[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?