have ever held, to regard such a writer as a constitutional authority, much less to look up to him as an oracle. However, the words quoted from this author by the gentlemen on the other side are, I am prepared to say, quite misunderstood. When Blackstone says, that "a judge should not be a minister of state," he means the word minister in the English sense, and not in the German, Italian, or French sense. He means, of course, that a judge shall not administer the affairs of government. But that is quite a different thing from the manner in which the gentlemen on the other side would have it understood or applied. The meaning of Blackstone, however, will appear to be palpably different from the construction of the honourable gentleman, when we look at the conduct pursued during those very latter years of the reign of Charles II. which forms the subject of his panegyric. It will be recollected, that in the course of that period Sir William Temple introduced a bill for the appointment of a committee of privy counsellors, to consist of about thirty persons. This bill was shown to, and approved of by, Lords Essex, Hollis, Cavendish, Russell, and all the best men of the day, and yet by this bill it was provided, that the chief justice of the common pleas should be a member of the proposed committee of council. But it is clear that Blackstone's meaning applied not to any thing like that which the gentlemen on the other side could infer. A judge belonging to the privy council, according to the sense which these gentlemen attach to the words of Blackstone, would incur blame; and yet they disavow any intention of blaming a judge upon that ground.

So far as to the principle of the appointment complained of. I shall now advert to the practice. I am told that there is only one instance stated on my side; namely, that of Lord Hardwicke; and the gentlemen are so good as to give me the case of Lord Eldon in addition. But it has been stated, that these noble lords held for a very short time only the offices of lord chief justice and members of the committee of council. But the shortness of the time was of little account. If the noble lords thought the retention of such offices contrary to constitutional principle, they would not surely sanction by their own acts the violation of such a principle. There is, however, another case, that of Lord Mansfield: that noble lord connected in his own person, from 1757 to 1763, the two situations, the junction of which is now so much complained of. I do not mean to discuss the character of Lord Mansfield, who, like many great men, had good and bad qualities, but certainly the odium attached to it, did not proceed from his merely combining a seat in the cabinet with the chief justice

ship of the King's Bench. This combination, however, is said to have been much condemned by Lord Shelburne, and to prove this, a speech of that noble lord has been quoted. I have looked at the quotation, and the words as reported, are absolute nonsense, and therefore, I am persuaded, never were uttered by Lord Shelburne. They import that no political man should have any thing to do with advising that which it belongs to his department to execute. Why, if this were a fair ground of censure, it would apply to myself and my colleagues beside me, who are every day advising, what we are ourselves to execute. To ascribe such an observation to Lord Shelburne is quite ridiculous. It must have been a misprint or some misconception, to which Lord Shelburne, who, like myself, spoke very rapidly, was extremely liable.— But, to return to Lord Mansfield; it really astonished me to hear it remarked upon, as a new and surprising article of intelligence, that that noble lord was so many years in the cabinet, and that some gentlemen heard it this night for the first time. What, that Lord Mansfield could have been so many years in the cabinet with such different administrations, with Lord Chatham, the Duke of Newcastle, and Mr. Grenville, and all the time have kept snug in the corner and be unknown. Preposterous supposition! These distinguished men not only knew that Lord Mansfield was in the cabinet, but they approved it. If they did not, it was not to be imagined that they would have allowed it. The gentlemen on the other side will hardly think that if I conceived the thing of which they complain to be a violation of constitutional principle, I would be a party to it. Let them, then, give the same fair play to Lord Chatham, the Duke of Newcastle, and Mr. Grenville.

As to the injury likely to result to the constitution, from the introduction of a chief justice into the cabinet, I think the bill of the present reign, which establishes the independence of the judges, is a sufficient answer to that apprehension. But I now come to the specific objections made to a chief justice of the court of King's Bench sitting in the cabinet. Now, the first relates to libels; but in reply to this, I shall only say, that I never heard of such a thing as the propriety of prosecuting for a libel being agitated in a cabinet council; I never witnessed any thing of the kind, and I do not find from any of those who were in the cabinet during the period when many prosecutions took place, that the subject of such prosecutions was ever discussed there. Sure I am, that no such discussion ought to take place there. The consideration of questions of that nature properly belongs to the office of the secretary for the home department, with whom it rests,

to give orders to the attorney-general to prosecute. But, the case of treason has been alluded to. Upon questions of this kind, Lord Ellenborough is as liable to be summoned to attend the cabinet as privy counsellor, as he is in his present situation. But I contend, that he is likely to be seriously prepossessed by such previous examination as the magistrates are, who commit prisoners, or as the judges of the King's Bench are, when they grant an information upon the affidavit of one of the parties, without sending the charge to the grand juries. I have, however, no hesitation in saying, that when a subject of high treason comes on for discussion in the cabinet, which may be afterwards brought to trial in the court of King's Bench, the absence of the noble lord who is the subject of this debate from any such discussion would be most becoming. I should certainly feel it right to absent myself upon such an occasion, if in the circumstances of the noble lord. But how many are the subjects connected with war and peace, with our commerce and finances, upon which a lord chief justice may be consulted without exciting the slightest jealousy or objection! On these points, however, it is said, you must not consult him, because if you do, you make him a politician. And pray do gentlemen forget, that by the very oath of a privy counsellor, the chief justice binds himself to give such advice? If, however, you interdict him, as the advocates of the motion propose, what do you mean to do with him? We have heard of the dinner placed before Sancho Pança: if he wished for fish, that was objected to; and if he wished for meat, an objection was started also; so, between the objections, poor Sancho had no dinner at all. Just in a similar manner do the friends of the motion propose to deal with Lord Ellenborough. The noble lord is made a privy counsellor, but yet he is not to be consulted upon points of law, lest his mind as a judge should be prepossessed; nor is he to be consulted on points of state, lest he should be made a politician. Thus it was proposed to destroy his functions as a privy counsellor altogether.

Mr. Fox returned to the subject of the incompatibility of the judicial and legislative functions, and asserted that such incompatibility was never known to have been rigidly insisted on, but in two instances; the first of which took place under the second government, after the commencement of the Revolution in France; and the second instance was with regard to Turkey, and upon this he had read no law but in the Arabian Nights, and other such works; according to which it appeared, that the bashaw and the cadi must always be separate. Adverting to the statutes which applied to this question, he quoted the acts of regency adopted on the pro

position of lord chief justice Holt, in the reign of Queen Anne, and that also in the early part of his present majesty's reign. By both these acts, he stated that a council to assist the regent was appointed, and it was expressly provided that the lord chief justice of the King's Bench should be one of the council. Now, it must be evident that in such situation the chief justice would have to perform the same functions as Lord Ellenborough would be now called on to execute. It appeared, in fact, that the present cabinet was formed merely on the model laid down for the councils of regency mentioned in those celebrated acts. The last act, he observed, was supported by the vote of Blackstone, who on this night was quoted as adverse to its principle. After recapitulating and ably inforcing his several arguments, Mr. Fox insisted that the proposition before the House was supported neither by precedent, law, argument, or expediency. He took notice of the observation, that the motion was not brought forward as an opposition question. He assured the honourable mover and his supporters, that he was not at all inclined to provoke opposition to his measures. On the contrary, he should be glad of the support of any set of gentlemen; but if he was to have an opposition, he particularly wished that they might always choose such questions as that now before the House.

The question that the other orders of the day be now read being then put, the House divided:

Tellers.

KING'S MESSAGE ON THE WAR WITH PRUSSIA.

April 23.

N the 21st of April Mr. Secretary Fox presented the following message from his majesty:

ON

"G. R.

"His majesty thinks it proper to acquaint the House of Commons, that he has found himself under the necessity of withdrawing his ministers from the court of Berlin, and of adopting, provisionally measures of just retaliation against the commerce and navigation of Prussia. His majesty deeply regrets this extension and aggravation of calamities, already so severely felt by

the nations of the continent, whose independence and prosperity he has never ceased to consider as intimately connected with those of his own people. But measures of direct hostility, deliberately adopted against him, have left him no alternative.-In a moment of confidential intercourse, without even the pretence of any cause of complaint, forcible possession has been taken by Prussia of his majesty's electoral dominions. Deeply as this event affected the interests of this kingdom, his majesty chose, nevertheless, to forbear, on this painful occasion, all recourse to the tried and affectionate attachment of his British subjects. He remonstrated by amicable negociation against the injury he had sustained, and rested his claim for reparation on the moderation of his conduct, on the justice of his representation, and on the common interest which Prussia herself must ultimately feel, to resist a system destructive of the security of all legitimate possession. But when, instead of receiving assurances conformable to this just expectation, his majesty was informed that the determination had been taken of excluding by force, the vessels and the commodities of this kingdom from ports and countries under the lawful dominion, or forcible controul of Prussia; his majesty could no longer delay to act without neglecting the first duty which he owes to his people. The dignity of his crown, and the interests of his subjects, equally forbid his acquiescing in this open and unprovoked aggression. He has no doubt of the full support of his parliament, in vindicating the honour of the British Hag, and the freedom of the British navigation; and he will look with anxious expectation to that moment, when a more dignified and enlightened policy on the part of Prussia, shall remove every impediment to the renewal of peace and friendship with a power with whom his majesty has no other cause of difference than that now created by these hostile acts."

The message was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 23d, when

Mr. Secretary Fox rose and spoke as follows:- I am sure, Sir, it is impossible that the message we have now heard read, can fail to excite the strongest sensation in every temper and disposition of mind which can exist in this House. In the first place, when we hear it stated that his majesty has abstained from appealing to his British subjects, on account of the violence and injustice which have been done to him in the seizure of his electoral dominions, it is impossible not to feel grateful for that kindness and mildness which his majesty has always shewn to the subjects of this realm. It was with extreme reluctance that he could consent to involve them in war upon any ground that was not immediately and directly connected with British interests. After the sentiment of gratitude to his majesty for this tender consideration of his subjects of this kingdom, the next feeling which must be strongly excited by the message, is a feeling of just indig