"is this you are about?-Bad motives?-are you "not imputing bad motives?

"Good Sir, no: not I, indeed: I impute no "bad motives. Love of money, and money's worth "-a branch of self-regarding interest-this, and "this alone, is the motive I impute. Sir, I love money myself: and not the less for my having "so little of it.-Sir, do you think I would impute "to myself bad motives?

66

"No, Sir; if you want to see a man who has no love for money, go to my Lord Chancellor, "go to my Lord Chief Justice, they perhaps, may "be able to direct you to one.

"A motive, the general predominance of which "over every other, is necessary to the very exist"ence of the species, can this, with any thing "like propriety, be termed a bad motive? Were "it not for this predominance, think, Sir, what "would become of the whole species in a month's "time. Bad motive? No, Sir; there is no such "thing as a bad motive.

This-so delusive in the "current language-this may, perhaps, appear to you a mystery. But the present is not a time, "or place, for clearing it up: in a small tract of "mine, intituled, Table of the Springs of Action,

you may see it cleared up, whenever you please: "Dear Sir-why, if I were to impute bad mo"tives to any body-to any body that ever lived "-to Scroggs for example, or Jefferies.-Sir, I "might be put in jail for it, and perhaps in irons.

No, Sir, nobody shall ever catch me imputing "to any body a bad motive.

Insufficient as it

"Sir, I will do no injustice. "is, I will not say that the only mode which all "this learning would endure-the mode which they dwelt on so much as to insist on the re"jection' of the only sufficient one-I mean the 'particularizing mode was, in its nature, to every purpose useless. One purpose there is, "with reference to which it is in some degree "useful,―useful as being to this same purpose "more conducive than the sweeping mode:-I "mean the clearing the text of the statute-book "of the dead bodies of the statutes undertaken to "be killed. But this which, besides being a minor " one, is compleatly foreign to the only purpose "ever mentioned, was it ever in the view of "those pre-eminently learned persons, or either of "them? Sure I cannot be, but my belief is in "the negative. One reason is-that, whereas, for "want of all divisions into numbered parts, it

depends, in the instance of each statute professed "to be repealed, upon chance Editors,-in the first

place, whether any such disburthenment shall be "attempted,-in the next place, whether that "which, if any thing, is done to that end shall be "correctly done, it follows not that, in regard to "the statutes in question, now that they are " as you observe described and repealed nomi"natim,' the text of the statute-book will ever be

"disburthened of them after all. Now, Sir, under "these circumstances, on the occasion in question, "on the part of the pre-eminently learned per"sons in question, did any such desire or view "exist, as that of procuring to the public, in "relation to so much as this one short statute, "this collateral and minor benefit? Of any such "wish I must confess myself unable to descry any "the least symptom. Why? Because if there had "been any such wish, nothing could have been "easier than for one of them, without giving any "trouble to the other, at the expence of a few "words interchanged with the speaker of the "House of Commons, to procure a regulation, by

"

which, giving authority to the numbered divi"sions inserted by all editors, this principle of "simplification might, in the only authentic and "sufficient manner possible, be applied to all "statutes whatsoever, existing as well as future.

"Another reason is-that, during the conjunct, "and alas! how tediously protracted reign of "these two prodigiously learned persons,―in com"pensation for the multitude of good measures "which they have either killed outright, or in the "manner of this of yours, wounded,—my memory "will not serve me for recollecting (much as the "law needs amendment) so much as any one "measure for the amendment of the law intro"duced or served by either of them-no, not one; "unless that be reckoned an amendment, by which,

" in the true Draco style, a bounty is given upon "murder, by setting attempt and perpetration at "the same price.

-

"Described you say, and repealed nominatim. Forgive me another remark it is not for "want of respect where so much is due-it is "not for the sake of cavil, it is for the sake of "public instruction, that I make it. Described,

yes; repealed nominatim, no. Repealing a "statute, or portion of statute, nominatim, is re

pealing it by name. Sir, no portion of a statute "ever has a name. If it had but a number, a

name it would thereby have, and that a suf❝ficient one. In the legislation of every civilized "country but this-Sir, I say it with full assur"ance-portions of statutes are authoritatively "distinguished-names of this sort are employed. "In this proud country alone not. And why "not? Sir, I have given the reason so often, and "with so little fruit, I am quite tired of giving it. "Nothing in this way is ever done, but under the "direction of those whose interest it is that it "should be as badly done as possible. Uncog "noscibility being the end, indistinctness, voluminousness, confusion, uncertainty, are so many means. Designate a clause by a number, you designate it at the expence of a few figures; and, "errors of the press excepted, without possibility "of mistake. Designate it by description,' it is sure to be verbose: it is not sure to be either

"clear or adequate; nor, be it ever so clear and " adequate, to escape being misconceived.

Now, Sir, as to

"And now, Sir, in so far as concerns statute"law, you see, perhaps, a little more distinctly "than before, the effect-and, if it had any object "other than that of displaying power, creating dependance, and exciting unmerited gratitude,— "the object or objects of all this goodness.' "So much for statute-law. "common law. If that tranquillity, in which you "seem to have so comfortably wrapt yourself, had "security for its accompaniment, no one could be "further than I should be from seeking to disturb "it. Alas, would that were really the case! This "comfort of yours, what is the basis on which it "rests? On a definition of the word blasphemy. "On a definition ?-very good, if from competent "authority, so good, that no other can compare "with it. But this same definition by which

you seem thus tranquillized,-who have you to "own it? One person you are sure of, yourself: "another person you moreover regard yourself

sure of, viz. the Archbishop. I could give 66 you another, if so insignificant an one could be "of any use to you. But-make the most of it, "of what is this the definition? Of what the law "is?-Alas! no: only of what the law, as we say, "ought to be. But, Sir, what is it that this sup"posed security of yours depends upon? On "what the law ought to be? No, Sir: but on what it