extensive and my time is so limited that I am unwilling to enter upon it. I will, however, say that the English are better artists than we are, and understand their machinery better; of course, they despatch business quicker. There is often a style of argument before our Supreme Court at Washington which is superior to any thing I have heard here. I cannot agree with McDuffie, who, having heard a writ of right before the Court of Common Pleas, in which the Attorney-General, Talfourd, Follett, Wilde, Vaughan, Williams, &c. were counsel, went away saying that there are half a dozen lawyers in South Carolina who would have managed the cause better than these lawyers, the flower of the English bar; and as many judges who would have tried it better than the English Common Pleas. I will not quit the Bench and Bar, without speaking of the superior cordiality, friendliness, and good manners that prevail with them in England as compared with ours. They seem, indeed, a band of brothers. They are enabled to meet each other on a footing of familiarity, because all are gentlemen. The division of labor sets apart a select number, who have the recommendations, generally, of fortune or family, and invariably of education, and who confine themselves to the duties of a barrister. In social intercourse the judges always address each other familiarly by their surnames, without any prefix; and they address the barristers in the same way; and the barristers address each other in this style. Thus the young men just commencing their circuits addressed Taunton, the old Reporter, who was on his seventy-fifth circuit, simply as ‘Taunton.’ I believe I have already written you that I was received as a brother, and was treated with the same familiarity as the other barristers. Such a course will seem inconceivable in America, where we are starched by forms of our own. There would be more stiffness and formality at a dinner-party in Boston than at a table of English peers. I have been again and again where all were titled people about me, and I have heard nothing which denoted the title. The answer is plain ‘yes’ or ‘no;’ and you speak right on without the constant interjection of ‘Mr.’ or ‘My Lord,’ or ‘Sir’: all this gives a grace and ease to intercourse which is quite inconceivable to those who have not enjoyed it. But I will not fatigue you with these things. I hope to talk about them upon my return, when I can see how the conclusions from my experience strike you. The very day on which I received your letter of Jan. 16 from Washington, when I was sitting next to Lord Denman at dinner (it was at Lord Brougham's), I took the liberty of mentioning what you had written me about the case of De Vaux v. Salvador.1 He told me that your judgment
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
Chapter 16 : events at home.���Letters of friends.��� December , 1837 , to March , 1839 .���Age 26 - 28 .
Chapter 17 : London again.���characters of judges.���Oxford.���Cambridge��� November and December , 1838 .���Age, 27 .
Chapter 18 : Stratford-on-avon.���Warwick.���London.���Characters of judges and lawyers.���authors.���society.��� January , 1839 , to March , 1839 .���Age, 28 .
Chapter 19 : Paris again.��� March to April , 1839 .���Age, 28 .
Chapter 20 : Italy .��� May to September , 1839 .���Age, 28 .
Chapter 21 : Germany .��� October , 1839 , to March , 1840 .���Age, 28 - 29 .
Chapter 22 : England again, and the voyage home.��� March 17 to May 3 , 1840 . ���Age 29 .
Chapter 23 : return to his profession.��� 1840 - 41 .���Age, 29 - 30 .
Chapter 24 : Slavery and the law of nations.��� 1842 .���Age, 31 .
Chapter 25 : service for Crawford .���The Somers Mutiny.���The nation's duty as to slavery.��� 1843 .���Age, 32 .
Chapter 27 : services for education.���prison discipline.���Correspondence.��� January to July , 1845 .���age, 34 .
Chapter 28 : the city Oration,��� the true grandeur of nations. ���an argument against war.��� July 4 , 1845 .���Age 34 .
1 4 Adolphus' and Ellis' Reports, p. 420. This was a case of marine insurance, in which the application of the maxim, causa proxima non remota spectatur, was considered. The case in which Judge Story's adverse opinion was given was Peters v. Warren Insurance Company, 3 Sumner's Reports, 389; s. c. 14 Peters' Reports, 99. Lord Denman, writing to Sumner, Feb. 27, 1839, said: ‘I am greatly obliged by your communication of Judge Story's opinion, which excites a great doubt of the justice of ours;’ and again, Sept. 29, 1840, he said that if the point ‘should arise again, the case of Peters v. The Warren Insurance Company will, at least, neutralize the effect of our decision, and induce any of our courts to consider the question as an open one.’ ‘Life of Story,’ Vol. II. p. 379 Lord Denman refers to Judge Story's opinion adverse to the Queen's Bench in a letter to Mr. Justice Patteson, in Oct., 1840. ‘Life of Lord Denman,’ Vol. II. p. 88. See ante, Vol. II. p. 25, note. The authority of Peters v. Warren Insurance Company has been somewhat shaken by later American cases. General Mutual Insurance Company v. Sherwood, 14 Howard Reports, 351; Mathews v. Howard Insurance Company, 11 New York Reports, 9. See Sumner's reference to Lord Denman's letter to him concerning this case, in his oration on ‘The Scholar, the Jurist, the Artist, the Philanthropist.’—Works, Vol. I. p. 269.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.