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?