date

20 April 1807 F3 (3) Letter
20 April 1807

F3 (3)

Letter V

Inadequate compensation

2 Interlocution Unappeal.

VI. [...?]

Insert or not?

But appeals against interlocutors are a great grievance. My Lord, I dare believe it. Appeals from Scotland are multitudinous: and a great part of them are appeals against interlocutors. It is natural they should be. In addition to the malâ fides delay producible by appeals against final judgments comes the delay produced by interlocutors. I dare say it does. But against delay, Your Lordship has seen the remedy, the only remedy: and this prohibition of appeals against interlocutors is not that remedy.
Similar Items
  • Title: [20 April 1807 (3) 3 Letter]
    Description: 20 April 1807

    (3) 3

    Letter V

    Inadequate compensation

    2. Interlocutors

    Under the liberty I am thus taking, whatsoever there may be of garrulity believe me, my Lord, there is nothing like disrespect couched: and for proof, I will confess to Your Lordship that years ago when first I took the part of the law in hand, legislating where so many of us build castles - no, said I to myself, we will have no appeals against particulars.

    The reason was simple, and shewed well enough at the first blush. It was the reason already given. Till final judgment is passed, be there ever so many interlocutors, and all wrong, still there is no harm done: wait then for final judgment: if the final judgement is right, appeal against interlocutors is useless: final judgment wrong, then comes appeal against final and interlocutory judgments at the same time. All well this, to a side glance: but no sooner did I take it up, to look at it at right angles than the following questions presented themselves, and the illusion vanished.

    Question 1 t. Is there any permanent and indelible distinction between an interlocutory judgment and a final one? - Answer in the negative.

    Question 2 d. Is there any thing that, being to be done by a final judgment, can not be done by an interlocutor if those on whom it depends are so disposed? Answer - very little, or say more likely, nothing. Whatever your final judgment be, call it an interlocutor, and the thing is done.

    Question 3 d. Supposing a clear and unpassable line were drawn, are there not cases in which an interlocutor, erroneous yet not to be appealed from, be productive of irreparable mischief? - mischief no less irreparable and no less serious than as any that could be done by any final judgment? Answer - plenty.
  • Title: [PRIVATE 5[?] June 1807 Letter]
    Description: PRIVATE

    5[?] June 1807

    Letter V

    v. No Appeals against Interlocut

    v. Proposed prohibition of Appeals against Interlocutors - a bad remedy

    I come now to the second of these bad remedies against delay - of these bad expedients for saving the sum of time to the House of Lords - of these imaginary compensations for the delays attendant in Scotland on the proposed Chamber of Review - prohibition of Appeals to the Lords against interlocutors - interlocutory judgments pronounced by the Court of Session.

    At the outset of this letter I stated what appeared to me the only ostensible ground on which such an arrangement could have been proposed: no injury done by misdecision no injury done untill the judgment has been final.

    On the same occasion I stated what appeared to me a radical objection /contrare[?] objection/ to any arrangement built upon such ground: viz. that between the class of Appeals proposed to be prohibited and the class of Appeals proposed to be still permitted no time of separation has been drawn, has been proposed to be drawn, or is likely to be drawn, so that here is an arrangement of which compleat uncertainty, interminable litigation, and incalculable mischief is the certain consequence.
  • Title: [18 May 1807 + + 4 4]
    Description: 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