendant has nothing worth conquering by any one else, or nothing that in the eye of David is worth getting, or that he can hope to get. But somehow or other the defendant, Uriah, has incurred the displeasure of David: the effect being thus established no matter what the cause, whether by having given a vote on the wrong side, or by having too beautiful a wife, or any other such offence, sufficiently [...?] pregnant with provocation. The ratio of Defendant to Plaintiff is now rather that of Uriah to David; than that of Naboth to the same potentate[?]; and lest the two parables be confounded, let not any thing about Bathsheba or any thing belonging to her be here likened to a vinyard.

    The form assumed now by the destroying Angel, to whom all forms in or by which equal gains are to be made are equally agreeable is now that of Joab the captain[?] of the host: the Hittite is now set in his proper place at the front of the battle; what follows is of course: his fall is like that of Charles the 12 th between friends and enemies.

    So far as material plundeer is concerned the labour, if denoted by Mahar-shalal-hash-baz, is here saved: the destroying Angel carries it off entire.

    The case of simple oppression is therefore, in his opinion, a still better one than that of extorsion in the way of oppression. By simple oppression, he gets all that is to be got, and never misses[?] it: in the complicated case of oppression in the way of extortion he can never triumph but the plaintiff must triumph with time: and a worse thing still as we have seen that may happen is that plaintiff David triumphs alone: while no part of the plunder falls to the share of the destroying Angel but for the terror of whose sword the conquest made by David could never have been atchieved[?]. In the eyes of Law or Equity inequality of this sort can never be any thing better than the summitt of injustice.