The Sun.
London, England, 1806-03-04 00:00:00

had been unaccountably made on the public mind,
would, he trusted, soon wear off. At least he
had reliance enough on the good sense of the Public
to believe that it would.
Lord .111 ULGRAVE disclaimed all personal ma-
tivA. He had no objection to any van of the Go-
vernment, so long as he saw the Noble Lord at the
head of that Government who was now placed there.
It was certainly the undoubted right of his Majesty
to caii upon any Member of the Privy Council for his
advice. The Lord Chief Justice was a Member,.,
• and Was therefOre assuredly eligible' to a seat in the-
Cabinet brit* it should be recolleded,• that it: was the
duty of Ministers to. advise his Majesty not to exer- ,
Cise his
_prerogative as far as. it Would go, but to ex-
ercise it in a way that should be most conducive to
the interests and satisfaction of the people. The
Noble Lord who had just sat down seemed not to
know the marked distindion between a Privy Coun-
cillor and a Cabinet Minister, though it was well
understood in every Court of Europe. Where was
the necessity for introducing the Lord Chief Justice ,
into the Cabinet ? To what point was his talents to
be directed ? If Govigrnment wished for legal infor•
mation of the pradice of the Court of King's Bench,
had they not the assistance of the distinguished indi-
victual on the Woolsack ? If they were desirous to
ascertain that of Chancery, could they not refer to
the Solicitor General ? On other points they had
equal opportunities of obtaining advice; why, there-
fore, should they thus depart from their usual prac-
tice 1.--On general and political subje&s it was imp
possible they could require the Noble Lord's assist-
ance, if the present Ministry were truly what they
were said to be, composed of all the talent and vir-
tue of the Country., After defending 'Montesquieu
and Blackstone from the depreciation that had been
attempted to be thrown, the Noble Lord concluded
by observing, that although he certainly would not
himself have agitated this question, yet as it bad been
introduced, his duty compelled. him to vote for the
I Lotion.

Lord. CARN.,4IZPON declared, he'had not heard a
single argument to prove that the situation of Lord
Chief Justice and that of a Cabinet Minister were
incompatible. EVen if the Motion were,justifiable,
in_ his opinion it would not obtain what it was meant
to. do ; it would not establish the principle on
-Which it was f. %unded, unless it were followed up by
a number of others of a similar tendency. ,

Lord AUCKLAND followed at considerable
length on the same
.side. He quoted Sir Edward
Coke in' support of his opinion, and advanced a num-
ber of precedents from various periods of the English
History.
Lord HAIVAESBURY deemed the. present a
question' of the greatest importance, both with re-
spea to the theory and the practical effect. With
respe& to the Noble and Learned Lord, who was
the immediate obje& of the Motion, he would yield
to no one in admiration of his talents and integrity.
If the question were, whether or not Lord Ellen-
borough should be a Member of the Cabinet, he
bliOald not hesitate to declare his hearty approbation
of him. On many points their sentiments were con-
genial ; and on some of those points too in which he
differed from other Members of the Administration.
He should, therefore, rejoice to see him form a part
of It. -But the question was very different. It was,
whether or not the Lord Chief Justice should have
a seat in the_Cabiuet ?To hishe could by no means
accede. He knew perfectly well that it was as im-
possible to push any principlebeyond a certain extent,
as it was to produce-pan. universal proof. It must be
always subject to some qesilifications ; but it was the
part of a wise Minister to make the exceptions to
the general rule as few, and not as numerous, as
possible. Whether to occupy 'a. seat in the Cabinet,
was or was not to be technically a Minister of State,
was of no consequence. Any one in that situation
was so to all practices and purposes ; he was a party
with the Executive Government, he was identified
with it, he was affected by the same passions and pre-
judices. Giving, therefore, the Lord Chief Justice
every possible credit for integrity' of principle, it was
a mere mockery to consider him, in certain circum-
stances, as wholly unbiassed and unprejudiced.—
There was this distinaion between the Privy Council-
and the Cabinet : the former in criminal cases only
listened to and examined facts--the latter determin-
ed on the expediency of prosecutions, if, therefore,
a libel were published against Government, we
shoUld see the Lord Chief Justice deliberating first
on the expediency 01 the prosecution, then sitting in
judgment on the libeller, and ultimately pronouncing
punishment Ought this to be so ? The Noble Lord
here entered into an examination of precedents, and
among others, of that of Lord Hardwicke, who,
he allowed, being appointed Lord Chancellor while
Lord Chief Justice was certainly ex officio a MeMber
of the- Cabinet for some months, on accountofsome
difficultieS in the way of the other arrangements.
Lord, Mansfield, however, was the only permanent
inAance. He by no means-meant to say, that news-
'shy would net justify His Majesty in calling for the
advice of any of the Privy Council.; but then that ne-
cessity should be stated. If any such had bten stated
in the present Instance, not a word would have been
said on the subject. He believed there was no indi-
vidual to whom the Country was More indebted than
to Lord Mansfield. His holding these inconsistent
tdations was the only stain on his reputation ; and with
'all his resped for him he could not bat think his con-
duet on that occasion rather a beacon to avoid than
-an example to follow. It was certainly as necessary
-that the King should have advice in legal cases, as on
naval or military, or, political subjeas. The Consti-
tution, had; therefore, provided an adviser in the per-
. On of the Lord Chancellor, who was removable
from his office, which the other Judges are not.
• And why does the Constitution make him thus re-
movable ? Because he is, ex officio, a.Minister of the
• Crown. With regard to the cases of Regencies
• that had been instanced,_ they did not apply to the
present question. There was a very general feeling
of dissatisfaetion on the subject, and the Country
could not but be highly obliged to the Noble Earl
who had submitted it to the consideration of 'that
House.

Lord HOLLAND made a long and animated
speech in defence- of the appointment of the Lord-
Chief Justice to aseat in the Cabinet, and declared
that the sentiments of the Noble Lords opposite
went to destroy every thin-, on Which the responsi-
bility of Ministers depended. .The responsibility in-
cnrred by the Lord Chief Justice was not a double
responsibil►ty. It vas far from ben)", a principle in
the Constitution of this Country, that the Legislative