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

fr6m a PlitlCipig OfCOIISIACIICy ; and When he wish-
, ed animosities to cease, not to be 'forward to pro-
nounce opinionssthat must tend to create and 'revive
them. He could not consider as very good, this ad-
vice, to lose sight of all former opinions. :But
it was eery whimsical when one considered what
it led to. When he was called upon not to op-
pose this Motion, on the ground that it was incon-
sistent.with his former sentiments, it was odd that
thg Hon. Gentleman who recommended this precept
/was himself the person to set the example of de•
parting from it, and to acquit him of the consistency
he deprecated. s The Hon. Gentleman adVerted to
the Address moved by him in the case of Sir Elijah
Inspey, and charged •him with not adhering to the
sentiments he, held in that instance. Among all
the constitutional changes that had taken place, or
could have taken place, that which he least foresaw
at that 'time was what he this night witnessed; .
that what Parliament was always jealous of recog-
nizing by debate, should be this night admitted ;
that the prerogative should be made the subjeEt of a
question, as to whom it may exercise its right upon.
If a person in a judicial station was appointed to
_another station held by some inconsistent with it, it
was allowablelo ask how the appointment had been
made, and by-whose advice. But that anyone class
of Privy Counsellors should be excluded from giving
the advice. they were by their oath bound to give,
was a question with which lie never had expelled to
come into conta&. The Cabinet Council was a term
which had of late come into use in Parliament. -E'en
what Lord Mansfield had described as . the Cabinet
Council, consisting of the Groom of the-Stole, the I
Lord Chamberlain, the Master of the Horse, the Stew-
ard of the Household, the Lord Privy. Seal, even -than
had never been recognized, by Parliament. He would •
ask -whether he himself, had not been uniform ip
characterizing- the Cabinet Council-as only a selec-
tion from the Privy Council ; and though be was not
aware that he had-such high authorities on his side
as the Dukes of Somerset and Argyle, he had -always
Maintained the rights Of -every Privy Counsellor to
enter this seleCt body,,, assist sin their deliberations,
and give his advice on the matter in debate. If it_
were now to be mooted, whether:the establishment
of a Cabinet Council was- an abuse, much might be
said on both sides.• He owned, • that to: a certain
degree he, thought it was. Parliament had al-
ways avoided recognizing it, not only in addresses,
,but in statutes and impeachments. In his 'eonceps
Lion, it never was recognized, but it was found con-
venient,-and therefore it was connived at, because
connivance did not - involve the mischief • that
would have !followed from recognition.. The Ho-
nourable Gentleman said there was, no record of
who were Cabinet- Ministers. It was true the Cabi-
net Ministers were generally unknOwn, and therefore
it was, that when precedents were called for none
could be produced ; nothing was known beyond our
own memory,, and the tradition of oufforefathers.—
It was said on the other side, that Lord Hardwicke
was not a Member of the Cabinet While Chief Justice.
He believed lie was, but-there was no proof of it, as
there was no record. This spirit of denial, in the
absence of record, the Honourable. Gentleman oppo-
site carried to such an extreme, as to assert that no-
body-knew of Lord Mansfield having been a member -
till he confessed-it in 1775. This fat; was conclusive
as to precedent.• As to the Cabinet Council being as
such responsible, he wished to know from the House
whether from the practice of the House they were,
responsible ,as a body, or as individuals belonging
to the Cabinet. The- Hon. Gentleman opposite spoke
of what had been said in newspapers, and of conver-
sation in the streets;. and, he wished -to say without
offence, the Hon: Gentleman seemed to him to have
taken his inforination on the subje& rather from
newspapers and conversations in the• streets than
from the JournalS .of Parliament.---If he was asked,
whether the Cabinet should never be recognized,
he would answer, no ; for-if you did recognize it,
you should always have to do with those who com-
posed it, as a body; and if any measure executive ,
or -of advice, were to be inquired into, was it not
easier to question the individual from whom the
advice came, or who was concerned in th 6 execu-
tion„ than 10 or 12, most of WhPm had no concern-
with it. Certainly, the advisers of eVery measure were
responsible; but it was always better to apply to the
•ador, for he was more easily and plainly seen, and
with less diffiehlty brought to account. Parliament
possessed a mode of making that- Cabinet, which
was not Yecognized nor responsible as a Cabinet,
responsible in another shape, by an Address to •His
Majesty to know who advised this or that Measure.
The answer may shew the adviser to be or not to be
a 'Member of the Cabinet; but -swindler he was pr not,
he was equally responsible for -it. Many meetings of
persons high in ()Mee were spoken of as Cabinet
Councils, which were really nut so, as the Noble
Lord opposite well knew. 'These persons often meet
to consult and deliberate on -.particular subjects;
but they could not be said. to. :be a Council ex-
cept when the object of their meeting was some
advice to be given to His . Majesty. In that case
the agent of the measure was made responsible to
the, Country, -even though he should not have given.
his advice, awl 'protested against the measure which
it was still his duty to execute. Those who gave
the advice were also responsible ; but it was as
Privy Councillors. The operation of a high situation
as matter of pride' and ambition, even when un-
conneeted with emolument, was much insisted on.
WaS it no gratification iu this sense to be made 'a
Privy Counsellor ? was .it no degradation to be erased
from the list of Privy Counsellors ?. In some in-
stances he thought it was a great degradation:—
All Privy Counsellors, and all Peers, may give ad-.
vice to the King, and they were responsible when-
ever .they gave it. With regard to the other part
of the question, in theory he owned the objecs
tion'. was plausible. Montesquieu had great weight
with him as a general political Philosopher, but
he could 'not acknowledge him as decisive authority
on questions touching the Constitution of England.
The object he had in view; like that of the Hon.
Gentleman opposite, was to separate the legislative
from the executive and judicial power. This hadbeen
carried into Ole& in France lately, but never in any
ostler country—certainly not here. In that House no
measure had been adopted for • excluding the Master
, of the
_Rolls, nor in 'the Lords for excluding the
Chief Justice of the King's Bench, who had usually
at there for the last century.'. The Hon. Gentlemen ,
Were obliged to admit, that the 'Lord Chancellor
united the judicial and legislativeapacity ; but then
they-made a distinction unknov4eo Blackstone, be-
tween a crirnipal a 44 ivos no