Lords Sitting of 24 February 1806

CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX
Lord Eldon,on perceiving a noble marquis in his place, rose, and called the attention of the house generally to the situation in which the case of the above judicial character stood before their lordships. The affair was one, in every point of view, public as well as private, of the highest importance, and it was highly proper that the house should come to some determination upon the case. He therefore requested to know of that noble marquis, whether he intended to move for any proceeding relative to the attendance or examination of witnesses in the case of Mr. justice Fox?
The Marquis of Abercornsaid, it must

177
be in the recollection of several of their lordships, that so early as on the first day of the session, he had called the attention of the house to the business alluded to. It was his wish, that as little delay as possible should take place with respect to the proceedings upon the case. The spring assizes in Ireland were to take place this year somewhat earlier than they did last year, in which case their attendance in London might be proportionably earlier, a week or ten days at least. It was his intention to move, that certain witnesses be ordered to attend on the 28th of April. His lordship presented a list of a number of witnesses, who, he regularly moved, should be ordered to attend at the bar of that house on the 28th day of April next.—As the lord chancellor was reading the motion,
Lord Grenvilleentered the house, and, on the question being put, his lordship rose, and observed, he spoke under the disadvantage of not having heard what transpired on the subject previous to the motion; but it struck him most forcibly, that, on a subject of such great and various importance as that which the case of Mr. justice Fox involved, some time should be allowed, not only as it respected himself, but other noble lords, who wished to deliver their opinions, for the consideration of the subject. He was then quite unprepared to give a decided opinion as to what was proposed. He submitted, therefore, whether it would not be better to withdraw the motion? but, shortly after, he moved that the farther consideration of this motion be adjourned to this day se'nnight.—This, on the question being so put, was agreed to by their lordships.

EARL ST. VINCENT.
Lord Grenvillepresented a message from his majesty, purporting that, by the act of parliament for granting an annuity to the earl of St. Vincent, that annuity was limited to the two next heirs male of his body, and desiring the house to take the further extension of the same into their consideration.—The message having been read, lord Hawkesbury asked. across the table, if any motion was intended? Lord Grenville answered in the affirmative, and observed that, in granting the annuity to lord St. Vincent, it had been originally intended, as was usual in similar cases, to extend the grant to the two next successors to the title. It happened, however, that, by the enacting words of the act, the annuity
178
was limited to the two next heirs male of the body of lord St. Vincent. The present message, therefore, had not for its object to confer any additional mark of royal favour on lord St. Vincent, but merely to carry into effect what was undoubtedly the original intent of the act to which he had alluded. A bill to this effect would, in due time, come before the house, when their lordships would have an opportunity of considering the subject. He concluded, by moving, in the usual form, an address to his majesty, in answer to his majesty's most gracious massage, which was agreed to.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S SEAT IN THE CABINET.
The Earl of Bristol,on seeing the noble lord at the head of the treasury in his place, rose, and, in a very low tone of voice, addressed a few observations to his lordship; the purport of these appeared to be, a wish from the noble earl to be informed respecting a point which, he conceived, had made a deep impression on the public mind, and which was certainly a topic of great constitutional importance. He alluded to what was generally stated, that the present lord chief justice of the king's bench constituted one of his majesty's cabinet ministers. He begged an answer from the noble lord as to the fact.
Lord Grenvillesaid, he felt anxious to give as explicit and satisfactory an answer as was in his power, to the question of the noble earl. He was at a loss to see how the appointment alluded to by the noble earl, was unconstitutional and unprecedented. He believed, that ever since the privy council existed, or even since there existed such a station as that of lord chief justice, the learned lord who filled that station at the time was likewise invariably one of his majesty's privy council. Indeed, the lord chief justice the king's bench was frequently summoned to attend the council on matters of the highest moment; and he was, not only responsible for the advice he actually gave, but was also liable for any omission in giving his advice. His lordship must,think it unnecessary to observe, that what was generally or usually called "the Cabinet," was, under that appellation and description, unknown to the constitution; indeed, it should rather be considered as a committee of the privy council that was more frequently called upon by his majesty for advice. Even that committee the lord chief justice of the land had often been summoned to attend;

179
and if at all times it appeared, that the lord chief justice was a member of his majesty's privy council, and that he was often called upon for advice by that committee of the privy council, commonly known by the name of the "cabinet," he could not think that it trenched in the least upon the spirit or the letter of the constitution, that be who, was always of the privy council, and who was frequently consulted by his majesty's more immediate advisers, should be made an habitual or constant member of the committee of the privy council, which he had considered the cabinet to be; more especially when the person who filled that exalted station was, in the present case, a man from whose vigour of intellect, from whose extent of capacity, and from whose comprehension and depth of knowledge, the administration of his majesty's government was sure to receive the uniform assistance of such various lights. When he was honoured with his majesty's orders to form an administration, he anxiously looked out for such distinguished Characters; and, it any exception was made to the advice he presumed to offer to his majesty on that very important business, he held himself responsible for any error or mischief with which it might be deemed chargeable. With regard to the appointment being unconstitutional and unprecedented, he should now only observe, that he believed it had the sanction of the example of lord Hardwicke, and certain he was it had the sanction of the example of lord Mansfield. The more such a question was discussed, the less, he trusted, it would be found liable to the objections insinuated by the noble earl.
The Earl of Bristolcould not help thinking the appointment highly objectionable, notwithstanding the explanation of the noble lord. To him it appeared repugnant to the constitution, and incompatible with the due administration of justice; and, on these grounds, he should certainly submit it to the consideration of the house on Monday next; for which day it was ordered that their lordships be summoned to attend.

WITNESSES' INDEMNITY BILL.
Lord Eldonwent over some of his former arguments against this bill, comparing it with the indemnity bill brought into the house in the year 1742, and observing, that such a bill having now been introduced, it was essential, in his opinion, that their lordships should ascertain what had been done
180
in similar cases or former occasions. He therefore moved for the appointment of a committee to search for precedents respecting bills to enable witnesses, in cases of accusation, to give evidence at the bar of the house, by indemnifying them from criminal prosecutions or civil suits, or either of them.
Lord Hollandsaid, he did not wish to oppose the motion of the noble and learned lord, but he was convinced that on the search being made, which the noble and learned lord desired, it would be found that the present bill was not by any means, as the noble and learned lord would have it understood, a fac-simile of that introduced in 1742; but, on the contrary, wholly dissimilar. He could not help, at the same time, thinking it unfair to argue the bill at the present moment, when it was not regularly before the house.
Lord Eldonin explanation, contended, that he had never said that the present bill was a fac-simile of that of 1742; but that they must both be argued on the same principle.—The motion for a committee to search for precedents was agreed to.