{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023752969121140142, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00791765637371338, 'mean_word_length': 4.962264150943396, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Walter Scott and the Reform of the Scottish Judicature 1806–10

The significance of the effort to reform the Court of Session in the early nineteenth century lies in the fact that it represented the first time Westminster had proposed to alter a key Scottish institution protected by the articles of the 1707 Act of Union. Scott as a Clerk of Session played a crucial role in the process, initially resisting reform and then undertaking to shape it. At the same time, his literary patriotism as Britain's best-selling poet was criticized by Britain's most famous cultural critic, Francis Jeffrey, a fellow member of the Faculty of Advocates. Jeffrey as editor of the Edinburgh Review wrote a controversial review of Scott's best-selling poem about the Battle of Flodden, Marmion, which accused Scott of being too ‘English’ in his treatment of this Scottish tragedy. And yet, more than Jeffrey, Scott was opposed to the Whig project of reforming Scottish law to make it more ‘constitutional’ or ‘English’. Using original documents held by the National Archives of Scotland, the Advocates Library, and the National Library of Scotland, this article examines Scott's role in making this controversy a matter of interest for both British literature and legal history.