10 Oct r 1807

Lords Delegates

after Ch. │ │ advantages

Ch. │ │ L d Hales Plan

But though so plainly true, or rather because so plainly true, an answer to this effect would never have been endurable /endured/. Not by the people: because the reminding them of their helplessness would be threatening them with the continuance of it. Not by the King: because of such a threat if made, exasperation on the part of the people, and thence fear and uneasiness on the part of the King under the apprehension of the consequence /effects/ /result/ of such exasperation would have been the obvious consequence.

Reason 2. ( may easily observe) That statute has been read by me not without attention, and no sufficient ground for acceding to that observation has been found. 1. In regard to choice the method proposed by Lord Hale is that the Lords who are to sit as Judges of Appeal should be chosen all of them by the King. The method chalked out in that statute is that they be chosen, all of them (5 in number) by the Lords House: I say the Lords House: for they are to be [...?]: and the election is to be performed in Parliament: for forasmuch as difficulties that arise in too great force to be removed at the time are to be cleared away [...?] [...?] next Parliament the time of their sitting is to be out of Parliament: in which case had they been to be nominated by the King, the nomination might just as well have been performed out of Parliament. They were, it is true[?] to receive "commission and power" from the King, out of Parliament, and at a time when perhaps there might never be another, the King's Judges who were to be called before the Committee of Lords would not have come: but that such his commission he stands engaged to give to the Lords' Committee, and the use of this Statute was to bind him to it.