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

that/enough was.-not done—if the Rescllution did not
go to deprive the Chief Justice of his. Peerage, or
- his place in the Privy Council. A Resolution of
, the Commons could not rescind the Patent of Peer-
age'; but the introduaion of the Chief Justice into
the House of Peers was by no meaus.necessary, nor
always pra6tised. It was stated, that the Cabinet
was only a term in common usage that it was not
to be found in any statute, nor in any book of au-
thority : it was only a Committee of the Privy
Council like any other Committee,- and, therefore,
not a subjeEt of Parliamentary consideration. This
was a doftrine of the most whiinsical and most un-
tenable nature. Would it be admitted in, a free
Country, that the body possessing the chief controul
of the State—a body seen, felt, heard; and under-
stood-by every one, known 'out of doors by every
one, was to be known within doors by no one ?
That though the cabinet, as containing those.sele&
'persons, entrusted particularly not- only with the
Executive Government, but with particular privi-
I.;ges and. opportunities of advising the Crown, was
known to the Country and to Foreign Powers,
though all England'obeyed it, though all Europe re-
cognized it, though it was well known in the lobby,
should become totally unknown the moment the
Members Entered the HouSe. The Hon. Gentle-

man on the other side said it was impossible to
know who Cabinet Ministers were, except by bits
Of paper casually found.with their signature. The
Hon. Gentleman may sport with these refinements
as he pleased, but he must come back' to this, that
the Cabinet' should be known, and responsible to
Parliament, as well as the Country. _ Tgcould not be
snared to exist as a mere-poetic fididn, vanishing
whenever it shouldshe. sought for as a reality. He
supposed Lord Ellenborough did. ,not stand in the
situation of a Judge summoned to give advice on
particular-points, but constantly summoned, and
therefore -united if responsibility and , identified
with the Cabinet.. It was therefore impossible
that he should in many important cases go to judg-
ment with a mind so perfedly clear of impression
as impartial justice would require it to be. The in-
stances in which the Chief Justice had been appoint-
ed a Member of the Council of Regency stood on
very distind' grounds from the present case. Where
the obje& in view was to preserve the rights and pre-
rogatives.of the Crown, in the absence or the Minority
' of the Sovereign, it was right to mix permanent Judges
with the persons to whom the charge was entrusted:
But that was a very different thing from mixing them
-with party politics -while the King was living. The
ease of Lord Hardwieke; he understood,. was given
by the side
Honourable Gentlemen on the other
(" No, nor). If
_it was not given up, little reliance
could be placed on ,it, as Lord Hardwieke, on his
appoiutment.as Chancellor, held the place of Chief
Justice only till a successor was appointed. The
,place of Chief Justice of the common Peas was
la6lcl in like manner by Lord Eldon, in conjun6fiou
with the Great Seal, for two' months, till a new
Chief Justice, was appointed. Lord
_Mansfield, in
the'last years of the reign, and a few e'f the first
'years of the present, had, it was true,, a seat in the
Cabinet. But fir from being sanctioned by Parlia-
ment, the faa, when disclosed, was received -withv
surprise and censure. It had been frequently touched
upon in the House of Lord?; as a thing suspeaed,
and when it was disclosed,- it was commented upon
by the ancestor (Lord Shelburne) of a Noble Lord
apposite, that -he could not withhold citing them.--
Lord Mansfield, on being queStioned by the Noble
Lord he alluded to, acknowledged that he had
been n _Member of-the Cabinet; hut that he had
prayed His Majesty to excuse hiim; and for a long
time ceased to attend. This showed that the fad was
not known and recognized, and that when it was
acknowledged it was received with surprise.' There
was therefore no ground to cry out upon it.so exult-
ingly. He would now read the observations of 'the
Noble Lord he had alluded to upon the confession :
" The Noble and Learned Lord has then confessed
that though he is not now as Merhbei- of the Cabinet,
there was a time when it was otherwise, when he
united things the most opposite in a constitutional
Kuhl, the characters of a Judge-and a Cabinet Mini-
ster." Such were the remarks made upon this union,
by Lord Shelburne., The Nol;le Lord observed far-
'titer, that the great excellence of the British Consti-
tution was, , to keep the executive and the judicial
power as distina as possible, 'so as to prevent the same.
I.,,ersonfrom advising in 0112 capacity what he was to
execuee in anether. Thus the argument of acqui-
eseence and approbation fell to the ground. No
one could speak of the transcendant talents of Lord
islansfield without admiration; .But he would ask
any mai4 versed in the history 'of the times, who=
the: Lord Mansfield's talents would not have been
rtl,-ire _unsullied, and his life more useful, if he had
i:et mi:a*.d the funaions of a Politician with those of
the Judge. In the latter period of his life, when his
matures jusdgment had corrected the ambition of his
earlier years, the Noble Lord himself felt the impro-
priety, and abstained- from attending the Council.
If this constitutional hold was once abandoned, it
would be renounced forever. • There was no excuse •
f:r the appointment but necessity or expediency.
There was no. necessity, in this ease; and the exPe-
dienex was far from being such as to warrant the
Proceeding. There was no analogy between the
situation; of a Chief Justice in the Cabinet and that
of aLe d chancellor. The Lord Chancellor was re-
vmeable from his office at the pleasure of the
.Crown, or in case of malversation, by address from
both Houses of Parliament. But what would be the
situation of the Chief Justice, if he were even to say-
?ll the Cabinet, that the Law of Nations was rubbish
not to be aeeed upon : he hot ed 'such an opinion
would not be aded upon. But would the Chief Jus-
tice he removed for having given bad advice as a Mi-
nister ; or would he, because he was a Jthige, be
tolerated As a Minister, after-having given such ad-
vice ?'The dileMma was inevitable. As the privileges of
Parliament and the rights of`the People were ve-
ined, this association was to be deprecated : it was
to_be deprecated also in regard to thi! prerogative of
the Crown, to which nothing was more hostile
than au irremovable Cabinet. ,The.Noble Lord was
in a situation to do honour to himself, and ,essen-
tial service to the Country, by the steady applica-
tion of the talents he undoubtedly, possessed, to the
of the high office he properly flied. But if
he were called to other situations, the duties of
which 'may often clash, and sometimes d!cl clash
with his judicial funaiens,'while they impose bUr,
th ns that must necessarily take away his attention
*lean them, he was necessarily made a less valuable
judge by being luacte,an in4driti,ate Minister,

art Tie was ci'he..esly - sTairist flag appoitnesst.Lana-
iPscclii')ie4f.
Noble 081bUie LOrd
logy9vwere
erteh sese, axv
worst
oiequallytres
excited
i il na t unfavourablenature. He
cua
see ,itestimated
vooi
ut , l d and
thebe
very highly—but if the whole benefit- of -the ta-
lents• of the highest individual as a Cabinet Mi-
nister were summed tip, it would, in his opinion,
be dearly purchased by one hour's suspicion of any
deficiency in the administration of justice.
• Lord TEMPLE gave credit to the supporter* of
the Motion for having no personal motive in bringing
it forward, and for agitating it only as a constitu-
tional question,which they would have brought under
consideration at any time, and under any Ministers.
-He regreted, however, that when in making a Mo-
, ,•tion to remove an, individual, an attack was to be
'made on the King's Prerogative, the Mts. Gentleman
who brought forward the Motion dienot weighbet-
ter the authorities on which it Was ibunded. He al-
lowed it was the right of the House to exercise its
discretion as to the dvlsbree of confidence
,it 'would
place in any Ministers appointed by? the Crown, but
it was always more fair to object generally to an Ad-.
ministration than to any one member of it. Refer-
ring to every part of our history since the formation
of the Constitution, no such thing as a Cabinet
Council was known or recognized. • He did not mean
by this to diminish the responsibility of any one .of
those of whom the Cabinet Council consisted, • but
only to put it on its proper grounds. It was not
till Charles the Second's time that a Sele& Corn-
mittee of the Privy Council was specially consulted
on the affairs of Government ; .and the King recosol
niziog the prance as an innovation, promised in .ft.-
tore to consult the whole Council. When Queen
Anne was. on her death-bed; and a Sele&Committee
of the Privy Council sat regulating the succession,
the Dukes of Somerset and Argyle came into that
Tory Cabinet, and insisted on 'and enforeed their
right,.as Privy Councifiors; to be present at its deliber-
ations and proceedings. The Cabinet Ministers were
responsible for their condua, and their advice; not,
however, as Cabinet Ministers, but i ifrespea of the of-
fices they held, and as Privy Councillors. If the resolu- '
tions were to, be carried, and Lord Ellenborough to
be removed from,the Cabinet, still the object in view
would not, be attained, as the _Noble. and Learned
Lord may advise the King,as a Privy Councillor and
as a Peer, without any restraint whatsoever. If the
object in view was to reform and innovateon the Con-
stitution, let it be stated openly; and the House would
know how to estimate it. It was impossible-Mr. Jts-
' tice Blackstone -caild mean,- as he was construed-to
mean by the Hon. Gentleman opposite, that the King
Was never to advise With the Chief Justice. ,The over
to try offenders was held by the Judges from the
Crown, and as•to the impropriety and inconsistency
which the Constitution supposed to exist in a
Chief JuStice having any concern with judicial pro- •
ceediiigs, till they came judicially before him, he
would only advert to what was done in a recent case,
1 as well as in maliy formerones. Did not the Chief
1 Justice attend .at all the examinations before -the
I Privy Council on the case of Gov. Piilon, whom he,
afterwards. tried ; and did, any body think of ob-
jeaing to that' on consitutional grounds. When
i the Judges sat in 4anco on the- decision of - one
.Judge at Nisi Prius, that one, Judge sassemong them..
The Chancellor in the House of Lords presided on -
appeals, from his own decisions. The principle' of
the Motion would go' the length of 'establishing that
no Peer could be a Privy Counsellor, no Privy Coure
seller a Peer, because they might give advice on what
they may afterwards be called to judge. On the ex-
amination of the R bel Lords in
.1745, all the
fiPapers were laid before the House of Lords by the
Lords of the• Cabinet, and these Lords sat with the
other Lora as Judges, without any objealion• being
- made. In 1794 (lief Justice Eyre was specially
summoned to attend the Council which advised the
State Trials of this period, ' and that judge was the
first named in the-cominission for these trials. His
Hon. Friend (Mr. Osuniog) did not then fear
those b]ooly consequences from such proceedihsrs
of which he was now so apprehensive. The Chieft'
Justice was by law' one of the King's Vice-gerents
in his absence; and in almost every Commission of
Regency mentioned in our history the Chief
Justice Was included. In the Regency A& of
Henry VIII.• the Chief Justice and another Judge
were appointed. In the Regency Adt. of Queen
'Anne the Chief Justice brought the Bill down to that
House, and every clause but that appointing him was
iiolently opposed. His had in, the course of this
day seen the original writ of sunimons issued to
Lord Mansfield. •H 8 could take upon him to say that
Noble and Learned Lord attended 'every Council
from 1760 to 1763, when he left it for a' time, but
returned to it in '1765. In 1757, -and the subse-
quent years, he liad also attended it, though it was
so great a secret, and the Messenger who sum-
moned him went, as the Hon. Gentleman argued, so
totally unseen. In 1763 he left off attending the
Council, not 'from any sense of its incompatibility
with his judicial situation, but according to a latter_
of his own, which was in existence, because he would,
not sit with the Duke of Bedford, whose measures
he disapproved of. In 1765 he returned again, and
was named as one of the Council of Regency in the
, Rill framed by Sir-Fletcher Norton, who would not
have included him if the Association was,sanconsti-
tutional. In the riots of 1780, Lord Mansfield was
present at the proceedings in the Council, and af-
terwards sat as Judge upon the rioters. From all
these fans, he could see no Parliamt etary ground
for the Motion now •before the House. ,
Mr. C.s.V.V/sVG admitted, that up to 1763, Lord
Mansfield, sat regularly in ' the Cabinet, but never
after 1765 ; therefhre the latter part of his litit was,
in this respe&, a condemnation of the first.
Mr. 'Secretary FOX, before he would offer his
sentiments on the matter in question, begged to say
~
one word in explanation. . As to Lord Mansfield's
confession, .is the Hon. Gentleman called its in 1765,
that he had been? Member of the Cabinet Council
under his late Majesty, andin the first years of his pre-
sent Majesty,.,and this confession having come upon
the House of Lords by surprise ; that assertion of -
its having come by 'surprise, was completely refuted
'by the sntCment of his Noble Friend, which sheaved
that the faa must have been generally known. - One
word also he would` say to the Hon. Gentleman who
had opened this-debate, and who waisokind as .to give
him someadvice as to the conduel he should pursue i4l
Administration. He oW ned he did not think that advice ,
very good, and it was- rather a strange prelude to
„what &Hewed, The Hon. Gentleman advised him
not to consider himself in his present situation
;15 the iwact of a I?artyi not to 4,44et"0 to hi,, fPpler, I