24 April 1807

Lawyers judged

Letter 2

The first point /proposition/ that presents itself is - that in the instance of neither of the contending parties is the good of the people in their character of suitors, the ruling object. In reality and at bottom, it could not reasonably be expected that with either of them it should have an object in any degree: but as to its being the prime an predominant object, this is not in the instance of either of them so much as professed.

First as to the learned Memorialists, the Judges. Of /To/ the interests of the people to the ends of justice - as the proper and prime standards of reference /rectitude/, no reference next to no notice/ any where. Reference by words too vague to afford instruction /answer any good purpose, in the way of list[?] check or guidance instruction, check or guidance, yes in Art. 2. The proposed division pronounced unnecessary and inexpedient. │ │ [...?]

In Art. 14. the expediency in general stated as doubtful: if carried to the extent proposed, consequences calamitous.

In Art. 20. In Jury-trial, if instituted /applied/ to causes commenced in inferior Courts pronounced inexpedient, dangerous, impracticable.

In Art. 38. Something which they understood to have been proposed to be done viz.: by Parliament, is remonstrated against as " illegal" and " unjust". An act of Parliament illegal! and this from Judges!

Unjust, perhaps so: you must go to some one else, if you wish to see it proved that Parliament can make justice, can turn injustice into justice - can make justice. But does not Parliament make law? or do those Judges propose to take to themselves a monopoly of the manufacture?

words expressive of nothing but the heat raised /exited/ in the mode[?] of the penner and his associates/