JB/051/210/002

Click Here To Edit

1. To which purpose It is unnecessary to have such
a Court to try Judges. What is there that should
hinder Judges from trying one another as they have
been used to? each Judge having as I have
given him, criminal jurisdiction over every Judge
subordinate to him in the way of appeal. Appeal
in pointing out blameless errors will naturally
and the wilful and criminal errors should
very much be mixed with them. The only hardship
upon my plan with respect to Judges is that a
Judge the higher he stands in the will have
the loss of the benefit of Appeal: a Judge of a
Department Court for instance having none no Court above
him but the Metropolitan Court would have no
appeal at all: but this anomality if it is worth
while may be corrected by giving him an appeal
from one Judge of the Metropolitan Court
to another. It can not at any rate be cited as
a hardship by the Committee for they give an
appeal in any of these cases to any body.

2. The same observations apply with little difference
to the other classes of official criminals to members
of the Representative bodies stiled Administrative bodies>
and to Ministers. With respect to all of
With respect to all of them then trying them before

Identifier: | JB/051/210/002 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 51.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	051	Main Headings	evidence; procedure code
Folio number	210	Info in main headings field
Image	002	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	4
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	f5 / f6 / f7 / f8
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	[[watermarks::l munn [britannia with shield emblem]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer	benjamin constant
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	16375
Box Contents