date

27 Oct r 1807 L d Eldon's Bill
27 Oct r 1807

L d Eldon's Bill

'.11

- assembled by President

So much for the effect of those significant words, now as to the instruction that seems derived from them /they seem pregnant with/.

Judging merely from what is public, if /were/ the question were put to me, what do you suppose, the Lord Presidents draughtsman means should be done, and if I were obliged to answer, my /the/ answer would be - nothing.

Unless it be by encrease of salary, an operation to which nothing more than a few words without any such elaborateness of regulation would be necessary, in what shape can /could/ he be /any thing/ the better for any thing that could be done? Answer - in none. After or before or along with salary /the peculium/, what has he the greatest regard for /is it that sits nearest to his heart/? The answer has been given by himself (- his own case? his own necessary periodical repose: - that repose viz. of 6 months out of 12, which being acceptable to a person of exalted dignity and proportionable merit that he knows of, he concludes to be absolutely necessary to every other head or at least to every other which has learning in it /everything of jurisprudential learning to agitate and plague its periodical repose: - that periodical repose (6 months together out of the 12)/) "which the laborious functions, both of the Judges and Counsel, absolutely require."

Supposing it now his intention /suppose it merely for arguments sake his intention/, that any such new body of regulations should be made which his draughtsman and what is more the Lord Chancellor's draughtsman he is determined it shall not be without a Court or Quorum assembled by the President, when would be the time for making them? Not the six months vacation nor any part of it: given to judicature, given to legislation, every hour misapplied in either way would be so much taken from that periodical repose which the laborious functions of the Judges, ... absolutely require. Still less from that only other remaining portion /half/ of the year, during which to such a degree are those learned persons fatigued and over-fatigued with the laborious functions so imposed upon them, as to require /the other/ 6 months to recover themselves.
Similar Items
  • Title: [29 April 1807 Lawyers judged]
    Description: 29 April 1807

    Lawyers judged

    Art. 50. In the concluding article (Art. 50) the predominant regard for personal ease is neither dissembled, nor covered /vouchsafed to be/ so much as with a veil of common decency. Penetrated /Filled/ with /Full of/ the importance of this object not so much as a suspicion that the relative importance of it could subtend any lesser[?] angle in the eye of the people or of Parliament, could find places in those learned minds:

    Enacted (they say) by the Bill that the Chambers (in number three) shall continue to sit (to sit alternately says the Bill) to sit in vacation from day to day, till the cases before them are exhausted. "With such a regulation" (it is observed) "the present system, without any change at all, would be equally effectual": but such regulation (it is added) "is totally inconsistent with that periodical repose, which the labourious fractions, both of the Judges and Counsel, absolutely require."

    A periodical repose, necessary and to what amount? to the amount of half a year /six of the 12 months/ or the whole, 3 months at a time /at two periods of 3 months each/. This over and above every seventh day, that consecrated[?] day ordained by religion, and, in the case of other functions far otherwise and more intensly[?] laborious than the function of sitting upon a cussion to dispose of the fate of one's fellow-creatures, regarded by all Christians as sufficient and by non Christians as even more than sufficient to every good purpose. One fourteenth part indeed of that portion of holy day time indeed occupied (that nothing may be left unnoticed) one fourteenth part of the above[?] idle time of each learned Lords, as such times[?] as can be best addressed to aggregate convenience, bestowed upon the Bill-Chamber.
  • Title: [27 Oct r 1807 L d Eldon's Bill]
    Description: 27 Oct r 1807

    L d Eldon's Bill

    '.11

    Assembled by President

    (│ │) (assembled by the Lord President) A singular provision this, if ever there was one, and not a little instructive, it will be curious enough to see what Parliament will say to it. The summons from the Lord President, no assembly, no Court, no Quorum, no any thing for this purpose. In this subordinate indeed but highly important legislature, out of 15 Co-ordinate members, one made King, with a Royal negative. King did I say? much more than King; at least three the King is in the supreme legislature of the three Kingdoms. He is sole Lord of the Articles: possessing a preliminary negative. He possesses not only /merely/ the power of stopping /rejecting/ any plan of amendment that has not his approbation, but the power of preventing it from being so much as mentioned. (Either the clause has this meaning, or it has none. On no other occasion but this has any such attempt been made). If the power of putting an end to unacceptable measures be open to argument, the power of not suffering them to begin is beyond dispute.

    Lord Chancellor's learned draughtsman to do him justice, it was /is/ not to /with/ him that the idea of setting /placing/ the crown upon the head of the Lord President was introduced. It was slipped in, in the corresponding section of the second of the two Bills framed by the learned Draughtsman of the Lord President: of these two Bills of which the care /regard/ to be taken of the dignity of that Right Honourable head of the College of Justice was the capital and most paramount object, not to say the only one.
  • Title: [27 Oct r 1807 L d Eldon's Bill]
    Description: 27 Oct r 1807

    L d Eldon's Bill

    '.11

    assembled by President?

    As to the 6 months consecrated to repose, if any part of it could be spared, to which of two purposes could it be most advantageously spared - to the judicature which is their duty - or rather would be /if so exalted a subject admitted of any such attribute/ or to the legislation, which in their /that/ station is but right and power, uncharged with duty? to the immediate discharge of that arrear which were not the discharge of it inconsistent with the absolutely requisite periodical repose, could be discharged at any time "without any change at all", or to the devising systems of regulations for the prevention of its encrease or for the discharge of it at some future contingent portion /point/ of time.

    As to regulations; tending in any the smallest degree to the putting an end to that universal denial of justice, or to the furtherance /more effectual attainment/ in any other way of any of the ends of justice, had there been the smallest stomach /in that seat of power any the slightest real inclination/ for any such operation /business/, what should have hindered it /the inclination/ from coming into act and producing its effect?

    But there were /had been/ doubts (Presidents Bill '.13) about the extent of such their power - whether it were really adequate to the attainment of the ends of justice - doubts? where /what/ were those doubts, and by whom raised? if by any body /any where/ among and by themselves, for by no one else have they /any such doubts/ ever been expressed. But suppose the doubts existing, has there ever been a time, in which the removal of them has not been in their hands? Suppose a regulation suggested, of which the utility was out of doubt, the legality alone subject to doubt. Could not they at any rate have enacted it, leaving the doubters to deny /contest/ the legality of it if they were able?

    Or if that course were not approved of, was not Parliament always open to them? In some way or other, through some channel or other could not they have proposed the regulation to Parliament? Memorializing as they have done to deprecate changes, would there have been any more difficulty, had inclination[?] been present, in memorializing[?] for the purpose of bringing a change? Or if they thought not fit thus to present themselves directly in their own person and character to Parliament, has there never been in either House any one Member, with whom they had credit enough to make a motion for the change?