changed as to the principle of the English constitution. I do not, however, mean to enter on the question at large, but only to examine a few precedents, and, as far as the subject will allow, in the manner of a lawargument. It was said, that "from the earliest periods of our history, it would be found that legal persons have been called to the councils of the Sovereign. The grand justiciary was formerly the first minister."[Lord GRENVILLE's speech]-Sir, there can be no doubt that the grand justiciary was a minister of state: but, for the reason of his being so, we must look to many concurring causes, which, as they no longer exist, can furuish no precedent to our times. In our reasonings on history we do worse than trifle, when we argue as if some single custom were to continue, or some one point (as it were) to be stationary, when every thing around is shifted; every thing which gave principle to the institution, and life (if I may say so) to the form. Nor is it only the state of society that is changed: for the situation itself of a grand justiciary, differs in so many points of its origin, and nature, and object from that of a modern chief justice, that no argument can be fairly drawn from one to the other. It would not be difficult to trace the cause and growth of the justiciary's power, the changes it underwent, and, at length, the separation of his many offices. But, as this is not a place for such researches, I will only add, that though the situation " of chief justice, was in showy but one office, yet in those times" he was not only the ordinary chief judge, but the high steward also, and the King's lieutenant-general in all causes and places, as well in warre as peace." [Nat. BACON'S "Hist. Discourses." So that, if the argument from the grand justiciary prove any thing it proves too much; and is a precedent for vesting in Lord ELLENBOROUGH not only the office of a chief justice, and the situation of a political adviser of the crown; but the offices, likewise, of high-steward, and of lieutenant-general of the kingdom, Sometimes, indeed, all this was too little: for, in the reign of RICHARD Ist, William Longchamp was at once Bishop of Ely, Papal Legate, Chancellor, and Grand Justiciary. But is this an example to be copied in our times? Or, would a bishop be now better qualified than another man, to fill the office of chancellor or chief justice? No, Sir. Instead of copying the precise form of an ancient institution, when taken literally and by itself; instead of looking at it apart from all those circumstances which gave rise to it, and that

state of society to which, perhaps, it was well fitted, we should keep that state and those circumstances full before us, and (in political as well as other philosophy) rise from particular cases to the principles by which those cases were governed. Since the days of the justiciaries, the study of the laws, and the habits of the world at large are changed: a liberal education has become common among gentlemen; and such of them as are not tied down to professional pursuits, are most likely to acquaint themselves with points of general politics. Mr. Fox, indeed, observes," that there are many subjects of war and peace, commerce and finances, upon which a chief justice may be consulted:" [Mr. Fox's speech] but we all must know that the habits of a practising lawyer are so far from qualifying him for such subjects, that they tend in their very nature to prevent his becoming master of them. The law is, itself, the labour of a life; nor, I think, would Mr. Fox, as Secretary of State, very seriously consult Lord ELLENBOROUGH, with a view of gaining information on foreign affairs. If, indeed, a lawyer can ever withdraw himself from the paths of professional practice, to pursuits of a more general nature, he will do well to employ his leisure, not in the details of foreign politics, but in studying the free constitution of his native country, that he may learn to love and to support it. Even those members of the profession whose situation has sometimes forced them out of the circle, which seemed properly to be their own, have, on such occasions added nothing either to their influence in society or to their good name in future times. We respect Lord CLARENDON for example, not that he negociated the sale of DUNKIRK, but that he saved the constitution, equally from the court, and the mistaken loyalty of the people themselves:*

* It is well worthy notice, that Lord Clarendon rejected the idea of being political adviser of the crown, without having also an office in the government, though a plan of this kind was urged upon him by the Duke of Ormond, the Duke of York, and "others who wished well to him," and "did always think that he might have prevented his own fate, if he had at that time submitted to their judgment;" or, to speak plainly, they thought that he might thus have held political power, and yet have avoided the consequences of that responsibility which in England properly belongs to it; that he might

We respect also Lord SOMERS, not for the share which he had in the Partition Treaty," but for his wise and virtuous conduct at the time of the revolution, and the measures which he afterwards took for securing to us the benefit of that great event.-But to return in addition to our justiciaries, we find Sir WILLIAM TEMPLE pressed into the support of this argument; and we are told, that in the reign of Charles IId. he introduced a bill for the appointment of a Committee of Privy Counsellors," and that "by this bill it was provided, that the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas should be a member of the proposed Committee of Council." [Mr. Fox's Speech.] Before I come to the plan, let me say a word or two of its author, to whom our literature as well as constitutional policy have been much indebted. His works are an early instance, in our language, of a classical style, at once happy in the structure of the sentences, and full of life and sweetness, and his "Memoirs" (in which we find his scheme for this "new council"), are among the most interesting details of his time. He understood too the subject of government, and loved the liberties of England. But with all this he had a species of vanity in his character, which sometimes prompted him to attempt things seemingly inconsistent. It was this turn of mind (played upon by CHARLES II.) that among other things kindled, in him an attachment to the House of Stuart, and led him, though a friend of liberty, to resist the Exclusion Bill. By this key wẹ may, I think, explain some parts of Sir WILLIAM TEMPLE'S Conduct, though perhaps we need not have recourse to it in our present question. The Cabinet, we know, is but a Committee of Privy Counsellors: so that the words (as reported) of Mr. Fox, "A Committee of Privy Counsellors," and a "Committee of Council," may mislead many into

have escaped the punishment merely through the difficulty of detection. Clarendon's "fate" was hard and undeserved; yet "he often said that he would not have redeemed himself by that expedient.;" for such power, in whatever degree, is of the same nature with that of a prime minister on the Continent; and Clarendon might well judge that the thing itself was foreign to our constitution, when the very "title of it" was so newly translated out of French into English, that it was not enough understood to be liked." [Continuation of the Earl of Clarendon's Life by Himself. 45 and seq.)

an idea that this, by whatever name, was of the nature of a Cabinet Council, and formed (as that is) for purposes altogether political. No such thing. It was to every purpose a complete council, with committees issuing out of itself. Speaking of its formation, Sir W. TEMPLE says, "These considerations

66

cast me upon the thought of the King's establishing a new council;" [Temple's Works, v. i. p. 333.] and afterwards he remarks, "how much the general affairs devolved upon the council, or the particular committees." [v. 1. p. 336.] RALPH, mentioning the Privy Council which was turned out, in order to make way for this, says, "The present council was, with repeated thanks for their past services, &c. dissolved. The next morning was appointed for the meeting of the new one;" [Ralph History, v. i. p. 439.] and BURNET (a contemporary historian) tells us, of the same event, that "the King was prevailed upon to dismiss the whole council, which was all made up of Lord Danby's creatures, and the chief men of both Houses were brought into it." [Own Time, v. i. p. 454.] In all this we do not find a word of its being a "Committee of Coun cil." On the other hand, it is expressed to be itself a complete Privy Council, and a substitute for the old one which was dissolved. In which case it was, no doubt. fitting to have one or more Judges members of it, to inform the King" (as TEMPLE expresses himself) "in what concerns the laws." We must remember that the Privy Council are not, (as the Cabinet Counci merely political advisers of the Crown, but that they, in fact, also form with the King, a Court of Judicature, and have causes for their decision continually brought before them. In this, then, there is a marked distinction between the two. Yet were they argued on in the debate, as if the same in nature! and it was triumphantly asked if the Chief Justice "should be struck cut of the list of Privy Counsellors? Off the list of Peers ?" [M, NAT. BOND's Speech.] No, sir, he should remain a member of the Privy Council, if for no other reason, yet because it is a Court of Judicature, and the presence o a Chief Justice there may be important; a reason, by the bye, which must have had still greater weight, when the Court of Star Chamber was also in being, and every Privy Counsellor (says COKE) had a voice and place in it," by virtue of his office. As to the other point of Mr. N. BOND's most extraordinary question, "whether he should be-struck off the list of Peers? Why, really sir, I am at a loss to guess how it came st

It shall not continue

all into the discussion. in it through my means. Only as Mr. BOND has so happily started the idea, I will just inform him that the first modern instance of a peerage being given to a Judge of Common Law was that conferred upon the Lord Chief Justice JEFFERIES, by JAMES the II. as a reward for his exploits in what that King pleasantly termed his western "campaign." "A dignity (says BURNET) which, though anciently some Judges were raised to it, yet in these latter ages, as there was no example of it, so it was thought inconsistent with the character of a Judge.' [Own Time, v. i. p. 648.] I submit this passage to Mr. BOND's perusal; and perhaps he will not hereafter put idle questions. But to return to Sir W. TEMPLE: the instance of the Council he proposed does not, we have seen, apply to the point at issue. Though, if it had been otherwise, I should, in a constitutional enquiry, have conceded little to the precedent of a Council, one object of whose establishment (it is plainly intimated by its author) was, that if the House of Commons should refusé supplies, "the Council out of their own "stock," (and they were partly chosen for their wealth)" might, upon a pinch, fur"nish the King so far as to relieve some

great necessity of the crown." [Temple's Works. vol. 1, page 333.]—I have now touched upon such precedents as the ministry brought forward and their opponents emitted to examine. In the course of my remarks on them, I have said that a Chief Justice is not likely to cast much light on questions of foreign policy. Let us see how far it is to be wished that he should offer his opinions to the Government

on some

points, which are more immediately in his own province. And here we have illustrations without number: but I mean to content myself with one of them. (In “Pea"cham's Case," JAMES the first "directed" that Lord Coke (who was, at that time, Chief Justice of the King's Bench) should give an opinion of its merits, at the Council Table. But COKE (says BACON) "complained that such particular and auricular

taking of opinions was not according to "the custom of this Realm." [Bacon's Works, vol. 4, letter 50.]-Stronger still, and of a larger application are the opinions recorded by himself, of this Oracle of English Law. He observes, (it is in the third Institute) that "to the end that the Trial, may be more indifferent, seeing that the safety of the prisoner consisteth in the indifferency of the Court, the Judges

ought not to deliver their opinions before"hand of any criminal case that may come "before them judicially." He then notices the case of" Humfrey Stafford, that Arch Traitor, "in the reign of HENRY VII, "when HUSSEY, Chief Justice, besought the King that he would not desire to know their opinions beforehand for Humphrey Stafford, for they thought it should come before them in the King's Bench judicially." Hussey spoke as well in the name of the other judges as in his own; and, Henry, though full enough of his prerogative, admitted the propriety of their appeal to him, "for how can they be indifferent who have delivered their opinions before-hand, without hearing of the party, when a small addition or substraction may alter the case? And, how doth it stand with their oath, who are sworn that they should well and lawfully serve our Lord the King and his people, in the office of a justice ? And they should do equal law and execution of right to all his subjects?" [3 Inst. Fol. 29 ]-With this extract I shall end the argument. The con-duct of HUSSEY and the quotation from COKE, are express to the purpose. In spirit and in principle they are full to the point: nor can conclude more satisfactorily than with the opinion of that great and upright chief justice, who has left us in his writings, the best treasure of the common law, and who closed his public laborrs, by drawing, sup porting, and carrying the petition of rightIn this letter, I have abstained from repeating any arguments which were urged in the debate; but I have done all that I meant to do, by searching into some precedents on the subject. In such enquiry, I have not only been unbiassed by my party-feelings, but, for once, have strongly taken part against them, and in this very letter I should, perhaps, say something, of Mr. Fox especially, if he were not in office; while in whatever point of view I look at those who are against him, they seem to me alike unfit to compose the ministry or the opposition of a free and enlightened people. I am, Sir,

Your most obedient Servant,
R. T.

10th April, 1806.

"defend."--On this principle I am impelled to repeat my former observation, that no income under 100 l. per annum should be subject to the Income Tax; and that not higher than 2 per cent.; the deficiency (as Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. W. Smith very liberally proposed) "to be compensated by a

higher rate on the more enlarged in"comes "To demonstrate the justice of this principle, I will select the following instance. Suppose a clerk in a public office, or private counting house, to have a salary of 1001. per annum, which is more than many of them have. With this he has a wife and family to maintain, and some decency of appearance to support beyond what is expected from a mechanic or journeyman, who is entitled to exemption because his earnings do not exceed 5s. per day.

The

clerk must also pay more rent, and consequently more taxes, because he must from a necessary regard to appearances, live in a more respectable neighbourhood than a mechanic or journeyman is obliged to do. He must also (if he has 4 or 5 children) keep a female servant, which even on the most moderate computation cannot cost him less than 301. or 351. per annum. His house-rent and taxes will probably be full as much. But estimating both at only 501. per annum, that is half his income: 501. per annum then will be the utmost that can remain for the support of himself and family. To take 101. per annum from this scanty pittance of his hard earned wages, and that too under the name of a Property Tax," can only be considered by him as a cruel mockery of his indigence and distress; as oppression aggravated by insult! What then must be his sensations when, he reflects that this tax is imposed upon him to secure the property of foreign stock-holders, who must themselves remain untaxed, because unrepresented! Or of an opulent loan-monger, or land-holder, who daily riots on every luxury which art cin furnish, or wealth can buy, while he and his family are condemned to an irremediable state of penury and despair!!-To all thus circumstanced, a tax of 101. per annum, whether called " Property Tax," or by any other name, is as really a tax on the necessaries of life, as if it were laid on the bread they eat.-But the evil ends not even here, for this tax of 10 per cent. comes not alone. As your correspondent "Senex" very justly observes, (p. 230) the proprietors of houses not only shift the property

tax from themselves to their tenants, but actually overpay themselves in the advance of their rent, "not only for this, but for every "other tax to which their property is sub"ject."-That they act thus in this neighbourhood, I could prove by numerous facts; and even the very lowest class of the labouring poor, who live in hovels of 8 or 101. per annum, have, by the sordid avarice of their landlords, in various instances that have come to my knowledge, been compelled either to pay the Property Tax, (their landlords refusing to take the printed receipts in part of their rent) to quit their miserable houses, or to pay an advanced rent of more than double the amount of the tax.-The rapid advance in the rent of houses in this neighbourhood, since the revival of the Property Tax is astonishing. Out of many instances I shall only mention the following. A row of 14 houses (of that class usually inhabited by clerks in public or private offices, with smal salaries) was begun about three years ago. The first houses that were finished consisting of 6 small rooms, (kitchen and washhouse included) were let at from 18 to 20 guineas per annum.The last finished only last Michaelmas, obtained from 28 to 30 guineas per annum; and none of them are now to be had under 301, or guineas.By this advance in the rent of 101, per annum, the tax on inhabited houses is also increased from about 24s. to 31. per an num, and parochial taxes always advance with the rent.-All these burdens aggravated by the rapid increase of price in all the necessaries of life, necessarily arising from the multiplication of taxes, and the depreciation of money, fall with accumulated and intoler able weight on all life-annuitants, and persons of small incomes; particularly so on all clerks in public or private offices; shopmen, and all that numerous class removed a few degrees above the journeyman or mechanic, but whose employment though more light, still occupies almost the whole of their time and attention. They may be flattered with the appellation of gentleman, and their wages may be dignified with the name of salary, but if those compliments which par take much more of ridicule than honour, are succeeded by a tax of 10 per cent. per an num on their income, what can be their future prospect, but a gaol for themselves, and a workhouse for their families ! ————I am, Sir, &c. &c.- -BRITANNICUS.-May 19, 1806.