date

24 Dec r 1807 Scotch Reform
24 Dec r 1807

Scotch Reform

(B)

1. Jury Trial. 2. [...?]

Letter V

Ch. Omission cause

Reformer to Lordhp[?]

Introducing Jury Trial for encrease of business

Another thing. A subordinate object is the introduction of Jury trial in civil causes into Scottish Judicature. By this these desirable purposes will be promoted. The good opinion entertained of Your Lordship's Administration by the body of the people delighted to see this fresh increase[?] offered to their idol: conciliating[?] the affections and support of the highest Lawyers to whose advantage that species of Judicature as hitherto applied has been adopted: and the encrease of business and opening new paths to profit and distinction for the benefit of us Scottish lawyers.

While the law of procedure and the main body of the law continue in their present state, the introduction of this species of judicatory to the civil department of Judicature to any advantage either in respect of rectitude of decision, or in respect of avoidance of delay, vexation and expence, is plainly impossible. The use made of the species of Judicatory is inseparably connected with the forms of pleading: and these forms are absolutely incapable of being transplanted from English ground into Scottish.

In France the experiment was made: and how wretchedly unsuccessful the result was - is, but too notorious.
Similar Items
  • Title: [11 Feb y 1808 Scotch Reform]
    Description: 11 Feb y 1808

    Scotch Reform

    Letter

    on L d Eldon's Bill

    1. Homologation Necessary

    Pleading [...?]

    Reasons why Jury Trial in [...?] can not be introduced into Scottish procedure to good advantage without the previous homologation of the substantive part or main boy /branch/ of the Law.

    In English procedure, the use and Utility of Jury Trial in civile depends principally upon a connection it has with the forms of pleading: and in particular in so far as concerns general officer[?] - pleading the general office - and the general species or forms of action to which they have reference.

    By the species of actions, the demands [...?] are expressed and distinguished: by the general offices respectively applicable to these actions, [...?] the defences.

    Both indeed in the most wretchedly imperfect and incongruous manner: but being in a considerable degree, and in such manner as to cover the most common subjects of litigation, settled by lay practice, they serve for carrying in the business in the less imperfect mode in which in which it is carried in under English law.
  • Title: [24 Dec r 1807 Scotch Reform]
    Description: 24 Dec r 1807

    Scotch Reform

    (2)

    Letter V

    Ch.│ │ Omission Cause

    By the creation of the proposed Chamber of Review, the good purposes on both sides will be happily accomplished. On the one part friends will be provided for influence extended, and the regulation gained by staving off denial of justice, in appearance at least, and for a time, from hanging any longer over the House of Lords, so serious a reproach as that of a compleat and inexorable denial of justice.

    To effect this improvement in the state of Scottish judicature, it will be absolutely necessary to represent the present state of it in colours by no means to its advantage: and for this purpose to bring particularly forward those features of disadvantage which are calculated to make the strongest impression on Parliament and in particular, on the House of Lords.

    But of all its features the most promising in this view is the enormity and continual encrease of the demand made upon the House of Lords for its time by the Appeals from the Court of Session presented to that Most Honourable House.

    By bringing this object into view both objects will be compassed at once. Keeping to the word Appeals, it will be matter of intuition - matter out of the reach of dispute, that by the Scotch Appeals the demand made on the House for its time is in a[?] much considerably degree greater than that made by the English Appeals. Exclusive of all such considerations of time, it will moreover - and on ground equally out of the reach of dispute, that the number of Appeals presented to the House of Lords, from the one judicatory of the lesser and least populous, is much greater than the number presented to the same supreme judicatory from the largest and most populous of the three kingdoms.
  • Title: [[094-469v] 24 Jan y 1807 Letter]
    Description: [094-469v]

    24 Jan y 1807

    Letter IV

    Resolut. 6.7.8.9.

    Juries

    By postponing /confining/ the use of Jury judicature to the case where it is called for by one or other party in the way of Appeal, from the decision of the permanent single Judge (say in Scotland the Sheriff Depute) all the use would be made of it that the most passionate admirer of this mode of judicature, having the ends of justice in detail before him, and applying human reason to the subject, could possible /well/ desire. He in whose disfavour a decision by the Judge has been pronounced, if he is dissatisfied with it, and chooses to have a Jury, he has one: if he is not dissatisfied, or if being dissatisfied, he does not wish for a Jury, why force him to have one? Lawyers excepted (for in civil cases trial by Jury, is of course /constantly//without any exception/ trial with lawyers) what mortal alive can be the better for it?

    Supposing Jury trial in the first instance to be adverse to the ends of justice in respect of delay, vexation and expence, is there common sense, and that in that /those/ respects trial by a permanent single Judge is more conducive to those ends, is there common sense in forcing a man to act as if he were dissatisfied with the decision of such single Judge, before he know what it is?