date

8 Feb y 1808 IV. Day of Sitting
8 Feb y 1808

IV. Day of Sitting

The determination /decision/ of the Court of Session, I mean of the clever art of its 15 Judges is - that the Chambers meaning what the Bill calls the divisions of the Court, these[?] Chambers whether there be two or three of them shall "only sit alternately".

What is the grand grievance? /One main grievance //At the head of the list of grievances stands this -// that the decisions of the Court of Session are years in arrear, and that it is in a way[?] to measure[?] /the arrear there seems no bounds to its probable measure[?]/.

Such being the grievance nothing can be more obvious, more effectual /infallible/ than the remedy. Instead of one judiciary, establish two, both sitting at the same time: each having but half the business to do in the same quantity of time, the quantity of time applied to the business will be the double of that it is at present. Of one judicatory the number of which are determined not to preserve the repose [...?] for almost [...?] end two months together, the quantity of time allowed as not sufficient for the business /the quantity/ which calls for it: but it is not so far from sufficient but that double the quantity of time would be compleatly so - since[?] then the numbers of the one judicatory will not give up any part of the time dedicated to repose, establish two judicatories, both /each/ sitting at the same time with those[?] on which the one judicatory sits at present. By this means the quantity of time applied to the business will be exactly doubled.
Similar Items
  • Title: [8 Feb y 1808 Power Se IV. Days]
    Description: 8 Feb y 1808

    Power Se

    IV. Days of sitting

    No: the arrangement will not do /[...?]/. the ends of justice, the interest of the lowest[?] [...?], yes: but not the interest, at the repose of these honourable and learned Ministers and Guardians of Justice. Having near half the year pure holyday time binds two holidays out of every seven in working time, so far from giving up any part of their repose /applying to the business more of their time than at present/, their plan is - not to apply to the business more than half the time they apply to it at present. The Chambers /two judicatories/ if two, are to sit alternately; in each of them, the Judges sitting half the time they apply to at present.

    A security[?] to the evenday[?] labours under a [...?] of that protean[?] article: and thus is the occasion they lay hold of for doubling the quantity consumed in [...?].

    The form in which this determination is expressed is not less observation-worthy than the substance.

    To a declaration of any sort, of art of the will be it an art of the understanding [...?], order, assertion, the indirect form the form of assumption /implicit parenthetical/ gives a degree of force of which the direct form is incapable. Impossibility moreover oppozes[?] to any proposition a bar in impasses[?] /against/ of which the direct[?] form of reasoning is as a straw against a stone wall. To give force to the expression of will here exhibited /brought out/, lock[?] these [...?] powers are employed /called on/. That, as the Chambers are only to sit, and indeed can only sit alternately (say the learned memorialists in their fourth article) and then came their [...?] and conclusions.
  • Title: [[094-373v] 4 April 1808 Letter]
    Description: [094-373v]

    4 April 1808

    Letter V

    Ch. 3

    By this fixation a sort of compromise was made, and the two opposite interests, those of the Judges, and those of the lieges - [...?] and God - for sale[?] in the religion of the Court of Session is the ends of precedence, served at the same time. Among the ends of judicature, if indeed there were ever any others, judicial repose, occupied in the order of precedence as settled by the Lord President and the art of his fourteen Colleagues, at any rate the first [...?]. According to the composition of the Right Honourable and learned Lord /Memorial art. 50/ division of the Inner House into two judicatories would by necessary consequence have governed the quantity of this greatest of public benefits /judicial blessings/. For though in England, viz. in Westminster Hall, where judicial convenience is not altogether disregarded, three judicatories having cognizance of the same courses, do continue to sit all along[?] on the same days, yet at Edinburgh, there was a something /in the [...?] perhaps/, that rendered such simultaneousity[?] impossible. Memorial arts 4 "At the Chambers are only to sit, and indeed can only sit alternately. If at the Scottish Bar which is said not to afford more than about ,3,000 a year for its busiest and most illustrious members, there were any whose quantity of business would be subjected to reduction, by the division of the Inner House into two, and the law of nature which forbids two bodies to exist a at the same time in the same place, the impossibility of such simultaneosity would naturally in that other set of illustrious eyes present itself in a equally strong light. Happily for the lieges, making the whole learned Faculty together, the [...?] of the greater number of its members are not so compleatly filled with business that the division in question would have the effect of causing any considerable part of that business to overflow and escape. Accordingly what in the eyes of the great majority of the judges was physically impossible, was in the eyes of the still greater majority of the Faculty of Advocates indispensably necessary. /Resolution 2?/
  • Title: [10 May 1807 Scotch Reform Letter]
    Description: 10 May 1807

    Scotch Reform

    Letter VI

    Letter VI

    III. Review Chamber

    That whatsoever be the number of Chambers into which the existing Court comes to be divided, they shall not sit any two of them the same day. And accordingly that their anxiety may be the surer of finding itself relieved /its relief/, a discovery is made that any such arrangement as that of a simultaneous sitting on the part of two or more of such Chambers is a physical impossibility: an impossibility discovered by the same penetrating eye that discovered that a mode of judging most excellent for ,5, was incapable of being applied to ,5:1 s.

    It is on this impossibility it is that is grounded the inescapable bar to the institution of the /division into/ three Chambers, as proposed by the Bill instead of the two, the numbers proposed by those learned Memorialists. This impossibility that three Courts of co-ordinate authority can sit in or near the same edifice at the same time for further proof of which see the 4 Courts continually sitting at the same time in Westminster Hall being [...?] in a parenthesis, the consequence is undeniable /undisputable/ beyond dispute/ As they can only sit alternately, a considerably greater quantity of business will not be done by these Chambers than by two - at least not in a degree sufficient to counterballance the inconvenience (where are they?) which will arise from the greater number of Chambers + As the said three Chambers can "only sit alternately", "this inconvenience (art. 4) and confusion" (what inconvenience what confusion?) "will be increased and all method and regularity in the arrangement of the Rolls, and in considering the business of the Courts, much impeded."

    This is so my Lord and without dispute, what in Scotland are the real and what are not the real ends of judicature, and in England may not the same right be seen, and with equal clearness, spite of all disguises?

    + They propose 5 at [...?] viz Outer Houses

    +1 "and indeed (art.8) can only sit alternately)

    +2 an impossibility, which under the impossibility of finding proof for it, not to say colour of proof, is for shortness likewise for-granted: