093-477.xml

Title: [9 Oct r 1807 Lords Delegates]

Description: 9 Oct r 1807

Lords Delegates

After Ch. Advantage

Ch. L d Hale's Plan

Lord Hales Plan is in these words /to this effect, and marks/: for the purpose of reference they are here broken down into articles.

Art. 1. That for receiving reference of "petition for reversals[?] of decrees[?] and for examining of judgments in writs of error, a select number of the most judicious Lords, spiritual and temporal, and that not in too excessive a number, be appointed.

Art. 2. "Together with the Judges"... except "the judges of that Court, out of which the Record is removed."

Art. 3. That these be not " present", unless "occasion require to hear the reasons of their judgments: as in error addition out of the Exchequer Chamber before the Treasurer and Chancellor."

Art. 4. That, (in pursuance of a formality even then already antiquated) the collective name of Tryers of petitions be given to the judicatory so composed.

Art. 5. That they be all "commissionated under the Great Seal for that purpose."

Art. 6. That "because it may not be determined in that session, then a special commission to the Tryers, where of some of the quorum to examine and determine.

Art. 7. To the above is added a quantity of complication pregnant with useless or sinecure offices, and of course with their fees, and for no other declared purpose than the removal of the aforesaid already antiquated formalities.

093-481.xml

Title: [9 Oct 1807 Lord Delegates After]

Description: 9 Oct 1807

Lord Delegates

After Ch. │ │ Advantages

Ch. │ │ Hale's Plan

Art. 4 & 7. ( Tryers of Petitions). At present, this denomination having fallen into compleat oblivion, the revivals of it would not promise to /scarcely at this time of the day/ contribute very considerably to recommend the efficient parts of the plan to the favour of Parliament or people.

Even at the time when proposed by Lord Hale, it being already in that state or thereabouts, the utility of this part of the plan seemed not very different from what it would be at present as above. But the sort of business proposed in art. 7. to be grafted on it, I speak of the factitious complication, is not quite so convenient. On the occasion of each such Appeal or Writ of Error there was to be not only a Petition presented (a sort of instrument in which for every useful purpose a mighty few words, and those except the signature /the signature excepted/, consigned to a printed form, expence 1 d or 2 d would be sufficient, but each such Petition was to have a parcel of gibberish in the form of law-french[?] and always the same parcel scribbled upon the back of it: and for the making of this scribble, a number of officers under the technical name of Quorum of Petitions were to perform /after performing/ the office of a slit in a door, to make a shew of attendance on the King and his Council, whereupon the King and his Council that is some Clerk or other while the Council if really sitting were attending to nothing or to something else, were to make a shew of considering when there was nothing to be considered. I say nothing to be considered: for all this solemnity /operation/ was avowedly mere[?] motion[?] of course. On the part of the officers [...?] denominated by the proposed appellation of Receivers of Petitions, there was something to be considered: for it was to be considered to the cognizance of what authority the cognizance of the Petition in question belonged: and an answer accordingly was to be endorsed upon the back of it.

093-491.xml

Title: [10 Oct r 1807 Lords Delegates]

Description: 10 Oct r 1807

Lords Delegates

after Ch. │ │ advantages

Ch. │ │ L d Hale's Plan

Observe that to compass the oppression which he is bent on inflicting, all that the King has to do, is to do nothing: no paper does he sign; all that he does is to forbear signing one to remember that presented or not a paper presented to him to sign /for his signature/ shall be forgotten.

Oh but this is but a mere formality: the observance of it is matter of course.

No indeed is it not: the reader has already seen it is not in the nature of things that it should be. But suppose it were: what would follow? - that if the ends of justice /morality/ were regarded it could not be employed. Here is a pretence that it rests with the King's choice[?] whether justice be done or no /to deny or not to deny justice/, and by the supposition this pretence is false. Then why employ it? - that learned and other gentleman may have /receive/ fees. First comes a sham petition fees thereupon to one knows not how many learned gentlemen, professional and official: then comes a sham allowance, with trouble given to the King to scrawl his name where there is no use for it: fees thereupon to official gentlemen and perhaps some of those Lords, learned or unlearned.

Form or substance is it asked /did I ask/? It would have been both. Form, in 19 instances out of 20, for the purpose of general pillage: substance, in the 20 th, for the purpose of regal or ministerial corruption or injustice, for the purpose of giving the estate to A. or B whichsoever of the two dispositions were most convenient.