date

20 May 1807 Scotch Reform A6
20 May 1807

Scotch Reform

A6 2

Letter V

Ch.12. Appeal list mutilated

§.9. Omission causes

These heads of inquiry are they requisite and necessary for drawing the documents necessary for the comparison from the English Courts? they will be not the less requisite for the due application of the inquiry to the Irish Courts.

Supposing, if the supposition may be endured, that the above items contain the description of the list of Appeals that in pursuance of the plan of reform as declared by the Resolution and the measures grounded on them ought to have been called for, let us now observe what are the heads that comprize the Appeals actually called for and presented in consequence. To this inquiry the clearest answer will be afforded by an Account of the heads not compized in the Account but omitted.

1. From Westminster Hall corresponding as above to the Scottish Court of Session Appeals called Writs of Error, presented to the Lords: none.

2. Appeals called Writs of Error presented to any of three Intermediate Courts of Appeal (the existing English Chambers of Review) consequently none.

3. Appeals from the two other English Courts standing on the same level with and, thence making parcel of the aggregate list, corresponding to that Scotch Court: viz. Appeals to the King's Delegates, none.
Similar Items
  • Title: [20 May 1807 A2 Letter V]
    Description: 20 May 1807

    A2

    Letter V

    VIII. Appeal list mutilated

    I. Deficiencies

    The question being whether on this occasion any and what documents shall be called for, it seems to me that had it been my lot (pardon the extravagance of the supposition) to have stood in the place of Your Lordship's learned Adviser, I should have reasoned in some such manner as the following -

    1. If we are to form comparisons, and to have the English and Irish Appeals to confront with the Scotch Appeals, let us not be misled by names, but to match with the Scotch Appeals, let us bring forward all the English and Irish Appeals without exception, howsoever they may happen to be denominated - Appeals, Writs of Error, or by any other name.

    2. Appeal supposes necessarily two Courts: - the Court à quâ (as they call it) the Court from which the appeal is made; and the Court ad quam - the Court to which the Appeal is made.

    Confining our view to Scotland, and in Scotland to the Court of Session, both these objects are necessarily comprehended in an account: call for the list of Appeals presented to the House of Lords, (viz. from Scotland) call for the list of Appeals presented from Scotland (viz. from the Court of Session) the return will be the same.
  • Title: [20 May 1807 A3 Letter V]
    Description: 20 May 1807

    A3

    Letter V

    VIII. Appeal list mutilated

    I. Deficiencies

    But the English part of the account ( let alone the Irish) presents a very different picture. Upon the same level with the one Court at Edinburgh (taking the Inner House of the Court of Session for that one Court) stand in London no fewer than four Courts in Westminster Hall alone: viz. the Chancery, the King's Bench (in its capacity of a Court of original or primary jurisdiction) the Common Pleas, and the Exchequer.

    In the case of the Scotch Appeals whether you call for the Appeals to the House of Lords, meaning from Scotland, or for the Appeals from Scotland simply, it makes no difference: you have one and the same list in both cases.

    Very different is the case with the English Appeals. Call for the Appeals to the House of Lords from Westminster Hall, you get the Appeals called Appeals presented to the House of Lords, and moreover, unless you suffer things to be hidden from you by names, You get the Appeals called Writs of Error, returnable, (as the word now is) to the same supreme seat of appellate judicature.

    Call for the Appeals from the four Westminster Hall Courts above mentioned, you get it is true the same Appeals as those mentioned in the last sentence. But moreover along with these you get the cloud of others brought to view under the last head. You get the Appeals presented under the name of Writs of Error, to the three intermediate Courts of appellate jurisdiction, already depicted under the aforesaid last head of the English Courts of Review.
  • Title: [PRIVATE 19 Dec r 1807 Scotch]
    Description: PRIVATE

    19 Dec r 1807

    Scotch Reform

    (1)

    Letter V

    Ch.11 Appeal list mutilated

    §.1. Deficiencies or [...?]

    Writs of Error are as much Appeals as Appeals so called.

    how, my Lord, under favour, in the nature of the case was there any foundation for this omission? Writs of Error, are they any thing but Appeals, under another name? Is not misdecision imputed alike in both cases? With equal appositeness might not the denominations have been transposed? the appeals called writs of error? the writs of error appeals? The appeals called Writs of Error and the appeals called appeals. The distinction thus expressed, is it not a fair and proper one?

    For the reason of the object - of the species of application, I prefer the word appeal. Why? because it is a term of universal jurisprudence, or rather a term belonging to the common stock of the language, presenting the object to every man alike who is conversant with the language: writ of error a term of lawyer's-cant, part and parcel of the flash language, of no more real use in addition to the proper word appeal than, in another sort of cant, the appellative Beak is, in addition to the term Justice of the Peace.

    In truth, not of so much use: Beak has the merit of conciseness: no small merit in language: it substitutes one word to four. Writ of Error has the demerit of diffuseness: to one word it substitutes three. With this diffusion it is still in a high degree elliptical: so much so, as to be in itself inexpressive; expressive and intelligible, to these and these only, whose acquaitance with the name is derived through the medium of the thing itself. A Writ of the nature of a Mandate, issuing as from the King, and directed to some judicatory, ordering it to take cognizance of a complaint, by which error is imputed to the proceedings of some other judicatory. Thus prodigious the heap of words all which must be supplied before the cant nickname employed by the surfeit[?] of English lawyers is capable of presenting the idea presented by the single word appeal in the honest part of the language?[?]