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 XV.

INITIATORY EXAMINATION OF PARTIES, &c.

Enactive.—Instructional.

Art. 1. At the time of the initiatory attendance, parties attending there will be, one or more. So likewise, along with them, extraneous witnesses, none, one, or more.

Art 2. If of such attendants there be more than one, by and with the examination of which one of them it will be most proper to begin, the Judge will commonly have been enabled to form his judgment by the preparatory examination undergone by solicitors, one or more than one in that same suit employed, as per Section XIV. Examination of Solicitors.

Art. 3. If there be co-attendants, two or more, he will, according to the circumstances of the individual case before him, either complete the examination of the attendant first interrogated before commencing that of any other, or pass from one to another in any such order as to the purpose of ascertaining the matters of fact belonging to the case shall have appeared to him best adapted.

Enactive.—Expositive.—Instructional.

Art. 4. A party to a suit is either a principal or an auxiliary. A principal party is one whose self-regarding pecuniary interest is actually affected, or liable and likely to be affected, whether beneficially or burthensomely, by the course of the suit: that is to say, by the ultimate decision by which execution and effect may come to be given to the demand in and by the Equity suit, being or not being in his favour. An auxiliary party is one whose own self-regarding interest is not in either way affected by the suit: for at the Justice Chamber he holds intercourse with the Judge for the support of the self-regarding interest of some party or parties principal, as above. For a list of examples of principals, and auxiliaries or say trustees, see Section XIV. Examination of Solicitors, art. 4.

Enactive.—Instructional.

Art. 5. Exceptions excepted, on the occasion of every suit brought before the Dispatch Court, every individual, as well on the one side as on the other, will appear and attend in person. So likewise, on the first appearance of each suitor, in company with him, his solicitor.

Art. 6. Exception is, where through infirmity of body or mind, the suitor is incapacitated from attendance, or prevented by any impediment either absolutely unsurmountable, or not surmountable without preponderant evil, of which the solicitor will, on his examination, give account.

Art. 7. In the case of every suit in which trust has place, the trustee or trustees, and the intended benefitee or intended benefitees, are expected to appear, whether their names respectively are or are not upon the register-book of the Court, or any written instrument delivered in, at any time, on the occasion of the suit: and in case of non-attendance on the part of any one of them, the solicitor will be expected to give account thereof.

Enactive.

Art. 8. At the first calling on of a suit in the Dispatch Court, the parties, or in default of the appearance of any one or more, such as are forthcoming will stand forth in the presence of the Judicatory:—the parties, that is to say, with or without the presence and assistance of their respective solicitors: and at the same time present will be the Bills and Answers belonging to the suit, with or without the mass of evidence thereto belonging.

Art. 9. By the party or parties on the plaintiff’s side will then be produced a paper exhibiting the demand, without stating either evidence adduced in support of it, or the law or the fact which it has for its ground: only it being expressed in the form of articles, the party or parties on the defendant’s side will, in regard to each article, be interrogated respectively, whether they admit or contest it; and the answer in the affirmative or the negative will be entered.*

Art. 10. Process on the occasion of a suit:

i. By every suit at law, demand is made of a service to a certain effect, at the hands of a Judge.

ii. But it is also made at the charge of a party in the character of a proposed defendant.

iii. Person to whom in the first instance it is capable of being communicated, in such sort as to give commencement to the suit,—either the Judge or the said proposed defendant.

iv. But, generally speaking, no use can there be in making such communication to a proposed defendant before the communication is made to the Judge. For, on the supposition that the defendant will perform the service demanded at his charge, no need is there of application of any sort to the Judge.*

Art. 11. Sole proper initiatory process, one of these two:—1. A simple operation; 2. A writen instrument:—and of the several classes of operations—1. By or on behalf of a person in the character of demandant, or say plaintiff, application made by word of mouth, demanding the service desired by the applicant at the charge of the proposed defendant; 2. Delivery of a written instrument to the same effect. Name, by which this instrument may be designated, the Demand Paper.

Suppose the suit such that, by preserving the remembrance of it, service would in any shape be rendered more than equivalent to the charge, you thereby suppose the need of a Record: and of this same instrument, a demand paper, as here described, is of necessity the first ingredient.

Persons by, or by direction of one or other of whom it must be drawn up, are the applicant or the Judge. If the applicant, so much the better: because, in this case, saved is a correspondent portion of the time of the Judge and other judicial functionaries: and this, whether it be by the applicant’s own hands, or by those of any other person whose assistance he has been able to procure. But suppose him unable to procure any such assistance, is a party, by whom wrong has been suffered, to remain remediless? Forbid it justice. Well then: this being the case, a party who conceives himself to have been wronged, will have to tell his story to the Judge, and to the Judge it will belong to consider and determine, whether the individual case, as so described, belongs to any one, and which of the sorts of cases in which, either to an uncompleted right in any shape, completion is required by the law to be given by the Judge; or to and for wrong in any shape, remedy in any shape to be applied. Denominations, under one or other of which every such remedy will be found reducible, these four:—1. Preventive; 2. Suppressive; 3. Satisfactive; 4. Punitive, or say subsequentially-preventive. Of the satisfactive species, principal subspecies, the compensative and the restitutive.

Enactive.—Expositive.

Art. 12. The suit in the Dispatch Court will (as above, art. 5,) have commenced by the appearance of a plaintiff, or in case of need, an appropriate substitute of his, making a statement of the facts, in so far as they have come to his knowledge, and any such other material facts as he has heard and believes. When thereupon the first meeting on both sides takes place, the plaintiff—that is to say, he or his solicitor—in order to continue the elicitation of the facts which he expects will operate in favour of his case, will have to put and propound to a party on the defendant’s side, questions having for their object the elicitation of evidence operating in favour of his the plaintiff’s case.

Art. 13. This done, the defendant himself, or his solicitor, will put to the plaintiff questions tending to bring forth facts operating in favour of his the defendant’s side; and this done, will state, of the facts operating in favour of his the defendant’s side, such, if any, as have happened to fall within his own knowledge; in other words, in relation to which he has himself been a percipient witness.

Note, that the general complexion of the case will have been brought to view by the solicitor on the plaintiff’s side on the occasion of the general examination performed (as above) on the occasion of the appearance for giving explanation in relation to the petitions, the signature of which is assumed.

Enactive.—Instructional.

Art. 14. Witnesses examined at the examiner’s office will be examined de novo, of course, and in public.

Art. 15. So likewise all defendants, whether they have put in answer or not, and whether the answer has been completed or not.

Art. 16. So likewise all plaintiffs at the instance of any defendant.

Ratiocinative.—Instructional.

Art. 17. In all these several cases, an effective as well as prompt mode for eliciting the truth will be employed, either instead of or on the back of a less effective and very commonly delusive mode.

Falsehoods, in plenty, will of course be detected: but where the averment has been upon oath, punishment as for perjury would be needless and useless: in a word, so much misery in waste.

Even the shame that would be the inseparable attendant will be matter of regret and sympathy rather than a just cause of indignation: against those by whom the unapt system is upheld and profited from, rather than against those who by them are forced into it should indignation be directed.

Enactive.

Art. 18. In case of prosecution for perjury, charged as having been committed in the course of an Equity Court suit, or a suit of which cognizance has been taken in the course of an Equity suit, no evidence elicited by the Dispatch Court Judge shall be adduced in support of the prosecution.

Expositive.

Art. 19. The parties, as many of them as, within the time, are within the reach of the power of the Judge, will, every one of them, in relation to any written instrument written by him, or adopted by his signature, find himself under the necessity of either admitting or denying it to be his: and by the obedience thus paid to the joint dictates of common honesty and common sense, time by months, or even years, money by pounds, or scores of pounds, may be saved.*

Enactive.

Art. 20. Exceptions excepted, as in the Small-Debt Courts, so in this Dispatch Court, counsel will not be employed: or where employed, no more than one counsel will in general be allowed to appear on either side. But as to Eleemosynary Advocates, see Sect. IV.

Art. 21. Exception is, where it appears to the Judge that on one of the two sides in the suit—namely, the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s—there are parties more than one whose interests in the suit are in such sort and to such a degree opposite, that no argument can be used in favour of one, and made to operate in favour of one of the interests, without its operating in disfavour of another on that same side: in which case the Judge will, if he think proper, give admission accordingly, stating his reasons for so doing; of which, with the rest of the proceedings, entry will of course be made on the record.

Art. 22. The statements made, whether by testifying parties or extraneous witnesses, in both instances under the obligation imposed by penal responsibility in case of falsehood, being the only statements having in respect of evidence any claim to regard, the counsel on the plaintiff’s side will not in every case have to make a statement of the several facts constitutive of the ground of the plaintiff’s demand, nor the counsel on the defendant’s side to do the like on that side. But the solicitor on the plaintiff’s side, or the counsel on that side, as the case may be, will state, in the first place, such facts in relation to which, according to his conception, the parties are agreed; stating thereafter such, if any such there are, in relation to which they are disagreed: stating at the same time wherein such disagreement consists: and the like statement, if needful, having been made on the defendant’s side, thereupon will cease the elicitation of the evidence.†

Enactive.

Art. 23. To Solicitors—that is to say, to the town solicitors respectively employed by the several parties, admission cannot be refused: the party in some instances being essentially incapable of conducting the business for him or herself, and in most, if not all instances, a demand having place every now and then for information at the hands of the only individuals immediately and directly acquainted with the several proceedings, disguised as they have been by their technical dress, that have had place in the course of the suit. Moreover, though every party will be competent to make answer to questions concerning facts which have come, or are supposed to have come, within his or her knowledge, it is not every party that will have been adequately qualified for putting the questions necessary to the bringing to light facts which have come to the knowledge of a party, or of an extraneous witness, on the other side.

Enactive.

Art. 24. Every person attending, as above, whether party, party’s solicitor, or extraneous witness, will be subject to examination at the discretion of the Judge; as likewise any other person to whom it may happen to be at any time present in the Court. To no such examinee will any oath be administered: but in case of wilful falsehood in answer to any question put by the Judge, any such examinee will be punished as for wilful perjury: that is to say, by fine or imprisonment, or fine and imprisonment together, with or without hard labour: in which case the falsehood will be styled criminal, but will not be punishable by transportation: and for falsehood not wilful, but committed through temerity, or say heedlessness, such examinee will be punishable by the said Judge as for a misdemeanour: in which case the falsehood will be styled culpable.*

Art. 25. If in the judgment of the Judge, the proof of such falsehood, criminal or culpable, is sufficiently conclusive, he may proceed to execution on the spot: as in case of contempt of Court, committed during the sitting of the Court.

Art. 26. So likewise on suspicion: where ulterior proof is regarded as necessary, commitment may have place on suspicion, if deemed necessary to prevent escape from eventual execution, and so stated: but in this case, the examinee may at the discretion of the Judge be liberated on bail, until the next day appointed for his reappearance: and so, toties quoties, until pronounced Guilty or Not Guilty.

Enactive.

Art. 27. Whatsoever discourse is, during the sitting of the Judicatory, uttered, in relation to the suit, by the Judge, with the intention of its being heard by the audience or any part thereof, or uttered by suitors, witnesses, solicitors, or counsel, with the intention of its being heard by the Judge, will be minuted down on the spot in short-hand, by or under the direction of the Registrar of the Judicatory: and under his direction will be printed and published for sale. (See Section III. Registrar.)

Enactive.

Art. 28. Subject to the discretion of the Judge, as to the obligation or permission to make response, questions may be put to one another by parties, their solicitors, and extraneous witnesses. So also by any other person present, in the character of amicus curiæ: but this not till after leave granted antecedently to indication given of the tenor of the question desired to be put.

Art. 29. On the occasion of every such question, included in the minutes in conjunction with the tenor of the answers, shall be that of the questions themselves;—those put by the Judge himself not excepted.

Enactive.

Art. 30. Exceptions excepted, on the occasion of any question put to him by the Judge, every individual is bound to give some answer or other: if with relation to the suit in question he be not a party but an extraneous witness, for non-response he may be committed to prison; nor discharged from prison without payment of a pecuniary mulct, in so far as able; applicable, the whole or in part, to the purpose of indemnification for the delay occasioned by such his refusal.

Art. 31. Be the question, or say interrogatory, what it will, every person will be able to make some answer to it. If in relation to the subject-matter in question, so it is that he has not any knowledge, belief, or opinion, so then may he say. If, having some knowledge, belief, or opinion, he denies that he has, by such denial, falsehood criminal or culpable is capable of being committed, just as by any assertion: and so if he speak of any matter of fact as highly probable, while he regards it as but slightly probable; and so vice versâ.

Art. 32. No person shall be compelled to deliver any opinion concerning religion, or concerning what is or what ought to be the form of the government of this or any other political community.

Art. 33. If by a party so interrogated it is suspected that his being called in as a witness, and so interrogated, is a proceeding that had for its object the procuring evidence in relation to another suit depending or intended, he may declare to the Judge his belief or suspicion to that effect: and the Judge, if in his belief such be the design, will refuse to lend himself to it.

Art. 34. If, as in case of suspicion of perjury, an examinee refuses to make answer, such refusal may be taken into consideration in the character of evidence; to wit, circumstantial evidence of guiltiness.

Art. 35. The Judge, in the course of all interrogatories put by him, will be upon his guard, and carefully abstain from putting any interrogatories pregnant with deception in any shape: as, for example, tending to cause the examinee to believe that he the Judge knows anything in relation to him or his conduct that he does not know, or believes anything that he does not believe.

[* ]At this first hearing, savings in delay and expense will incontestably and manifestly be the following:—

1. The facts which in the plaintiff’s bill are alleged will by the defendant be either contested or admitted. If they are all admitted, remains as and for the subject-matter of contestation the question of law; and the time and expense saved will be all the time and expense which in the Equity suit remained to be employed in the elicitation of the evidence respecting the question of facts.

2. If some are admitted, some contested, then the saving will be all such time and expense as would otherwise have been employed in and produced by the elicitation of those which are admitted: as also all the time that would have been to be expended in the elicitation of all such as would not otherwise have been elicited at the same time with those which are admitted, or those which being contested remain to be elicited.

3. Whatsoever portions of evidence remain to be elicited, measure may thus immediately be taken of the quantity of time requisite for the elicitation of them: and thence, on substantial ground, expectation built of the time at which the suit will receive its termination.

4. If in a large proportion of the number of instances the maximum of time cannot be determined with certainty, the minimum of time may in every instance: as, for example, where the distance in respect of time has for its cause the distance in respect of place.

[* ]In contradistinction to the term defendant, simply, altogether necessary is the appellation proposed defendant. Cases in which, under the existing system, the term defendant being employed is improperly employed, two:—1. Where he performs the service demanded at his charge; 2. Where, being purely passive, he omits to perform it:—of this distinction, not inconsiderable is the practical importance.

For what purpose is it that, by the existing system, the name of defendant is stamped on a man by whom nothing in that character is done? Answer: For the purpose of finding a pretence for plundering him.

[* ]Under the existing system, for the purpose of proving that a LETTER or a signature to a note of hand, or to a bond, was written by the man by whom it was written, a witness may have been fetched from Australia or Peru, this operation having been pretended to be, or having even really been necessary, while the man may have been living all the while within a stone’s throw of the Justice Chamber, and every now and then, on the occasion of some discussion carried on in the course of the suit, standing up in full view of the Judge.

Bad enough this, assuredly. But what is still worse, and cannot but frequently have place, is, that on the occasion of this or that suit no such extraneous witness can be found: and in this case, ruin may be the lot of the honest man, opulence and triumph that of the cheat, whom, by the assurance of success thus offered tohim, the Judges, authors of this corruption-spreading arrangement, have rendered such.

Under the existing system, neither by all the powers of the Common-Law Courts, nor by all the powers of the Equity Courts, can an acknowledgment of this sort be obtained. To no matter of fact of any sort will a Common-Law Court call for a man’s answer in any shape at the instance of his adversary:—to a fact of any other sort than this, exceptions excepted, at the end of some five or six years in case of his unwillingness, an Equity Court, yes; but as to the making him admit or deny the fact of his having written the words in question, no means are there for it. The only means the nature of the case admits of is this: The paper being, in the view of the presiding Judge, produced to the interrogatee, and the words in question pointed out to him, the question put to him—Did you write this, or did you not?—and for this the mutual presence of the interrogatee and the Judge is, as everybody sees, necessary. An examination of this sort, does it ever happen to it to be performed by a set of Commissioners, furnished with the documents in question for the purpose? If yes, thereupon comes a fox chase: fox, the party intended to be examined; dogs—well-fed dogs—the Commissioners.

[† ]On the plan herein set forth, the truth of the case would come out at the earliest moment, and except the vexation which would result from the indispensable attendance, no suffering, either under the name of punishment or any other, produced, without previous demonstration that by the person in question the alleged guilty act had been performed, and that it was of the number of those to which prohibition stood attached by the hand of the legislature. Say, for shortness, promptitude of proof or disproof, maximized; misdecision by punishment without proof, none.

Turn now to the existing system. Here, amongst other vices, may be seen,—delay maximized, groundless suffering not the less enormous for not being inflicted under the name of punishment, to which is exposed every person in the kingdom, at the hand of a Government Advocate, paid by and acting under the orders of the highest Board—a body of King’s ministers, all completely irresponsible.

Not a single person in the kingdom of England on whom it is not in the power of this same Cabinet toimpose a virtual mulct, or say pecuniary penalty, to an unlimited amount, at pleasure, without need of proof, or so much as a pretence of proof.

To the Government Advocate—Attorney. General, his official name—order is by this same Cabinet given to issue an instrument styled an ex officio information. Innocent or guilty, the devoted victim finds himself, on pain of being treated as if he was guilty, under the obligation of putting in a correspondent written instrument, which he is not admitted to put in without paying, under the name of fees, money to an unlimited amount.

Out of the pockets of the people at large do these same Cabinet ministers thus pay this instrument of theirs, in the first place: then in the next place do they impose a virtual tax on these same victims, putting the produce into the pockets of the various functionaries, superordinate and subordinate, of the Judiciary establishment, connected with the aforesaid Attorney-General by the ties of sinister interest.

Of this state of things, an occurrence that has recently called forth a considerable portion of public notice, may afford an apposite exemplification.

[Hiatus in MS. The account of the occurrence alluded to is not given, nor can it now be discovered. The comment is as follows.—Ed.]

This being a criminal offence, here then is an act to which the appellation of an act of defamation may with incontestable propriety be attached.

But on the person by whom this same act has been exercised, should punishment in any shape be inflicted? Here then comes a just demand for satisfaction in the shape of compensation for the expense and vexation attached to the operation of judicial self-defence: and supposing the burthen imposed by the necessity of making this compensation,—suppose it not sufficient for punishment, thereupon comes a demand for the infliction of ulterior suffering under the name of punishment.

But now suppose, on the other hand, that by that same high functionary of the law, that same criminal act so imputed to him was really committed. On this supposition, should either such compensation or such punishment have place? No, surely: but at the least, permission; and rather than punishment, reward; reward at the public expense:—simple permission, if this without reward would be sufficient to produce the information; reward, on the contrary supposition.

In the here-proposed Bill, in the event of a criminal offence being committed by any one of the high legal functionaries in question, for the future prevention of such offence, punishment is appointed to be inflicted on him. Why? Because, amongst the objects proposed as ends in view of this same Bill is the prevention of all such offences.

Under the existing system, in the actual practice of its Judicatories, in case of the commission of any such offence, punishment in outward show is indeed appointed. But in the system of procedure which is applied to this portion of the main body of the law, such arrangements are established, that instead of punishment, impunity, and even remuneration, is the result. Why? Wherefore but that, on the part of the functionaries by whom this state of things was brought into existence, it was really the wish that of the criminal offences in question the abundance should be maximized: and the motive, the profit in all shapes derivable from these same offences,—derived by themselves, and in general by such persons by and with whom they connect themselves by the ties of sinister interest or sympathy.

Now if this is not tyranny, what is? If in England, under such a state of things, tyranny is not established—established by law, in so far as the practice of the functionaries of Government is law, where else is tyranny to be found? In Spain, in Portugal, or in Morocco?

[* ]See Section VI. Art. 37, 37*, and note.

Behold upon how simple a matter of fact or circumstance the character of a whole system of procedure may be determined: by how familiar, and at the same time how manifest, notorious, unconcealed, and unconcealable a vice, it is capable of being rendered hostile to all the ends or justice.

In French procedure, the licence to mendacity is still more ample than in the English. In the English, it is in some small degree repressed, and it has been seen in how small a degree, by the punishment attached to it, in so far as delivered in the shape of affidavit evidence: in French procedure, in no such shape as that of affidavit evidence, is evidence ever delivered.

True it is, that falsehood in evidence having for its subject-matter the facts belonging to the case, has punishment attached to it in French procedure, as in English.

But in French procedure also, as in English, the distinction has place between evidence and pleadings: between the cases, the parts in the course of the suit, in which falsehood is punishable, and the cases in which it is not punishable.

Among the cases in which it is not punishable, are those in which it is employed in framing a ground for the removal of the suit from one Judicatory to another: in removing the suit by appeal, by which error, and in so far misconduct, is imputed to the Judge appealed from, or without any such imputation, bandying has place—bandying, as explained in the Petition for Justice. (See Vol. V. 473.)

In the French judiciary system, the number of the judicatories, one above another, being excessive,—though not so excessive, nor by a good deal so diversified, as in the English, nor the factitious expense in any of them anything near so ruinous,—hence arises what there is that is correct in the statement given of it in the French work quoted in the Morning Chronicle of 12th March 1830.