date

21 Feb y 1808 on L d Eldon's Bill
21 Feb y 1808

on L d Eldon's Bill

Letter V II. Appeals

Delay shop [...?]

This is not all: what is believed is still worse. There is a show of giving interest: always understood the /meaning always the always/ inadequate allowance given /made/ under that tenure[?].

By a strange anomaly, to take his chance for it /that part of his due/, a man is sent to a third /yet another last[?]/ judicatory, neither the [...?] the immediate judicatory, nor the Appellate judicatory, but another which but in the strange[?] way has nothing to do with either. Immediate judicatory, the Kings Bench; appellate the Exchequer Chamber the last in which he /a man/ is to take his chance is neither the Exchequers Chambers, nor the Kings Bench, but the Exchequer: in which his claim to the interest[?] of the principal sum[?] /at the end of a [...?] arm[?]/ adjudged to have[?] by a judgment of the Kings Bench, confirmed by a d r[?] of the Exchequer Chambers because the subject of a distant cause, a motion cause (of which in [...?] Letter [...?].)

When [...?] from he Exchequer Chamber he is got into the Exchequer, he finds himself in a trap. There are cases in which in this way the man receives /the party wronged is permitted to receive/ the scrap of competition[?] thus held out to him; there are others in which he is not permitted to receive it. There are cases in which the wrongdoer is made to part with this fragment of the /item in the account of/ profit from his own wrong; there are cases in which he is not made to part with it /this imperfect justice in the shop[?] is not so much as pretended to be done/. In every instance in the instance of each individual cause whether in either of these shapes any thing under the semblance of justice is /shall be/ done depends - avowedly depends - upon the description of the [...?] Court. /+ Burrow[?] for [...?]/ So that before a lawsuit and without a lawsuit [...?] a partial /till a fresh lawsuit has been committed for the purpose and determined/ relief or an aggravation of the wrong will be the result of the application thus made for the pretended remedy, is among the things /points/ of law which it is /has been made/ impossible for man to know.
Similar Items
  • Title: [15 Oct. 1807 Lords Delegates]
    Description: 15 Oct. 1807

    Lords Delegates

    After Ch. │ │ Advantages

    Ch.│ │ Hale's Plan p.125

    What is above, was written before the unlearned annotators perseverance had in a regular course of reading, carried him on to Chapt. XXI. p.125.

    The case of a Writ of Error from the King's Bench into the Exchequer Chamber, and from thence into the House of Lords is there expressly taken into contemplation. The ultimately appellate jurisdiction of the Lords House being contested altogether and that not merely on the ground of expediency but on the ground of actual law (not that in the eye of a lawyer in general or of Lord Hale in particular there is ever any steady line of distinction between the two parts but either they are the same point[?] or each according to the exigence of the argument serves for the proof of the other) the Lords House judicatory being from whose Court soever appealed from a bad judicatory, bad consequently, and indeed worst of all if appealed to from (the best /but one[?]/ of all judicatories, viz.) the judicatory comprized of 8 out the 12 learned Judges, the best of all, except that which is enriched with the power as well as wisdom of all 12.

    If having a judgment against him in the King's Bench, a man wishes to take his chance in another Court, then in a certain description of cases his Writ of Error has[?] from thence into the Exchequer Chamber, composed as above. In this same class of cases, Lord Hale admitts that the man may "bring it in parliament if he please. From the 4 learned Judges of the King's Bench to so many unlearned ones in parliament is bad enough, but from the 8 learned Judges in the Exchequer Chamber to the same unlearned ones is intolerable. A tier[?] must be set up, and it is thus. Bringing the writ of error into the Exchequer Chamber the man has made his election, i.e. whether he will ever bring it into the ultimately appellate judicatory or no: he has elected not to bring it into the Lord's House, and therefore he shan't - Why? - because he shan't.
  • Title: [11 Oct r 1807 Lords Delegates]
    Description: 11 Oct r 1807

    Lords Delegates

    after Ch. Advantages

    Ch. L d Hale's Plan

    Now then, to apply this position of his to his own plan. At the time when he was penning this treatise, and while /when/ the House of Lords were occupied in exercising and defending /supporting/ that appellate judicature, and the House of Commons in contesting and attacking it, had any Writs of Error been brought into the House of Lords from either of the two Exchequer Chambers? I speak of the Exchequer Chamber which then as now must occasionally have been sitting to determine on writs of Error brought to it out of the Kings Bench, and the other differently composed Court of the same name sitting to determine on writs of Error brought to it out of the Court of Exchequer.

    I content myself with putting the question, not being competent, nor very ambitious of being competent, to say yes or no to it: either will equally serve the purpose of this argument. If no /as yet no/ such Writ of Error had been brought to the House of Lords, they would not naturally have had long to wait for one: their competence to take cognizance of it was included in their claims, and the /their/ assumption if not affirmed by Lord Hales argument against those claims.

    Well then - a writ of Error is brought into one of these Exchequer Chambers for the reversal of a judgment pronounced in the King's Bench: the Judges of whom then Exchequer Chamber is now composed are the Judges of the Common Pleas and the Barons of the Exchequer. By the Exchequer-Chamber the judgment of the King's Bench is reversed or affirmed: thereupon for reversal of the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber a Writ of Error is brought into the House of lords. Hereupon, according to the plan of the venerable Judge, "the Judge of that Court, out of which the record is removed ..." they and they " only", are "to be omitted in that commission."
  • Title: [1 May 1807 B2 8 (2) (8)]
    Description: 1 May 1807

    B2 8

    (2) (8)

    Letter V

    VIII. Appeal list mutilated

    English Review Chambers

    II. Finance Supply

    Thus much, my Lord, as to the masses of Appeals flowing from Scotland and England respectively into the House of Lords.

    I come now to the masses of Appeal flowing out of the supreme local Courts of judicature in the two kingdoms respectively into receptacles other than the House of Lords: receptacles intermediate between these supreme local Courts and that ultimate seat of judicature. Here of such intermediate Courts of Appeal the numbers are - for Scotland, 0: for England as above 3: the King's Bench in its appellate capacity, with its 8 Judges to hear under the name of Writs of Error, appeals from the Common Pleas: the Exchequer Chamber with its 8 Judges to hear under the like name appeals from the King's Bench: a Court differently composed, under the same name of the Exchequer Chamber, also with 8 Judges, 4 of them the same, 4 of them different from those of the other Court of the same name, to hear under the same name, appeals from the Court of Exchequer.

    So much as to the manufactories of delay; now as to the produce: viz. the comparative amount of it.

    Taking the four Courts in Westminster Hall as standing all of them in their respective capacities of Courts of original jurisdiction on the same level, and with the Court of Session in Edinburgh, let us observe the number of appeals of all sorts sent out of the several respective Courts: a distinction being made, but not any exception, grounded on the nature of the Courts into which they were sent, viz. the ultimate receptacle the House of Lords, and the respective intermediate receptacles.