291 accusations of contending parties, it had never been even suspected for many years of being tainted by any secret bias from political regard or party connection. There was perhaps no one particular in our whole system of government which so much as this endeared his country to every inhabitant of the British empire. Here was the poor man's security, dignity, and independence. And surely if there ever was a time when we should guard this valuable distinction with more than common care, it was the present. Now-when the heart and hand of every man was become requisite for effectually resisting our inveterate enemy; when such heavy burthens were to be borne, and such great sacrifices to be made, surely it was in the highest degree unwise to endanger that primary excellency of the British constitution, on which foreigners had pronounced such high eulogiums, and which was the object of warmest endearment to every British heart.-Mr. Wilberforce would next urge an argument which appeared to him to possess great weight, though it had not been hitherto brought forward. It was a known principle in our constitution, that the judges were only removeable by address of both Houses of Parliament; consequently the two Houses are, ipso facto, constituted standing superintendants of the conduct of the judges. Is it not necessary to the proper discharge of this important function, that they should not be much mixed in political disputes, or connected with the great parties into which Parliament is divided? But if a judge be made a minister of state, docs he not immediately become connected with the ministry for the time being, and the object of hostility to the opposition? Will not the former be likely in all but extreme cases to espouse and support him? Will not the latter be likely to magnify his errors, to call in question his professional conduct? and it may even at length become a common mode of opposition to attack the ministry through the medium of the judges. This argument also Mr. Wilberforce begged to address particularly to the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Fox) who carried his party notions 'pretty far, and he would also again ask, how would all these accusations and recriminations tend to weaken in the minds of mankind at large the idea of the strict impartiality of the administration of justice? This last objection likewise tended to shew, that, though there was no law in express terms forbidding the introduction of the chief justice into the cabinet, yet that it

P p 2

was

was, fairly speaking, unconstitutional, contrary to the genius and spirit, though not to the letter, of our government and laws. Mr. Wilberforce, at that late hour, would not consume the time of the. House in answering the arguments of the hon. gentleman opposite to him, which indeed he thought had already received a substantial reply. One or two of them only he would briefly notice. The measure it was said was not absolutely unprecedented, and the example of Lord Mansfield was adduced, who, for some years after he commenced his judicial office, had sat in the cabinet. He thanked the hon. gentleman for reminding them of Lord Mansfield, for it was perfectly notorious that, since the time of the Revolution, there never had been a judge who was more suspected of being actuated by political prejudices, and was more violently the object of party resentment on that account. This fact had long been known-now it was accounted for-he had been a member of the cabinet; before we had the phenomena, now we have the explanation of them. We find also, in a circumstance mentioned by an hon. friend below him, the effect on Lord Mansfield's mind, of thus mixing the cha racter of the politician with that of the judge. There was surely a manifest impropriety, from which the mind of every man at once revolted, in his trying Lord George Gordon for a capital offence, the very fomenter of the riots, in which the judge himself had been so great a sufferer. The explanation was, that the habit of acting as a member of government, and consequently of taking his side as a party man, had destroyed that instinctive delicacy with which a British judge ought to shrink from every thing which might in any degree bias the impartiality of his mind. Another defence had been urged, that the noble judge might withdraw from the bench on any trial in which government should be in any way concerned; a whimsical mode surely of proving that two offices were compatible with each other, to say, that he might divest himself of one of them. Again it was affirmed, that the first impression of people out of doors, which was confessed to be against the measure, was not likely to last. These first impressions, Mr. Wilberforce said, were often the fairest judgments of the mind, and the process by which they were afterwards altered was commonly the result of our endeavouring to evade the obligation of an unwelcome truth. ' He did not, for his part, believe that the general disappro

bation of the present measure would be transient; on the contrary, the more the measure should be considered, the more he believed it would be condemned by all who understood and valued the British constitution: and after all, as his hon. friend below had asked, for what adequate end was such a sacrifice to be made? for what were we to break in upon the fundamental principles of our government? The learned gentleman opposite to him (Mr. Bond) had laid great stress on the personal merits of Lord Ellenbo rough. Mr. Wilberforce frankly declared he was in no degree prompted to oppose the measure by any personal considerations affecting that noble lord; on the contrary, he willingly avowed that he entertained the highest respect for the noble lord's intellectual and moral qualifications, and believed that the noble lord's sound understanding, legal knowledge, dauntless resolution, and firm indepen dence, would render him a valuable acquisition to his Majesty's cabinet. But this question was not to turn on the merits of any particular individual, nor were such fundamental principles as were here at stake to be violated for any temporary convenience of party arrangements. The measure affected the very vitals of the constitution; it infringed on the independence of the judges; it tended to withdraw their time and thoughts from their proper bu siness, and to make them politicians and party men; it tended to prevent the impartial superintendence of the two Houses over the conduct of the judges, and what was perhaps even more important than all the rest, it tended to lessen the reverence, and weaken the attachment, of the people to the constitution and laws of the country, at the very time when the circumstances of public affairs were such as rather to call for every effort which might augment them. On these grounds he felt it his duty to resist a measure so fundamentally pernicious, and to give his warmest support to the resolutions which had been moved by his hon. friend.

Mr. Fox explained, and said he never made the slightest allusion to the Duke of Richmond's sentiments on the subject. It was to his opposition to the regency bill in 1765.

The House divided. For Mr. Spencer Stanhop's motion 65. For the order of the day 222. Majority 137. Adjourned at two o'clock in the morning.

Lord Carysfort (Earl of Carysfort). Ilis patent of crea tion having been read at the table, his lordship took the oaths and his seat.

Lord Eldon delivered his opinion at some length respect ing the appeal from Scotland, "Ogilvy v. the Carron Company," after which he moved to postpone the further consideration of it till Friday. Ordered.

Several members of the House of Commons brought up the qualification indemnity bill, and three private bills, which were read a first time.

IMPEACHMENT WITNESSES INDEMNITY BILL.

Lord Holland moved the order of the day upon this bill for the purpose of postponing it. Understanding, he said, from what passed in the House in consequence of the opinions delivered by the judges, that there was an intention of framing a declaratory act as to what the law really was respecting the liability of a witness to answer questions of the nature stated in the questions referred to the judges, he did not wish to press this bill at the present moment. He must confess, however, that he had not any very san guine expectation of an effectual law being framed upon this subject, and therefore he did not like to let go his bill altogether, as, in case the noble and learned lords could not agree in framing a declaratory law sufficient for the purpose, he should then consider it necessary to press on their lordships' consideration the indemnity bill, which it would in that case be expedient to pass. He moved to discharge the order for summoning their lordships, and to renew it for Friday.

Lord Eldon assured the noble lord that his noble and learned friend on the woolsack had lost no time in preparing a declaratory bill, which the difference of opinion amongst the judges had rendered necessary. His noble and learned friend had submitted the bill to his (Lord Eldon's) consideration; and he, thinking there were several objections to it, framed another, which, however, on consideration, he thought was more objectionable than that drawn by his noble and learned friend. The subject was involved in considerable difficulties, and he had great doubts whether a bill could be so framed as to provide against the exceptions which necessarily occurred to the general rule.

The Lord Chancellor thought there would be little diffi culty in framing a general declaratory law upon the subject.