Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Sketch Of The Life Of The Great Earl Of Mansfield.
importance ; and these he placed in so striking a point of view , and connected them by observations so powerful , but which appeared to arise so naturally from the facts themselves , that frequently the hearer was convinced before the argument was opened . When he came to the argument , he shewed equal ability , but it was a mode of argument almost peculiar to himself , flis statement of the case predisposed the hearers to fall into the very train of thought he wished
them to take , when thev should come to consider the argument . Through this he accompanied them , leading them insensibly to every observation favourable to the conclusion he wished them to draAV , and direrting every objection to it ; but , all the time , keeping himseif concealed : so that the hearers thought they formed their opinions in consequence of the powers and workings of their own minds , when ,
in fact , it was the effect of the most subtle argumentation and the most refined dialectic . But it was not by oratory alone that he was distinguished : in many parts of our law he established a tvise and complete system of jurisprudence . His decisions have had a considerable influence in fixing some of those rules which are called the land-marks of real property . The Law of Insurance , and the Poor Laws , ( particularly so far as respects the Law of Parochial Settlements ) , are almost entirely founded
on his determinations . It has been objected to him , that he introduced too much equity into his court . It is not easy to answer so general an observation ; it may , however , be observed , that it is as Avrong to suppose a court of law is to judge Avithout equity , as to suppose a court of equity is not bound by law : ancl , when Mr . Justice Blackstone informs us , that , under the ancient provisions of the second statute of Westminsterthe courts of law were furnished with powers
, which mig ht have effectually answered all the purposes of a court of equity , except that of obtaining a discovery by the party ' s oath , there cannot , it should seem , be much ground for such an accusation . His Lordship was sometimes charged with not entertaining the hi g h notions which Englishmen feel , and it is hoped will ever feel , of the excellence of the trial by jury . Upon what this charge is
founded , does not appear : between him and his jury there never was the slig htest difference , of opinion . Fie treated them Avith unvaried attention and respect ; they always shewed him the utmost deference . It is remembered , that no part of his office was so agreeable to him as attending the trials at Guildhall . It AVJS objected to him , that , in matters of libel , he thought the judges were to decide on its criminality . If his opinions on this subject were erroneous , the error was common to him with some of the most eminent amon-jr the ancient
and modern lawyers . It Avas also objected to him , that he preferred the civil law to the law of England . His citations from the Civilians were brought as a proof of his supposed partiality to that law ; but thev were rather occasional than frequent ; ancl he seldom introduced them where the case tvas not of a new impression , so that the scantiness of home materials necessarily led him to avail himself of foreign ware . Sometimes , however , he intimated an opinion , that the modification of real property in England , in wills and settlements , was of tco intricate and complex a nature , ' and for that reason inferior to the
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Sketch Of The Life Of The Great Earl Of Mansfield.
importance ; and these he placed in so striking a point of view , and connected them by observations so powerful , but which appeared to arise so naturally from the facts themselves , that frequently the hearer was convinced before the argument was opened . When he came to the argument , he shewed equal ability , but it was a mode of argument almost peculiar to himself , flis statement of the case predisposed the hearers to fall into the very train of thought he wished
them to take , when thev should come to consider the argument . Through this he accompanied them , leading them insensibly to every observation favourable to the conclusion he wished them to draAV , and direrting every objection to it ; but , all the time , keeping himseif concealed : so that the hearers thought they formed their opinions in consequence of the powers and workings of their own minds , when ,
in fact , it was the effect of the most subtle argumentation and the most refined dialectic . But it was not by oratory alone that he was distinguished : in many parts of our law he established a tvise and complete system of jurisprudence . His decisions have had a considerable influence in fixing some of those rules which are called the land-marks of real property . The Law of Insurance , and the Poor Laws , ( particularly so far as respects the Law of Parochial Settlements ) , are almost entirely founded
on his determinations . It has been objected to him , that he introduced too much equity into his court . It is not easy to answer so general an observation ; it may , however , be observed , that it is as Avrong to suppose a court of law is to judge Avithout equity , as to suppose a court of equity is not bound by law : ancl , when Mr . Justice Blackstone informs us , that , under the ancient provisions of the second statute of Westminsterthe courts of law were furnished with powers
, which mig ht have effectually answered all the purposes of a court of equity , except that of obtaining a discovery by the party ' s oath , there cannot , it should seem , be much ground for such an accusation . His Lordship was sometimes charged with not entertaining the hi g h notions which Englishmen feel , and it is hoped will ever feel , of the excellence of the trial by jury . Upon what this charge is
founded , does not appear : between him and his jury there never was the slig htest difference , of opinion . Fie treated them Avith unvaried attention and respect ; they always shewed him the utmost deference . It is remembered , that no part of his office was so agreeable to him as attending the trials at Guildhall . It AVJS objected to him , that , in matters of libel , he thought the judges were to decide on its criminality . If his opinions on this subject were erroneous , the error was common to him with some of the most eminent amon-jr the ancient
and modern lawyers . It Avas also objected to him , that he preferred the civil law to the law of England . His citations from the Civilians were brought as a proof of his supposed partiality to that law ; but thev were rather occasional than frequent ; ancl he seldom introduced them where the case tvas not of a new impression , so that the scantiness of home materials necessarily led him to avail himself of foreign ware . Sometimes , however , he intimated an opinion , that the modification of real property in England , in wills and settlements , was of tco intricate and complex a nature , ' and for that reason inferior to the