4 th April 1808

Scotch Reform. Notes sent to L ds Grenville, Lauderdale & Erskine in the House.

Another copy sent to M r Horner 10 Apr. 1808 Sunday

Scotch Reform Bill

Objection to §.13. No Appeal against Interlocutors but by leave of the Court appealed from.

1. Dangerous - Vests in Session an arbitrary power: in many cases effectual means of eluding the controul of the House. In point of effect, no line has been or is proposed to be in any case or can in every case be drawn between Interlocutory and final decreete. In many cases the effect of delay will be the same as that of misdecision to the prejudice of the Plaintiffs side. What can not be done by an Interlocutor may be done by a series of them. Suppose delay, if not the sole object, the sole mischief of the Interlocutor: here the remedies are taken away altogether (In the Civil law Courts they have an Appeal professedly against delay.) In cases to an undefinable extent Session would, by the power of defeating Acts of Parliament, be paramount to Parliament. Suppose it proved that to this indefinite extent the House might be ousted of its jurisdiction without inconvenience, so it might in toto.

2. Unnecessary - The only mischief meant to be remedied is affected delay. But, if there were nothing to be got by such delay, groundless Appeals would no more be made from Interlocutors than from final judgments. The profit from delay (the profit made by defend t with Plffs money or money's worth in his hands) might as easily be taken away in the cases of groundless Appeals from Interlocutors as in case of d o from final judgments. Interest should run from the commencement of the suit: and in cases of an insolvent defend t to prevent him from depositing the money &c pending the Appeal, leave might be given to Session for taking security.