Folly of referring disputed Questions to Lawyers. 443 
JSll.] 
greatest exertion of the mental power, 
sire requisite. 
I conceive the term fou,” given by 
the Fretmh to the piece we call a hisliop, 
originates in the known levity of that 
nation, and iheir proneness, even in the 
earliest times, to revile all sacred esta¬ 
blishments, Amator. 
LondoHy Nov. 9, 1811. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine, 
SIR, 
T a time when the multiplication of 
stamp duties, renders it ruinous to 
,dissert or defend a right by action at law, 
the practice of referring causes to ar¬ 
bitration, under the 9th and 10th of 
William the Third, is becoming every 
day it’ore general. As this legislative 
provision affords a ready means of set¬ 
tling differences, in preference to the 
vexatious and expensive proceedings of 
a law suit,—it ought to be more gene¬ 
rally known. I tiave therefore intro¬ 
duced it as the basis of some observa¬ 
tions on the subject of arbitration. 
By the 9 & ioih of W. III. cap. 12, 
it was provided, that “ submissions to 
awards by agreement of the parties, 
may be made a rule of any of his ma¬ 
jesty’s courts of record ; and, on a rule 
of court thereupon, the parties shall 
be finally concluded by such arbitra¬ 
ment ; and, in case of disobedience 
thereto, the party refusing to perform 
the same, shall be subject to the pe¬ 
nalties of contemning a rule of court 
&c. unless it appears on oath that such 
award was procured by corruption or 
other undue means, when it shall be 
set aside; so as complaint thereof be 
made to the court before the last day 
of the next term, after made and pub¬ 
lished.” 
Why then should we any longer be 
insulted by “ the glorious uncertainties” 
of the law? why expose ourselves, 
our rights, our interests, our fami¬ 
lies, and our feelings, to be outraged 
by the forms and chicanery of the 
courts, when tlie constitution has thus 
provided so easy a means of avoiding 
them? When all the objects of conten¬ 
tion may be effected vviihout hazard, 
loss, or vexation, why should we embar¬ 
rass our case by the caprice of some 
judges, and the sophistry and venal elo¬ 
quence of lawyers ? 
But, as though the practices of man 
were always to be at variance with 
bis reason, the judicious provisions of 
the above law are nullified by Lh$ mode 
iviow, Mag-, Dec, 1. IS 11, 
in which appeals to arbitration are 
usually made. Twelve jurymen would 
be the best of arbitrators, if it were not 
that their common sense and honest 
views are puzzled and baffled by the 
quibbles, doubts, and sophisms of law¬ 
yers. To get rid of the lawyers and 
their absurdities, is therefore the chief 
object of arbitration. Twelve honest 
plain men would decide justly, and 
with propriety, were it not for the tricks 
of counsel, and the fine-spun reasonings 
of the court? The common sense there* 
fore of the one is counteracted by thvei 
sophistry of the other, and what is 
wanted to arrive at a just decision, is 
the separation of the common sense 
from tlie sophistry ! 
What then should we say of him, who, 
in referring his cause, should reject ali 
the common sense, and retain only the 
sophistry ?-—Say ! it would be truly said, 
that he>was a fool or a madman !—Softly 
—softly, fr;end ! Before you decide so 
rashly, recollect that iiine out of ten of 
the arbitrations at present agreed on, 
are thus referred,—not to one, two, or 
three, plain men, but to one lawyer—to 
one of those sophists whose meddling in 
a public trial is so dangerous to truth— 
in a word, to a tribunal of one lawyer,who 
quibbles on your case in his closet— 
whose arguments as not being exhibited 
in public, do not put even himself to the 
blush—who acts the part of the oracles 
of old, and of the Grand Llama of our 
days—and who, from the conclave of % 
lawyer’s conscience, issues, witiiout re¬ 
morse, that decree, which involves families 
and generations in misery and ruin ! 
What too are the class oflawyers to whom, 
causes are thus referred ?—To luminaries 
and meteors of the profession ?—No !—to» 
briel-Iess, young, and obscure barristers 
—to mere rushlights, and Gas-lights —> 
men who, ^ievoid of energies of mind cal¬ 
culated to secure them independent 
practice, are indebted to the charity or 
partiality of the leaders of the bar, for 
being enabled to pick their teeth over ar¬ 
bitrations ! 
A reference therefore to a Lawyer, is 
an absurdity of which no considerate or 
wise man ought ever to be guilty ! It 
is a sort of J'elo de se; an abandonment 
of all that is just in a case, to caprice, 
to conceit, to theory, to hypothesis, to 
the most absurd and inconceiv<ible so¬ 
phistry ! 
Every reference to arbitration being 
made in effect to clear the case from the 
entanglements of legal reasoning, ihislat- 
31 tefi 
