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

LORD,ELLENBOROUGH's SEATIN THE CABI-

NET.
The Order of the Day, respelling the intended
Motion on.this subje&, and upon which their Lord-
ships had been summoned,' being read,
,Tlte Earl of BRISTOL rose to make the Motion
of which he had given notice. In stating, he said,
the grounds and reasons of his intended Motion, he
trusted their Lordships would dp him the justice to
belieVe, that be was not aetuated by any narrow sen-
timents or party feeling, but that he was alone in-
fluenced by his veneration and regard for the Consti-
tution, and his anxiety for the public welfare ; nor
would he have brought any Motion forward upon
the subje&, could he have succeeded in those endear
tours 'which he repeatedly made, to induce His
Majesty's Ministers, by private application, to retra&
the measure which had caused.so much anxiety and
distrust, namely, the appointment of the Lord Chief
Justice‘of the Court of King's -Bench to 1..)e one of
Majesty:s' Cabinet Ministers. Failing in, these
efforts, he considered it to be his duty to bring for-
ward a Motion upon the subjeel, not for the purpose
of embarrassing His Majesty's Ministers, or imped-
ing their measures, but in order to bring into dis-
cussion a great constitutional question. With re-
Speet to the question itself, it had been admitted
that Lord Ellenborough was one of the Members of
what was called the Cabinet, in support of which
'measure only one single solitary precedent could be
quoted, which-was the case of Lord Mansfield, with
respeii to whom it could not be doubted, that the
very circumstance of his being Chief Justice and
a Cabinet Minister at the same time, clouded the
lustre of his name, and laid him peculiarly open to
attacks to which he otherwise would not have been
liable. Such a measure, in its principle, appeared
to him to be utterly unconstitutional. That which
gave even to the despotic Governments of Europe
that charaEter of mildness which was unknown to
Eastern despotism, and that also which so peculiarly
chara6lerized our own happy Constitution, was the
separation of the judicial and executive funaions.
The separation of the
.judiciial from the Legislative
and Executive Power .had always been considered
by the best and most estecmed,,writers as essential
to the existence_ and maintenance of public liberty,'
and the welfare and happiness of a State. On this
subje& Montesquieu had dwelt with peculiar em-
phasis, to prove the proposition which he had just
'stated. To blend and amalgamate in the same per.
'seri the judicial and executive fun&ions, must in
many cases be produaive of the most serious conse-
quences, not to say
.positive evils, whilst,• at the
sane time., the Public could never feel satisfied
with the justice administered under such circum-
stances. The Chief Justice of the Court of King's
Bench might, as A Cabinet Minister, concur in or-
dering a prosecution to be instituted against any per-
son fora crime against the State, whom he was
afterwards to try in his capacity of Chief Justice.
Nor was this all ; he might, as a Cabinet Minister,
concur in ordering a prosecution for a libel upon His
Majesty's Government, • or, in other words, upon
His Majesty's Ministers, and afterwards, as Chief
Justice, have to try the very person against whom
he had ordered a prosecution, and this too fora libel
upon himself, as one of the King's Ministers. He
might be told, that the Jury would in that-case decide
on the guilt -or innocence of the person accused;