'If every attempt, however light or ludicrous, to lessen another's
reputation, is to be punished by a judicial sentence, what punishment
can be sufficiently severe for him who attempts to diminish the
reputation of the Supreme Court of Justice, by reclaiming upon a cause
already determined, without any change in the state of the question?
Does it not imply hopes that the Judges will change their opinion? Is
not uncertainty and inconstancy in the highest degree disreputable to a
Court? Does it not suppose, that the former judgement was temerarious or
negligent? Does it not lessen the confidence of the publick? Will it not
be said, that _jus est aut incognitum aut vagum?_ and will not the
consequence be drawn, _misera est servitus[420]?_ Will not the rules of
action be obscure? Will not he who knows himself wrong to-day, hope that
the Courts of Justice will think him right to-morrow? Surely, my Lords,
these are attempts of dangerous tendency, which the Solicitors, as men
versed in the law, should have foreseen and avoided. It was natural for
an ignorant printer to appeal from the Lord Ordinary; but from lawyers,
the descendants of lawyers, who have practised for three hundred years,
and have now raised themselves to a higher denomination, it might be
expected, that they should know the reverence due to a judicial
determination; and, having been once dismissed, should sit down
in silence.
Pages:
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171