Against Englishing Law Proceedings.
The Daily Courant, March 4.
COntains a Letter, the writer of which having read in the Votes Minutes of a Petition from a Grand-Jury in Yorkshire, concerning the altering the present Law-hand and that all Pleadings and Records should hereafter be in English, Asserts that it is not the Lawyers that have invented these Law-hands, to keep their Clients in ignorance, but the People themselves, who from time to time have varied their Hand-writing, by which they have gradually lost the knowledge of that Character and Form of Letters, which Deeds, Records, and all our ancient Manuscript-books were formerly wrote in.
That the Benefits of retaining this old Writing are many; for that by means thereof, Deeds of 5 or 700 Years standing are as legible as if now wrote, and the better they answer their primary intent, of being Vouchers for Rights and Titles.
That, to alter the Hand to that now used would be attended by these Inconveniencies, viz. It would become obsolete; and as the hands are continually varying. Writings of one Century would hardly be legible by another; and these Law-hands being disus'd, the knowledge of all Records and Deeds of Times past, would be lost, or known only among a few Antiquaries; as is the Case in Scotland.
Observes, that what has been said of Law-hands was applicable to the Language; that Certainty and Perspicuity are the things aimed at in all Records; therefore to continue them in an Orthography and Language invariable, is equally conducive to the same End; that the Roman Law was wrote in that Language, and that our original Writs were first framed in the Latin Tongue, as is done in most parts of Europe. See p. 106.
Remarks, that many technical Words, or Terms of Art. have been invented to legal Proceedings, which being settled, render certain the Intent of the Party that uses them; and as to Presentments, and Bills of Indictments, to vary from the establish'd Forms, would raise new Disputes, especially where Mens Lives are at stake.
Says, that in Oliver's Time an Attempt was made to render Law-Proceedings into English, but was attended with so many Inconveniencies, that at the Restauration the Latin Tongue was again restored.
Takes notice, that in Chancery, where the Proceedings are in English, they are arrived to an exceeding prolixity; whereas at Common-Law, an Ejectment for Trial of a Title, altho' the Estate be of 10,000 l. per Ann. shall scarce exceed 200 Words; a Rule in Court scarce four or five Lines; a Verdict and final Judgment, scarce an hundred Words. See p. 100, 120, 113.
Lastly observes, it mayn't be improper to prevent the Intricacy and Prolixity of some special Proceedings; but that to give a Defendant Liberty in all Cases to plead the General Issue, puts the Plaintiff to great Difficulties to prepare against such Defence as the Defendant may make.
Of Popularity.
The Free Briton, March 4, No. 66.
DEcribes the method of obtaining a laudable applause, which not to deserve, he says, is the characteristick of a bad man, and to desire it before earn'd, betrays a weak one.
A man whose intentions are honest and his heart good, will be the first to rejoyce in his own merit, tho' the last to publish it; will always endeavour to be fair in the publick opinion, but more solicitous to gain his own applause; to make popular applause the principle end of ambition, is unworthy of a good mind and proceeds from a bad judgment.
If men did but confider humane nature truly, they could not be fond of popular applause, which generally proceeds from the vilest herds of men;that
