
The fa&t is, (as was intimated before) 
ene part of our laws is founded upon 
feudal, another on commercial principles; 
a code, ta be practically good and uletul, 
ought to be founded on the -broad bafis of 
neral abitraét juftice. In the detail, it 
mult be adapted in fome meafure to times 
and circumftances; but no part ought to 
be adapied to times which no longer have 
any connection with the habits or man- 
mess of Jociety, or to circumftances which 
are long and defervedly obfolete. 
The SiconpD principle that I fhould 
tnfift upon in a code of laws, fhould be 
plainnefs and. fimplicity. .Wrat is intend- 
ed for the government of all, fhould be 
clear and plain to all, otherwife men are 
expected to.att according to maxims 
which they do not comprehend, and this 
is the greatelt of folecifms. It is a very 
wretched piece of chicanery, to fay, thst 
the laws of any country may not be made 
fmple, plain, and intelligible. Lf any one 
fcience, if any one exertion of the human 
mind admits of fimplicity and peripi- 
cuity, itis this; the ftudy of nature is 
neceffarily involved in difficulty and ob- 
fcurity, becaufe the views and defigns of 
Omunipotence muft be always dificult to 
a finite being. The feience of theology 
mouft ever be, in fome meafure, ob{cure, 
becaufe it relates to the being and attri- 
xtes of an infinite and all-pertedt exift- 
ence. But law relates merely to the com- 
mon affairs of life; its bafis is the fim- 
pleit.branch of ethics, that which regards 
the transfer of property, and the common 
duties of fondle and juitice. Jt is fur- 
prifing, even how thé laws of a country 
cas be made dificult or obfcure. They cap. 
be only fo, when local and. obfolete pre- 
justices are adopted for their bafis, and 
where a fund. of ingenuity has-for ages 
Deen employed to perplex and confound f&: Ee Pee 
ae oe PeEp ; “rejected. Criminal juriiprudence is not the 
them, for {elfifh: views and 
poles. 
_ In. almoft every country of Europe, 
how involved, how difficult, and even un- 
certain is the law-ot defcents and inhe- 
yitance.. In ovr own country, volume af- 
fer volame has been written. on the fingle 
topic of contingent remainders, and yet 
the fubje& remains in doubt and _per- 
plexity fill. ie 
Nay, we have not in England, and I 
believe, in few countries on the continent, 
fo much as a book to which we can refer 
as a ftandard authority. Our laws are 
{cattered through nearly a.theufand yo- 
fumes, where the laborious profeffor has 
to coheS them at an infinite expence of 
private pur- 
Heads of an Effay on. Civil Furifprudence. 
- [Sup. 
time, or to take them up upon the authos 
rity of private compilers, who had no 
fanction either from the legiflature or the 
courts. jes tes 
How inconfiftent is aJl this with the 
fimplicity of that never enough to be ad- 
mired inftitution, the Trial by Jury; and 
how ineffectual mu fuch a complex and 
voluminous fyftem be to.the direétion and 
government of a people ? ois 
Not only in the laws themfelves, but in 
all the forms of law, fimplicity ought te 
be ftudied. For inftance, there is not a 
more yerbole, intricate, or expenfive pro- 
cefs, than that of a common recovery i--= 
this, and levying of a fine, are called Fic- 
tioas* in Jaw, and the {ole abjeét of them 
is, that when certain parties, who have 
contingent cr ‘entailed right in an eftate, 
agree, they may, in legal. language, bar 
the entail or the dower; in other words, 
limit the difpofition of a tefater. Now, 
would it not fave much labour and ex-. 
pence, if the whole of this fale and te-- 
dious proceis was fimplified, and fince it 
is now eftablithed, that the agreement of 
certain parties fhall bar an entail, what 
more would be neceffary than to fammon 
them before a court, and make them re- 
cord their confent and agreement in: the 
fimplet language, and in the feweft word 
that the caie would admit of ? 
The language of the law ought alfo to 
be the funpleft that could be adopted. In 
this country for infance, whatever was 
formerly the intention or the ufeof /pectal 
pleadings, it is well known, that at pre- 
jent, the mefhe procefs has no infuence in 
TL) SR eo LL oe ? 
* The very name of fZicn thould be avoid. 
ed in the adminiftration of juftice, the ver 
object of which is truth. Everything that 
tends to vitiate the moral principle fhould be 
object of this ‘paper, otherwife ir would he - 
proper to notice, that the oath of jury 
men and witneffes is very frequently violated 
from a neceffary attention to mercy, in par- 
ticular cafes. J allude to the rcturning of a 
falfe valuation of an article Rolen ia the in~ 
diétment or verdict, lett the culprit fhould be 
coayiéted of a capital offence. If We aré to 
retain for ages, the fuil feverity of our penal 
code, it would be much the fureft and fate 
way, by a new ad. of parliament, to enable 
jurymen, inftead of pronouncing <« guilty to 
the value of,” to pronounce at once <€ guilty 
of a sapital, or of a clerzyable felony”, Still 
having jt underftood, that Realing to a certain 
amount was 2 Capital offence, except in cate 
of fome particular. extennating circumitances 
: the 
ba the diferetion of the jury. - 
