9 Aug 1804

Procedure

non-homologation

eulogized by Lawyers

In what part of that matter /the work/ from whence jurisprudential law is distilled had the people any part of the people besides the Judges the King, Judges at any time owning the smallest share. What judge was ever named /placed, what Judge was ever displaced/ by the people or any part of the people - what Judge was ever placed or displaced by any body but the King? To what decision /rule/ of jurisprudential law did the people or any part of the people ever give any previous consent, or any subsequent consent, any otherwise than what is given to it in Morocco, viz: by not resisting it.

Looking to /As far as depends upon/ the source what is the real characteristic of jurisprudential law in contradistinction to statutory? That in the framing of statutory law the body of the people have to a very considerable share - as great a share (as far as I can see) as would be of any use of them - in the framing of jurisprudential law (for the part taken by Juries is not preserved /work of Juries [...?] as fact as produced/ and contributes nothing to the matter of this species of jurisprudential law) in the framing of jurisprudential law the people have not any the smallest share.

By what instance /On what pretence/ /contrivance/ is an assertion on the bulk of universal experience endeavoured to be supported? By setting people to look at times /turn their eyes to /toward/ the darkest of antient time/ of which we know nothing. In all traces of which we know any thing to signify what has been done in the way of jurisprudential law has been done solely by the Judges no part of it by the people: but there are times viz: the Saxon of which we know next to nothing: in so far as we know not what was done in those times, it can not be proved that what was done in those times was done by the Judges: therefore without proof or the shadow of proof, and against all probability not to say possibility we are to say it was done by the people.