Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow CHAPTER XXIII.: EIGHTEENTH DEVICE—DOUBLE-FOUNTAIN PRINCIPLE. - The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 7 (Rationale of Judicial Evidence Part 2)

Return to Title Page for The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 7 (Rationale of Judicial Evidence Part 2)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Law

CHAPTER XXIII.: EIGHTEENTH DEVICE—DOUBLE-FOUNTAIN PRINCIPLE. - Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 7 (Rationale of Judicial Evidence Part 2) [1843]

Edition used:

The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 vols. Vol. 7.

Part of: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 11 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


CHAPTER XXIII.

EIGHTEENTH DEVICE—DOUBLE-FOUNTAIN PRINCIPLE.

How delightful, could a contrivance be found for enabling the judge to give judgment for plaintiff or defendant at pleasure! The pinnacle of perfection would be mounted at one spring. To a first glance, the idea presents itself as no better than the love-sick vision of some fond amateur of chicane.

In practice, it has not yet stretched (it must be confessed,) nor seems likely to stretch to so all-embracing an extent in the regions of jurisprudence as to cover the whole field. But, though quiet and silent in its motions, the more accurately it is measured, the more prodigious the progress of it will be perceived to be.

Sought or unsought, the effect flows naturally, and as it were of itself, from the anarchy that results from whatever degree of influence may have been preserved to the dictates of justice and common sense, in conjunction with the suggestions of this or that one among the sources of iniquity and absurdity that have already passed in review. Exquisite invention! or, at any rate, felicitous result! Reason herself pressed into the service of absurdity! Injustice could not have thus enlarged her empire, without leaving a corner of her throne to justice.

The double-fountain device derives its name from the contrivance of those jugglers, who, by an ingenious application of the laws of hydrostatics and pneumatics, serve to the customer, out of the same vessel, wine of either of two colours, white or red, at pleasure.

This device is grafted on any one of the three former devices,—the principle of nullification, the principle of fiction, and the principle of jargonization. It consists in the putting an occasional stop to the current of decision drawn from these several corrupted fountains: drawing the decision from the right fountain, pro hâc vice, instead of any of those wrong ones. Far from being diminished by this apparent departure from the ends of judicature, the advantage obtainable from these several devices receives considerable increase. No danger in any shape can ever attach—neither punishment nor so much as disrepute can ever attach upon any judge, who, in spite of any number of previous decisions given against the merits on the ground of this or that quirk, or fiction or jargon, takes upon him to decide in favour of the merits. Thus it is, that, to the extent of the ground occupied by quirk, fiction, and jargon, you possess, in virtue of those principles, alternating at pleasure with the principles of reason and justice, the faculty of giving the case in favour of plaintiff or defendant, as you incline. Praise you are sure of: all that you need consider is, which of two sorts of praise is most to your taste. Decide against the merits, on the ground of the quirk, the fiction, the jargon, you receive the joint praise of profound science and inflexible steadiness—the praise of adhering to the rule stare decisis. Decide in favour of the merits, disallowing the quirk, discarding the fiction, the jargon, you receive the praise of liberality—of attachment to the laws of substantial justice.

Bribes you cannot receive, if neither side is prepared to offer any: friendship or enmity you cannot gratify, if both parties are equally unknown to you or indifferent: but whether you do or do not turn it to account in any way, the power you possess to the extent of the ground occupied by these commodious principles, is not the less arbitrary. The fault is all your own, if, as often as you have occasion in any of these shapes, you fail of administering to your prejudice or your humour the gratification put into your hands—of profiting by the opportunity of crushing your enemy, of serving your party or your friend.

A flaw is alleged in an indictment. Are the pursuer’s party-attachments supposed to be on the wrong side? Precedents are chains of adamant to you: fiat justitia, ruat cœlum, is the word. Are the man’s attachments where they should be? You burst by inspiration from the trammels of chicane, and you quote the quirk-abjuring ejaculation which a moment of contrition wrung from the conscience of Lord Hale.*

Is interest objected as a ground of exclusion to a material witness? Here you are most completely at your ease. There stand the cases, in two rows: on one hand, those in which the objection has been allowed—on the other, those in which it has been disallowed: length of the rows, as nearly equal as heart could desire. Exclude the witness, you bow to the name of Lord Kenyon, and with him pronounce the laws of evidence to be the perfection of wisdom: receive the witness, your bow points to Lord Hardwicke, and with him you confess your disposition to admit lights.

The advantage gained by the principle of nullification would be imperfect, but for the occasional dash of ill-applied reason, by which it is made up into the double-fountain principle.

By the double-fountain principle, more business is made than could possibly be made by the fountains of corruption if set running by themselves. Suppose a flaw started—exactly the same flaw that had already been made fatal: here, if thhe practice of drawing decisions occasionally from reason were unknown, certainty would thus far take place: the merits would in that instance have, and be seen to have, no chance: the benefit of the argument would be lost to the profession, as well as the sweets of arbitrary power to the judge.

[* ]The following admirable passage is no doubt the one alluded to by the Author:—“In favour of lite, great strictnesses have been in all times required in points of indictments; and the truth is, that it is grown to be a blemish and inconvenience in the law, and the administration thereof; more offenders escape by the over-easy ear given to exceptions in indictments, than by their own innocence; and many times gross murders, burglaries, robberies, and other heinous and crying offences, escape by these unseemly niceties, to the reproach of the law, to the shame of the government, and to the encouragement of villany, and to the dishonour of God. And it were very fit, that by some law this overgrown curiosity and nicety were reformed, which is now become the disease of the law, and will I fear in time grow mortal without some timely remedy.” 2 Hal. P. C. 193.—Ed.