Jan y 1807

Scotch Reform To L d Grenville

Facienda

Juries why on appeal only

Whosoever chooses to have /submitt his cause to/ a Jury may provided the cause /question/ is of the number of those that are physically speaking capable of being tried by a Jury, may have one if he pleases. To any useful purpose what more need any man wish to have to do with Juries?

Whosoever finds himself /sees cause for being/ dissatisfied with the decision of a single Judge may betake himself to this superior or supposed superior, security against misdecision, if he pleases.

But if a man is not dissatisfied /before it is in his power to have been dissatisfied/, with the decision of a single Judge, why force him into any other hands? But with the opinion of a single Judge, I will not ask how can he possibly be dissatisfied, but I will ask, with what reason can he be dissatisfied, before he knows what it is.

The question being, how far and in what respects is the part borne by a Jury conducive /subservient/ to the ends of Justice, the first thing to be done is to advert[?] to the distinction between the different ends of justice.

This done my Lord, my answer is very simple /short and simple/. In the first instance I do not employ Juries. why? because in the first instance the employment of /giving employment to/ Juries is inevitably attended with that factitious delay, vexation and expense which by the profit attached to it (has begotten in the heart of lawyers /heart of English lawyers/ his impassioned love for Juries.) has secured to that object of interested idolatry the devotion of the English lawyers and his dupes.