The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Errata—vol. III.
• Defence of Usury; Showing the Impolicy of the Present Legal Restraints On the Terms of Pecuniary Bargains; In Letters to a Friend.
• Letter I.: Introduction.
• Letter II.: Reasons For Restraint—prevention of Usury.
• Letter III.: Reasons For Restraint—prevention of Prodigality.
• Letter IV.: Reasons For Restraint—protection of Indigence.
• Letter V.: Reasons For Restraint—protection of Simplicity.
• Letter VI.: Mischiefs of the Anti-usurious Laws.
• Letter VII.: Efficacy of Anti-usurious Laws.
• Letter VIII.: Virtual Usury Allowed.
• Letter IX.: Blackstone Considered.
• Letter X.: Grounds of the Prejudices Against Usury.
• Letter XI.: Compound Interest.
• Letter XII.: Maintenance and Champerty.
• Letter XIII.: To Dr. Smith, On Projects In Arts, &c.
• A Manual of Political Economy: Now First Edited From the Mss. of Jeremy Bentham.
• Chapter I.: Introduction. *
• Chapter II.: Analytical Survey of the Field of Political Economy.
• Chapter III.: Of Wealth.
• Chapter IV.: Of Population.
• Chapter V.: Of Finance.
• Chapter VI.: Operation of a Sinking Fund On the Production of Wealth.
• Chapter VII.: Noscenda.
• Observations On the Restrictive and Prohibitory Commercial System; Especially With a Reference to the Decree of the Spanish Cortes of July 1820.
• Preface.: Observations, &c.
• Section I.: Nature of the Prohibitory System.
• Section II.: Mischiefs of the Prohibitory System.
• Section III.: Causes of the Prohibitory System.
• A Plan For Saving All Trouble and Expense In the Transfer of Stock, and For Enabling the Proprietors to Receive Their Dividends Without Powers of Attorney, Or Attendance At the Bank of England, By the Conversion of Stock Into Note Annuities.
• Introduction.
• Chapter I.: Plan For the Creation, Emission, Payment, and Eventual Extension, of a Proposed New Species of Government Paper, Under the Name of Annuity Notes.
• Chapter II.: Form of an Annuity Note. (see Table II.)
• Chapter III.: Comparison of the Proposed, With the Existing Government Securities, &c.
• Chapter IV.: Grounds of Expectation, In Regard to the Proposed Measure.
• Chapter V.: Financial Advantages.
• Chapter VI.: Advantage By Addition to National Capital.
• Chapter VII.: Advantage By Addition to Commercial Security.
• Chapter VIII.: Particular Interests Concerned.
• Chapter IX.: Rise of Prices—how to Obviate.
• Chapter X.: Reduction of Interest—proposed Mode Compared With Mr. Pelham’s.
• Chapter XI.: Moral Advantages.
• Chapter XII.: Constitutional Advantages.
• Chapter XIII.: Recapitulation and Conclusion.
• Appendix A.: Government Ought to Have the Monopoly of Paper Money, As Well As of Metallic Money.
• Appendix B.: Paper Money—causes Why Not Circulated By Government Without Interest, As Well As By Individuals.
• General View of a Complete Code of Laws.
• Chapter I.: General Division.
• Chapter II.: Relations Between the Laws Concerning Offences, Rights, Obligations, and Services.
• Chapter III.: Relation Between the Penal and Civil Code.
• Chapter IV.: Of Method.
• Chapter V.: Plan of the Penal Code.
• Chapter VI.: Of the Division of Offences.
• Chapter VIII. Titles of the Penal Code.
• Chapter IX.: First General Title of the Civil Code, * of Things.
• Chapter X.: Second General Title of the Civil Code. of Places.
• Chapter XI.: Third General Title of the Civil Code. of Times.
• Chapter XII.: Fourth General Title of the Civil Code. of Services.
• Chapter XIII.: Fifth General Title of the Civil Code. of Obligations.
• Chapter XIV.: Sixth General Title of the Civil Code. of Rights.
• Chapter XV.: Seventh General Title of the Civil Code. of Collative and Ablative Events.
• Chapter XVI.: Eighth General Title of the Civil Code. of Contracts.
• Chapter XVII.: Ninth General Title of the Civil Code. of the Domestic and Civil States.
• Chapter XVIII.: Tenth General Title of the Civil Code. of Persons Capable of Acquiring and of Contracting.
• Chapter XIX.: Of the Particular Titles of the Civil Code.
• Chapter XX.: Of Elementary Political Powers.
• Chapter XXI.: Of Elementary Political Powers— Subject Continued.
• Chapter XXII.: Plan of the Political Code.
• Chapter XXIII.: Plan of the International Code.
• Chapter XXIV.: Plan of the Maritime Code.
• Chapter XXV.: Plan of the Military Code.
• Chapter XXVI.: Plan of the Ecclesiastical Code.
• Chapter XXVII.: Plan of Remuneratory Laws.
• Chapter XXVIII.: Of Political Economy.
• Chapter XXIX.: Plan of the Financial Code.
• Chapter XXX.: Plan of Procedure Code.
• Chapter XXXI.: Of the Integrality of the Code of Laws.
• Chapter XXXII.: Of Purity In the Composition of a Code of Laws.
• Chapter XXXIII.: Of the Style of the Laws.
• Chapter XXXIV.: Of the Interpretation, Conservation, and Improvement of a Code.
• Pannomial Fragments.
• Chapter I.: General Observations.
• Chapter II.: Consideranda.
• Chapter III.: Expositions.
• Chapter IV.: Axioms.
• Nomography; Or the Art of Inditing Laws: Now First Published From the Mss. of Jeremy Bentham.
• Chapter I.: The Subject Stated.
• Chapter II.: Relations.
• Chapter III.: Proper End In View.
• Chapter IV.: Imperfections Primary.
• Chapter V.: Explanations Relative to the Imperfections of the Second Order.
• Chapter VI.: Of Remedies. *
• Chapter VII.: Of Language.
• Chapter VIII.: Of the Perfections of Which the Legislative Style Is Susceptible.
• Chapter IX.: Of Forms of Enactment.
• Appendix. Logical Arrangements, Or Instruments of Invention and Discovery
• Equity Dispatch Court Proposal; Containing a Plan For the Speedy and Unexpensive Termination of the Suits Now Depending In Equity Courts. With the Form of a Petition, and Some Account of a Proposed Bill For That Purpose
• Section I.: Purpose Explained. Jeremy Bentham to the Honest and Afflicted Among Equity Suitors.
• Section II.: Equity Suitors’ Petition For Dispatch Court. to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, —
• Section III.: Dispatch Court Bill—some Account of It.
• Section IV.: Information Requisite From Petitioning Suitors.
• Equity Dispatch Court Bill: Being a Bill For the Institution of an Experimental Judicatory Under the Name of the Court of Dispatch, For Exemplifying In Practice the Manner In Which the Proposed Summary May Be Substituted to the So Called Regular Sy
• Editor’s Note.
• Preface.
• Preamble.
• Part I.—: Judiciary.
• Section I.: Judge Located, How.
• Section II.: Remuneration.
• Section III.: Registrar, &c.
• Section IV.: Eleemosynary Advocate.
• Section V.: Judges’, &c. Deputes.
• Section VI.: Judge’s Powers—exemptions—checks.
• Section VII.: Prehensors and Messengers.
• Section VIII.: Consignees; * Or Say, In-trust-holders.
• Section IX.: Grounds of Decision For the Dispatch Court Judge.
• Section X. ‡: Suits’ Comparative Suitableness; and Order of Cognizance.
• Section XI.: Auxiliary Judges and Accountants.
• Section XII.: Sittings, Times Of.
• Part II.—: Procedure.
• Section XIII.: Definitions. *
• Section XIV.: Examination of Solicitors.
• Section XV.: Initiatory Examination of Parties, &c.
• Section XVI.: Appropriate Intercourse, Constant and Universal, Secured.
• Section XVII.: Mutual Security For Forthcomingness of Persons and Things. ‡
• Section XVIII.: Evidence-procuring Money, How Provided.
• Section XIX.: Subsequential Evidence, How Elicited.
• Section XX.: Execution, How Performed.
• Section XXI.: Equity Court Costs, How Disposed Of.
• Section XXII.: Dispatch Court Costs, How Disposed Of.
• Section XXIII.: Eventual Retrotransference of a Suit to the Equity Court.
• Section XXIV.: Expense of the Court, How Provided For.
• Supplemental Sections:—
• Section I. Or XXV.: Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
• Section II. Or XXVI.: Henceforward Dispatch Court.
• Schedules to the Bill.
• Plan of Parliamentary Reform, In the Form of a Catechism, With Reasons For Each Article: With an Introduction, Showing the Necessity of Radical, and the Inadequacy of Moderate, Reform.
• Introduction.
• Section I.: History of the Ensuing Tract—alarming State of the Country and the Constitution.
• Section II.: Most Prominent Present Grievance, Gareisoning France.
• Section III.: Causes of the Above and All Other Mischiefs:—particular Interests Monarchical and Aristocratical, Adverse to the Universal—their Ascendency.
• Section IV.: Sole Remedy In Principle—democratic Ascendency.
• Section V.: Remedy In Detail: Radical Parliamentary Reform: Elementary Arrangements In This Edition of It—their Necessity.
• Section VI.: Differences Between This and the Original Editions of Radical Reform.
• Section VII.: Virtual Universality of Suffrage Further Considered.
• Section VIII.: Virtual Universality of Suffrage—its Undangerousness.
• Section IX.: Freedom of Suffrage Further Explained—seductive Influence—its Forms, Instruments, &c.
• Section X.: Bribery and Terrorism Compared.
• Section XI.: Purchase of Seats—in What Cases Mischievous—in What Beneficial.
• Section XII.: Secresy of Suffrage—its Importance Further Developed.
• Section XIII.: Exclusion of Placemen, &c. From the Right of Voting—mischievousness and Profligacy of the Opposite Arrangement.
• Section XIV.: Universal Constancy of Attendance—its Importance.
• Section XV.: Representatives—impermanence of Their Situation—its Importance:—objections—their Groundlessness.
• Section XVI.: Moderate Reform—its Arrangements—their Inadequacy.
• Section XVII.: Trienniality Inadequate;—annuality Necessary.
• Section XVIII.: Interests Adverse to Adequate Reform—support Given By Them to Moderate, to the Exclusion of Radical: Tories—whigs—people’s Men.
• Catechism of Parliamentary Reform; Or, Outline of a Plan of Parliamentary Reform; In the Form of Question and Answer; With Reasons to Each Article.
• Section I.: Ends to Be Aimed At On the Occasion of Parliamentary Reform.
• Section II.: Means, Conducive Towards These Ends.
• Section III.: Means—their Uses, With Reference to Their Respective Ends.
• Section IV.: Means Conducive to Aptitude In Members: I. Placemen Not to Vote, Nor to Be Seated By Election.
• Section V.: Means, &c. Continued.—ii. Placemen Seated By the King, With Speech and Motion, Without Vote.
• Section VI.: Means, &c. Continued.—iii. Elections Frequent—annual.
• Section VII.: Means, &c. Continued.—iv. Speeches Authentically and Promptly Published.
• Section VIII.: Means, &c. Continued.—v. Attendance, Punctual and General, Secured.
• Section IX.: Inconveniences Incident to Elections, and Election Judicature.
• Section X.: Election Inconveniences—means For Their Removal.
• Section XI.: Collateral Advantages, Referable to the Situations of Electors, Placemen, Lords, &c.
• A Sketch of the Various Proposals For a Constitutional Reform In the Representation of the People, Introduced Into the Parliament of Great Britain, From 1770 to 1812.
• Radical Reform Bill, With Extracts From the Reasons.
• Preliminary Explanations.
• Title of the Proposed Act.
• Preamble.
• Section 1.—: Seats and Districts.
• Section 2.—: Electors, Who.
• Section 3.—: Eligible, Who.
• Section 4.—: Election Offices.
• Section 5.: Election Apparatus.
• Section 6.—: Promulgation of Recommendations In Favour of Proposed Members.
• Section 7.—: Voters’ Titles Pre-established.
• Section 8.—: Election, How.
• Section 9.: Election Districts and Polling Districts, How Marked Out.
• Section 10.—: Vote-making Habitations, How Defined.
• Section 11.—: Members’ Continuance.
• Section 12.—: Vacancies Supplied.
• Section 13.—: Security For the House Against Disturbance By Members. †
• Section 14.—: Indisposition of Speakers Obviated.
• Appendix, Including General Explanations.
• Radicalism Not Dangerous. Extracted From the Mss. of Jeremy Bentham. *
• Part I.—: Introduction.
• Section I.: Radical Reform Bill Recapitulated.
• Section II.: Persuasion of the Dangerousness of Radicalism—cause of It, and of the Vituperative Expression Given to It.
• Section III.: Terms of the Accusation,—speeches From the Throne, 16 Th July and 21 St November 1819.
• Section IV.: The Accusation In General Terms—counter-averment.
• Section V.: Plan of This Defence.
• Part II.—: Deference From the General Nature of the Case.
• Section I.: Conditions Necessary to a Man’s Embarking In Such a Design.
• Section VII.: Concurrence In Any Other Extensive Plan of Spoliation Impossible.
• Section VIII.: Concurrence of Any Constituted Authorities Impossible.
• Section IX.: Accomplishment Impossible—design Impossible.
• Section X.: The Talked-of Spunge No Proof of the Design.
• Part III.—: Defence From Experience In the Case of the United States.
• Part IV.: Defence From Particular Experience In the Case of Ireland: Years 1777 Or 1778, to 1783.
• Section I.: Analogy Between This and the Previous Case.
• Section II.: Democratic Ascendency, How Produced.
• Section III.: Fruit of Democratic Ascendency a Golden Age.
• Section IV.: Coincidence of Its Characters With Those of Radicalism.
• Section VI.: Extinction of Democratic Ascendency and Reform—restoration of Monarchico-aristocratical Ascendency, and Its Consequences.
• Conclusion.

SECTION I.

JUDGE LOCATED, HOW.

Enactive.—Ratiocinative.

Art. 1. For the better administration of justice, by experiment made, for the purpose of an all-comprehensive substitution of the summary to the so-called regular mode of procedure, antecedently to the disbursements necessary for the institution of the requisite all-comprehensive system of Local Judicatories,—power* is hereby given to his Majesty for the erection of a Judicatory,† under the name of the Court of Dispatch, or say the Dispatch Court.

Enactive.

Art. 2. Single-seated, as in the Court of the Lord High Chancellor, will be the Dispatch Court.

Art. 3. Instrument of location, a Commission, signed by his Majesty, and countersigned by the President of his Majesty’s Privy Council, or by the Keeper of his Majesty’s Privy Seal, or by one of his Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, in pursuance of an election made as per articles 10, 11, and 12, by parties to the several suits‡ intended to be thus disposed of. Form of Commission as per schedule to this Act annexed, No. I.

Enactive.—Expositive.

Art. 4. Suits of which the Judge will take cognizance, these:∥ Of the suits depending in the Equity side of the Court of Chancery, and the suits depending in the Equity side of the Court of Exchequer,—every one, in respect of which, on the part of any party thereunto, the desire of such transference§ shall have been manifested by an appropriate petition, authenticated by his signature. Form of each, as per schedule No. II. Name thereof, a Dispatch-Court-praying Petition.

Enactive.—Instructional.

Art. 5. Of a printed copy of the matter of that same No. of the Schedule will such Petition be composed. But in addition to the letter-press will be inserted in manuscript the matters following:—

i. At the head of the letter-press—

1. Name of the suit, of which the removal and transference prayed for is desired.

2. Names of the several persons mentioned in the course of the documentary papers belonging to the suit, as parties in and to that same suit; or of such of them as are known by the petitioner or petitioners so to be.

ii. At the close of the letter-press—

3. Names of the party or parties whose desire is thus expressed: attested, and thus authenticated, by their respective signatures.

Art. 6. Of a Dispatch-Court-praying Petition thus delivered in, two copies at the least, both provided with the same signatuae or signatures, will be produced to the Clerk to whom the function of receiving them is committed.

On that one which is kept in the office, he will write, at the top of the first page, a numerical figure or figures, expressive of the rank occupied in the order of priority by that same Petition, in the list of the Dispatch-Court-praying Petitions, in that same office already received: and at the close of the form, immediately below the name or names of the petitioner or petitioners, his own names, personal and official, with the word received; and the year, month, and day of the month, when received.

To the individual by whom the two copies were brought, he will return the other, after having marked thereon the same number as that marked as above, on the copy retained; and, having moreover copied thereon his own acknowledgment, written as just mentioned.

Art. 7. Fee to the Clerk [1s.] On receipt of a fee to that same amount, he will moreover deliver a like copy to every other party to the suit, by whom, by word of mouth, or in writing, with his name in his own handwriting thereto added, demand thereof shall have been made.

Expositive.

Art. 8. Unanimous the Petition will be styled, if of all the persons of whom, as above, it is stated that they are parties to the suit, the names appear as expressed by their respective signatures:—an ex-parte Petition, if of the names so to be signed, any one be wanting.

Instructional.

Art. 9. In relation to any such ex-parte Petition, arrangements will, in manner hereinafter mentioned, be taken, for causing it to be known, whether the same is to be considered as unanimously assented to, or by any and what number of the parties dissented from. But, from the mere absence of the name of a party, no such conclusion can justly be drawn, as that of his being dissentient in relation to it. For putting a negative on such conclusion, any one of a variety of accidents may suffice. The party in question absent, for example, in another hemisphere—or in a state of infancy—or his relation to the business that of a trustee, without any real interest in the event or matter of the suit.

Enactive.

Art. 10. So soon as Dispatch-Court-praying Petitions, in suits to the number of [100], have been delivered in, notice thereof, under the care of a Secretary of State, will be published in the London Gazette, appointing time and place for the meeting of the Petitioners, for the purpose of making election of a Dispatch-Court Judge.

Ratiocinative.

Art. 10.* The Judge of the Dispatch Court, why thus located? that is to say, not as are Judges at large, by commission from his Majesty directly, but by election first made by the parties interested, and then by his said Majesty approved and confirmed, (Art. 13.)?

Answer.—Reasons:—

i. As to election, by the parties interested, to a situation conferring the judicial function, in principle this course is already by statute law established: to wit, by the statute 9 and 10 W. III. c. 15, by which individuals, named by the parties to a dispute relative to a matter of right, are authorized, under the name of arbitrators, to hear and determine demands, and under the name of awards to pronounce judgments, to which force of law is commanded to be given by the Judges of the ordinary courts.

ii. As much as, in the way of judicature, is in that case authorized to be done, is authorized to be done without any special appointment made by the King for the time being. But, to the present purpose, what is moreover necessary is—that, by the Judge in question, various judicial powers, not given to the functionaries so elected by the parties, should be possessed, in the conferring of which no person other than the King is competent. In particular, powers for compelling evidence at the hands of third persons as well as parties.

iii. The ultimately-proposed new judicial establishment, and the here-proposed experimental institution taken together, being, in so far as favourable to the interests of the rest of the community, unavoidably more or less unfavourable to the particular interests of men of law, taken in a body; and the preposessions and inclinations of that body being by the universally-prevalent principle of human nature rendered necessarily adverse to any such change,—the consequence is, that, for a situation such as that in question, recommendation could not, consistently with an adequate sense of the irresistible force of that same principle of human action, be expected to be received through the ordinary channels, by any other person than one whose endeavour would be naturally to bring into discredit, and, by all other safely practicable means, frustrate both institutions, rather than to render them productive of the benefit intended by this Act.

iv. At any rate, whether, of an individual so recommended, this were or were not in fact the disposition,—such it could not fail to be suspected of being by all persons, by whom, by attentive reflection, an adequate conception of the springs by which human action is regulated has been obtained.

v. On the part of the proposed electors—that is to say, all suitors in the Equity Courts in question, those suitors excepted, whose interest, and thence their endeavour, is—to profit by the imperfections of the existing system,—and who accordingly stand designated by the appellation of malâ fide suitors,—the existence of a sincere and anxious desire to see invested with the powers in question whatsoever person would be most likely to give to these same powers that exercise, by which the benefit of this Act will in the highest degree be produced,—is by those same principles of human nature, in proportion as the tendency of these same powers is perceived by them, rendered altogether secure.

Enactive.

Art. 11. Mode of election, ballot. Returning Officer by whom the business will be conducted, the said Secretary of State, or an Under-Secretary belonging to his office. To him all persons desirous of being considered as candidates will have given in their names. Business other than that of ascertaining the individual on whom the choice has fallen, none: candidates excepted, spectators at large, as in a court of justice, will not be present: speeches will not be made. Between candidates, two or more, in case of equality in the number of the votes, lot will determine.

Ratiocinative.

Art. 11.* The election, why by ballot? that is to say, not in that customary mode, in which it is known to all persons interested in which way each person gives his vote, but in a mode in which, the suffrage being given in secret, no such knowledge can to a certainty be obtained by anybody?

Answer.—Reasons:—

i. Lest, by fear, the electors in any number might be induced to give their votes in favour of a candidate in any degree, by want of aptitude in whatever shape, moral or intellectual, rendered likely to frustrate, as above, the design of these institutions, rather than to promote it.

ii. Of the transfer hereby indented to be made, the effect would be, pro tanto, to take business out of the hands of the several high judicial functionaries here following:—1. The three superior Judges of the Chancery Equity Court; 2. The eleven subordinate Judges of that same court, the Masters in Chancery; 3. The four superior Judges of the Equity side of the Exchequer Court; 4. The subordinate Judges analogous to the Masters in the Chancery Court. Moreover, among the members of the Bar, all those whose practice has for its theatre any one or more of those several judicatories: and among these are always some, by whom influential situations are occupied in Parliament.

iii. On the part of all these so highly-influential persons, unless constituted in a manner different from that of the whole remainder of the human species—a sure object of endeavour, if supported by an adequate strength of hope, would be, as above, to cause to be elected of all the several candidates, the one in the lowest degree apt, or, if there be a difference, in the highest degree unapt. For this purpose, two sorts of characters would stand open to choice:—1. A strong-minded man, whose strength in all shapes would be employed in the endeavour to frustrate the design, preserving all the while, by plausible pretexts and appearances, such as the existing system would be found to furnish in abundance, his own repute from deterioriation; 2. A weak-minded man, by whose weakness, even though unaccompanied by sinister intention the arrangements furnished by this experimental institution might be prevented from being followed by those good effects, of which, in apt hands, it would be productive.

iv. In case of failure of the whole design, every suitor concurring in the business of petitioning would be lying, and would see himself to be lying, at the mercy of all these irresistible adversaries, and unpunishable natural and probable oppressors, whose vengeance, by the war thus made upon their personal interests and affections, he had thus provoked.

v. Note, that in different degrees formidable would be this resentment in the two cases of an unanimously signed and an ex-parte signed Petition. By an unanimously signed petition, it might happen that one party would not be more exposed than another: on which supposition, injustice to one, for the sake of undue favour to another—or vice versâ, undue favour to one for the sake of injustice to another,—would not perhaps be an object of apprehension. But, in a case in which the Petition having been concurred in by one or more, had, by non-concurrence, or in a more conspicuous way by active and open opposition, been opposed by parties one or more,—the situation of a petitioner could not but present itself to his view as truly perilous. Whatsoever candidate, known, or supposed, to possess in his favour the good wishes of these tremendous personages sitting in clouded majesty, might, how inapt soever, in the conception of the elector, or in reality, or in both, be the only one in whose favour it might seem to the elector consistent with prudence to bestow his vote.

vi. In the case of a suit, in which, for increase of delay, expense, and vexation, to a suitor or suitors on the opposite side, either the demand had been made, or the defence made,—the suit having, on the one side or the other, for its commencement or continuance, the dishonesty of a malâ fide suitor,—he, who of course could not, without acting in contrariety to his own designs, be of the number of the Petitioners,—he would of course be, and be seen to be, the object of favour to those influential personages, and the Petitioners objects of corresponding resentment, and accordingly exposed to corresponding danger.

vii. Even in the case of a Petition, which being signed by every party, wore thus, upon the face of it, the appearance of a unanimous one,—a state of things which, in instances in any number, might happen to be exemplified, is this: By apprehension of disrepute, or evil in some other shape, parties, one or more, may have been induced to give their signatures: at the same time, from the nature of the interest they have in the suit, on their part nothing but unwillingness has had place; on the other side, all the willingness: and, in this state of secret unwillingness, supposing their signatures added to the rest, would be the minds of all malâ fide suitors.

Enactive.—Instructional.

Art. 12. Instrument, by the exhibition of which to the returning officer, the title to vote will be established, a Petition as per art. 5; attested as per art. 6. Entitled to give a vote will be—not each person by whom the Petition has been signed, but that person, Petitioner or Non-petitioner, to whom, for this purpose, the Petition has been entrusted.

Art. 13. The candidate on whom the choice has fallen having been ascertained, and a Record of the proceedings as per schedule No. III. drawn up, the Secretary of State will forthwith present the same to his Majesty for approbation. If the choice be approved, his Majesty will attach to the said record the word approved, followed by his sign-manual, and countersigned by the said Secretary of State: if not approved, his Majesty will, instead of the word approved, write the words not approved: in both cases, followed will be the signature by the mention of the year, month, and day of the month. And in case of disapproval, on that same day, in and by a London Gazette Extraordinary, notice of such disapproval being made public, notice for a fresh election to be made, as per art. 11 and 12, will be given, the day not being further distant than that se’nnight.

Art. 14. Should the candidate, on whom, on the occasion of such second election, the choice had fallen, fail of receiving approbation and confirmation as above, a third election will have place in the same manner as the second: and so, toties quoties, until some candidate shall have received approbation and confirmation from his Majesty, as above.

Art. 15. Should the time appointed, as per art. 13, for a fresh election, have elapsed, and neither approval nor disapproval, as above, been manifested, the Petitioners will reiterate their Petitions, until an election having taken place, shall have received confirmation as above.

Art. 16. At the same time and place at which his Majesty’s approval of an elected candidate is, as per art. 13, signified, a Commission from his Majesty, as per schedule No. I., constituting the person so approved Judge of the Dispatch Court, will in like manner be signed by his Majesty, and countersigned by the said President of the Privy Council, Keeper of the Privy Seal, or Secretary of State, (art. 3.)

Enactive.

Art. 17. For falsehood—relevant and material falsehood—inserted in the matter of such Petition, every person knowingly concerned therein, will be punishable: punishable by fine and imprisonment, one or both, at option; and as to quality, at discretion: the imprisonment not to exceed [three] years.

Expositive.

Art. 18. Criminal the offence will be, if accompanied with evil consciousness; culpable if committed through rashness, temerity, or say inattention: want of that due attention, by which, if bestowed, the commission of the offence would have been prevented; and, which of the two cases the offence belongs to, declaration will, on the occasion of the sentence, be made by the Judge.

Exemplificative.

Art. 19. Follows here an example of a falsehood, for which, in case of impunity, an adequate and determining motive might be found. For causing a Petition to appear, and to be regarded, as unanimous, stating as complete an incomplete list of the parties to the suit.

Enactive.

Art. 20. For forgery wilfully committed in relation to any such Petition, every person, knowingly and wilfully concerned therein, will be punishable by fine, imprisonment, and transportation; any one, or two, or all three, of these same punishments, at option: the imprisonment for not more than [three] years; the transportation for not more than [seven;] the fine at discretion.

Ratiocinative.

Art. 20*. Supposing the acts prohibited in and by articles 17 and 20 to remain unpunishable, persons not entitled to vote in the election might, in any number, intrude themselves; the whole business be thus involved in confusion; and the design of the institution frustrated,—by persons whose particular and sinister interests stand opposed to it. As it is, small indeed seems the probability that these penal enactments will, any of the three, be ever called into action. But, as in other cases so in this; by the efficiency of a security when employed, no reason is afforded why it should be left unemployed.*

[* ]Power.] Omitted after this word may be the words “is hereby given.” Familiar, already, in legal language, is this elliptical form: witness, in particular, in the business of conveyancing. No ambiguity, any more than obscurity, is occasioned by it. Frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora, says a law maxim, not ill known, though so little observed. This maxim works well: for it works by estoppel against the man of law.

For the same reason, frequent throughout will be seen to be the omission of the verb substantive. With the conciseness, it gives nerve and dignity. In Latin prose, as well as poetry, it is frequent: and so in English poetry. In the Latin works of Linnæus, the illustrious Swedish naturalist, scarcely is the verb substantive to be found.

[† ]Judicatory.] Judicatory, not Court. Court is in a high degree pregnant with ambiguity: having, besides its topographical and architectural, various political senses, in addition to the judicial. Witness the Court of Aldermen, Court of Common Council, &c. &c. &c. From all this ambiguity the word judicatory is free. On the present occasion, however, so far as regards the giving denomination to the new Judicatory, the word Court is employed; the public, as well as the professional ear, being so much more accustomed to it than to the word Judicatory.

[‡ ]Suit,] or Cause. Upon the word cause an exclusion is hereinafter put. Reasons:—

1. Its ambiguity. Continual is the need of employing it in its more extensive sense, as in the locution efficient cause.

2. Suit can be employed, where cause, as synonymous to suit, can not.

3. Examples:—1. Suit at Common Law; 2. Suit in Equity. Scarcely is it ever said, Cause at Common Law, Cause in Equity.

[∥ ]The arrangements contingent upon this and the subsequent articles were, as per Section X. Suits’ comparative suitableness, at a later period modified by the author, for reasons which are explained in the note at the beginning of Section X.—Ed.

[§ ]Transference.] 1. As to the arrangement, by which in the present instance, a suit is, without imputation of misdecision, taken out of the possession of the Judge in whose judicatory it originated, and removed into another, operating upon principles widely different,—taken out of the regular and technical course, and removed into the natural and summary,—in this feature there is nothing that has not its sanction in established practice.

2.—i. In the first place comes the widely-extending case, in which, by the writ called a certiorari, a suit is taken out of any one of the existing local, into one or another of the Westminster-Hall judicatories. On this head, these few words may suffice. Of this arrangement the origin being lost in a manner in the clouds of antiquated lore, no precedent exactly in point, as the phrase is, is afforded by it. True it is, that those courts, out of whose hands the jurisdiction was thus taken, were of the inferior, not of the superior order. But, suppose need of change to have place, what difference does it make whether the courts be of the one order or of the other?

3.—ii. Be this as it may, in the second place comes the whole jurisdiction of the Equity Courts; more particularly that branch of it, by which a suit being in the possession of a set of Common-Law Judges, was and is, without any the least suspicion of misdecision on their part, taken out of their possession and carried on and determined, upon altogether different principles; and this interruption given to the suit at any part of its course.

4. True it is—that, in two circumstances, nor these immaterial ones—the present modern case differs from that ancient case.

5.—1. One is—that in this case, the object is, and the incontestable effect will be, the reduction of the mass of delay and expense from a mountain to a mole-hill: in that case, one effect has been, nor can it be doubted but that one object, and that the main one, was the raising the hill (the appellation of mole-hill would not here be in its place) into a mountain.

6.—2. The other is—that, in that case, during the sleep of the infant legislature—the, in those days, ricketty, weakly, and purblind legislature—the usurpation was effected, by one subordinate instrument of the King’s executive authority encroaching upon another: their common master, if he understood anything, understanding nothing but fighting and hunting, and looking another way, not knowing nor caring what they were about;—in the present case, by the legislature itself,—the only authority which is, or dares pretend to be, competent to the purpose.

7.—iii. In the third place, a proposition there is, which, though not carried into effect, may not be altogether on this occasion without its claim to notice. It is, that about the institution of a commission for the clearing off of certain arrears: an expedient mention of which is made in the Preface. Of the mention on that occasion made of that expedient for the production of the needful effect, the purpose is the exhibition of its impracticability, and of its inaptitude were it practicable. Of the mention here made of it, the only purpose—the only one, but that a sufficient one—is, the presenting to the public at large, and Equity suitors in particular, the observation, that all persons, and in particular all lawyers, who have acceded to that proposition, stand precluded—or, in lawyers’ language, estopped—from stating, as an objection to the present system, the circumstance of its taking a suit out of one set of hands, and placing it in a different set.

8.—iv. In the fourth and last place, look to France—look to Bonaparte’s code: in that so-recently-framed, and so-highly-and-extensively-approved body of existing law, may be seen the same salutary and well-intended arrangement exemplified; though without any such ulterior benefit in contemplation, as that which the here-proposed institution has for its object; namely, the affording, for the efficiency and beneficence of all-comprehensive change proposed, the pre-ascertained security here promised by the cheap and quiet experiment hereby organized.

9. In that one of the French legislator’s five codes, which bears the title of Code de Procedure Civile, Art. 7. is a passage, of which the following is a translation:—“The parties may at all times present themselves spontaneously before a Juge de paix: in which case he will hear and determine the matter in dispute between them, either in the last resort, if either from the law or the parties he has authority so to do, or subject to appeal: and this even where he is not the natural (or say proper) Judge of the parties, either by reason of the habitation of the defendant, or by reason of the local situation of the subject-matter in dispute.”—Here ends the passage; meaning, of course, by subject-matter in dispute, a thing immoveable, such as (for example) a piece of land, a house, or other erection, &c.

10. In the character of a precedent, the value of this arrangement will not escape the notice of a real lover of justice. Off fly the fallacies and cavils, of which the words theoretical, speculative, utopian, good in theory, with their et cæteras, are the vehicles. Behold here, in this law and in this practice, not only what may be done, but what is done, where the ends aimed at are the proper ends of justice. Not that in Bonaparte’s Procedure Code these ends are uniformly, and undeviatingly, and exclusively aimed at: for in the penning of it, the claw of the learned harpy has here and there contrived to come in for its share;a but that they are so in a degree prodigiously superior to any that can be seen exemplified in any Procedure code anywhere as yet established.

11. Danger to justice,—can any ground be formed for any such apprehension, from a power to this effect, given to the individual, whoever he may be, who, in the judgment of the majority of those whose interest it is that the best choice should be made, is the worthiest that all England can afford? Why, for these fifteen years, or more, has this same power been possessed and exercised, and that without complaint, all over France (not to speak of other countries,) by a numerous class of judges, many individuals of which have for their remuneration not so much as £50 a-year as salary, without any thing in the shape of fees.

[* ]Queries for the defenders of the so-called Equity Courts, to make answer to—in Parliament, and by the press, on pain of being understood to have confessed the inaptitude of those same judicatories, and the aptitude of the proposed transference.

i.—Query 1. Under the name of Equity Courts, judicatories have been instituted, by which suits were drawn, from the average length of a year or two—(the length in a common-law suit) to many times that length: in some cases, from the necessary length of a few minutes to as many years: why should not these same lengths be reduced to years, months, days, or minutes, according to the complexity or simplicity of the matter of fact, and the tardy or immediate forthcomingness of the evidence?

ii.—Query 2. In these same pretended seats and sources of equity, the expense has been swollen, from the next to nothing, corresponding to the minutes of attendance, to the hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands of pounds:—why should it not, from the tens of thousands and so forth of pounds corresponding to the tens of years, be reduced to the next to nothing corresponding to the tens or units of minutes?

iii.—Query 3. In these same pretended seats and sources of equity, that means and time might be provided, for dividing the money of suitors in such vast proportion among the lawyers—more than forty millions’ worth of property in the shape of government annuities, besides landed and other property to an unmeasurable amount, have been taken into, and remain in, the hands of judges:—why should not a judicatory be instituted, by which the property would be taken out of the hands of the plunderers, and placed in the hands of the individuals who would otherwise be plundered?

iv.—Query 4. These same pretended living guides to human action—have they not—sometimes instead of, sometimes even in opposition to and frustration of, the only really existing rule of action—the only alleged rule of action which has a determinate and visible assemblage of words, and consequently an existence belonging to it—have they not, all along, been spinning out, do they not continue to spin out, an alleged rule of action purely imaginary, having no determinate assemblage of words, nor consequently existence belonging to it? still punishing men, to the ruin of their fortunes, for non-compliance with demands never issued—for non-conformity to rules never laid down? and thus, instead of that certainty on which human happiness depends, keeping on foot an all-pervading system of uncertainty?—to this uncertainty, why should not that certainty, which, by its only instrument, a written rule of action, might be substituted, be accordingly substituted?

v.—Query 5. By lawyers in abundance, and even by non-lawyers, consolidation is set up against codification; consolidation represented as requisite and necessary; codification as mischievous, or impracticable, or both:—do not they thus, every one of them, his utmost towards narrowing the application of the very benefit which he professes himself desirous of seeing established?

vi.—Query 6. When, on the mere ground of those imperfections, of which, whatever be the subject, literary composition is susceptible, he professes to regard written law as being less conducive to the ends of law, than is the so-called unwritten law, as if that were less susceptible of these very imperfections,—does he not thereby pass a peremptory condemnation on the very work which, under the name of consolidation, he is all the while recommending to be done?

vii.—Query 7. In these same seats of professed loyalty and professed regard for constitutional subordination, the occupation of the Judge consists, all along, in giving the force of law to rules having the effect of laws, of his own making; and thus, by his single authority—he being a creature of the King alone, made what he is by the King, and by such his creator every moment liable to be unmade,—substituting this course of unscrutable legislation of his own making, by authority of the King alone, to the legislation of the only legitimate and acknowledged legislature, composed of King, Lords, and Commons, in Parliament assembled:—why should not the only legitimate be substituted throughout to this, as well as every other, illegitimate legislature?

[§ ]Transference.] 1. As to the arrangement, by which in the present instance, a suit is, without imputation of misdecision, taken out of the possession of the Judge in whose judicatory it originated, and removed into another, operating upon principles widely different,—taken out of the regular and technical course, and removed into the natural and summary,—in this feature there is nothing that has not its sanction in established practice.

2.—i. In the first place comes the widely-extending case, in which, by the writ called a certiorari, a suit is taken out of any one of the existing local, into one or another of the Westminster-Hall judicatories. On this head, these few words may suffice. Of this arrangement the origin being lost in a manner in the clouds of antiquated lore, no precedent exactly in point, as the phrase is, is afforded by it. True it is, that those courts, out of whose hands the jurisdiction was thus taken, were of the inferior, not of the superior order. But, suppose need of change to have place, what difference does it make whether the courts be of the one order or of the other?

3.—ii. Be this as it may, in the second place comes the whole jurisdiction of the Equity Courts; more particularly that branch of it, by which a suit being in the possession of a set of Common-Law Judges, was and is, without any the least suspicion of misdecision on their part, taken out of their possession and carried on and determined, upon altogether different principles; and this interruption given to the suit at any part of its course.

4. True it is—that, in two circumstances, nor these immaterial ones—the present modern case differs from that ancient case.

5.—1. One is—that in this case, the object is, and the incontestable effect will be, the reduction of the mass of delay and expense from a mountain to a mole-hill: in that case, one effect has been, nor can it be doubted but that one object, and that the main one, was the raising the hill (the appellation of mole-hill would not here be in its place) into a mountain.

6.—2. The other is—that, in that case, during the sleep of the infant legislature—the, in those days, ricketty, weakly, and purblind legislature—the usurpation was effected, by one subordinate instrument of the King’s executive authority encroaching upon another: their common master, if he understood anything, understanding nothing but fighting and hunting, and looking another way, not knowing nor caring what they were about;—in the present case, by the legislature itself,—the only authority which is, or dares pretend to be, competent to the purpose.

7.—iii. In the third place, a proposition there is, which, though not carried into effect, may not be altogether on this occasion without its claim to notice. It is, that about the institution of a commission for the clearing off of certain arrears: an expedient mention of which is made in the Preface. Of the mention on that occasion made of that expedient for the production of the needful effect, the purpose is the exhibition of its impracticability, and of its inaptitude were it practicable. Of the mention here made of it, the only purpose—the only one, but that a sufficient one—is, the presenting to the public at large, and Equity suitors in particular, the observation, that all persons, and in particular all lawyers, who have acceded to that proposition, stand precluded—or, in lawyers’ language, estopped—from stating, as an objection to the present system, the circumstance of its taking a suit out of one set of hands, and placing it in a different set.

8.—iv. In the fourth and last place, look to France—look to Bonaparte’s code: in that so-recently-framed, and so-highly-and-extensively-approved body of existing law, may be seen the same salutary and well-intended arrangement exemplified; though without any such ulterior benefit in contemplation, as that which the here-proposed institution has for its object; namely, the affording, for the efficiency and beneficence of all-comprehensive change proposed, the pre-ascertained security here promised by the cheap and quiet experiment hereby organized.

9. In that one of the French legislator’s five codes, which bears the title of Code de Procedure Civile, Art. 7. is a passage, of which the following is a translation:—“The parties may at all times present themselves spontaneously before a Juge de paix: in which case he will hear and determine the matter in dispute between them, either in the last resort, if either from the law or the parties he has authority so to do, or subject to appeal: and this even where he is not the natural (or say proper) Judge of the parties, either by reason of the habitation of the defendant, or by reason of the local situation of the subject-matter in dispute.”—Here ends the passage; meaning, of course, by subject-matter in dispute, a thing immoveable, such as (for example) a piece of land, a house, or other erection, &c.

10. In the character of a precedent, the value of this arrangement will not escape the notice of a real lover of justice. Off fly the fallacies and cavils, of which the words theoretical, speculative, utopian, good in theory, with their et cæteras, are the vehicles. Behold here, in this law and in this practice, not only what may be done, but what is done, where the ends aimed at are the proper ends of justice. Not that in Bonaparte’s Procedure Code these ends are uniformly, and undeviatingly, and exclusively aimed at: for in the penning of it, the claw of the learned harpy has here and there contrived to come in for its share;a but that they are so in a degree prodigiously superior to any that can be seen exemplified in any Procedure code anywhere as yet established.

11. Danger to justice,—can any ground be formed for any such apprehension, from a power to this effect, given to the individual, whoever he may be, who, in the judgment of the majority of those whose interest it is that the best choice should be made, is the worthiest that all England can afford? Why, for these fifteen years, or more, has this same power been possessed and exercised, and that without complaint, all over France (not to speak of other countries,) by a numerous class of judges, many individuals of which have for their remuneration not so much as £50 a-year as salary, without any thing in the shape of fees.

[a]For example: except where, as here, the disputants come jointly and unanimously to the judge for his arbitration, no personal attendance, on the part of them, or any of them, until attorneys have been appointed and acted on both sides; no personal attendance; consequently, no original election de domicile, by parties; nor at any subsequent time any such election, by any other persons.