30 April 1805

Evidence

Introd

Ch Sinister Ends

'. No[?] Collateral ends

Of these maxims - the effusions of imbecility wandering in a chaos of its own creation - of these technical crudities with the mass of which volumes upon volumes might be filled, two classes may be distinguished. Those of the one have respect to substantive law: those of the other, to adjutive[?]. To each a test may be given - by which its pretensions to the character /proxy[?]/ of rationality and utility may be tried. In the instance of /As to/ lack of them as bear reference to substantive law /any shewn[?] by/ this test consists in their tendency where applied to practice, that is in the tendency of the arrangements which they are employed to recommend, in respect of the production or promotion[?] of assignable pains and pleasures. Such of them as bear reference to adjuctive law, try those by their subserviency to the ends of justice: to the ends of justice, not as dreamt of /figured in the dreams of/ rhetoricious, but as laws[?] distinctly brought to view.

Examples of maxims constituting so many capricious ends disparate from and unsubordinate to the legitimate end of procedure and its several branches

1. Nemo[?] debit scepsum[?] accusare. Improperly expressed not fit to be observed in any case: in practice not adhered to with any tolerable uniformity or consistency

4.[?] Non bis in idem. Not fit to be observed in any law Referred to in French Law. More steadily observed in English law where its observance is more mischievous than in French. It affords a sure receipt for impunity, to every criminal who can contrive to keep a witness out of the way for a few hours. 3. Nemo debit [...?] [...?] in [...?] [...?]. +

+  Give the rest of [...?] maxims and [...?] Axioms.