26 MAY 1832, Page 21

LORD LYNDHURST'S ADVICE TO THE KING.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE SPECTATOR.

Sin—In the journals of the 18th instant, I read a speech attributed to Lord LYNDHURST, in which were the following words- " His Majesty sent to me, as his (firmer Chancellor, to consult as to the proper course he should pursue. His Majesty was desirous I should collect all the information possible upon the subject, and communicate to him the state of the country and of par- ties, with the view of affording materials to guide him in his conduct. Ilis Majesty gave me permission to communicate with those whom I considered must be useful to me. In consequence of this interview, I waited on my noble friend the Duke of Wel- lington, and communicated to him the task which had been imposed upon me by my Sovereign."

Lord LYNDHURST then complains of having been charged in the House of Commons "with having acted inconsistently with his duties as a Judge of the laud ;" and he retorts by charging the member who made this assertion with ignorance of the Constitution.

Now let us inquire what the Constitution enjoins upon Judges and Privy Councillors when required to advise their Sovereign.

Lord LYNDHURST is a public, and I am a private man ; and it behoves me, therefore, tq inform the reader, that the Constitution, as proved by history and records, has been the study of my life. That Privy Councillors and Judges are bound to give advice to their Sove- reign, is known to all. The question is not whether they shall give advice (as Lord LYNDHURST ignorantly supposes), but what advice they shall give, and whether the advice given be agreeable to the Constitution. It is known to all, that Judges are the legal Councillors of the Crown, to in- terpret and administer law, as Privy Councillors are in the conduct of common affairs. But in great emergencies, in matters vital to society, that concern the very constitution of Parliament, or unusual exertion of the prerogative, demanded by some urgent necessity "in the state of the country;" when such emergencies arise, and the King declines the advice of his "ordinary Council of State," it has never been the practice of England for the Sovereign to resort to the advice of individuals to learn the "state of the country." But the constitutional prac- tice has been, that the King appeal for advice from the lesser Council to the greater, from his Privy Conned to his Council of Parliament ; and it belongs to the House of Commons alone to inform the Sovereign of the "state of the country:" and this has in all ages been one of the privileges of that House, who, being the Grand Jury of all England, and coming from all parts of the realm, are, and are held to be, the best-informed of its feelings, wants, and state. Such has been the course of Parliament in the best times, and under the wisest and most powerful of our Kings; whereby their regal dignity and authority and the Constitution have been preserved from confusion. The conduct of his Majesty in .requiring legal advice is consistent with -the Constitution. But what has been the conduct of Lord LYND- HURST? He does not advise his Sovereign to learn the " state of the country" from the House of Commons, as was his legal duty to have done. But this legal adviser, born in a foreign land, seeks the state of the country- and the feelings of England and of Scotland in the passions of an Irishman, in whom the skin is civilized, but the flesh is barbarian still : bred in a military college of France, a soldier by profession whose life has been spent in foreign lands, utterly ignorant of our Laws and Constitution, and the leader of an insa- tiable and unprincipled faction, who with unparalleled audacity have entered upon the records of Parliament their protest against the Constitution itself, breathing hatred to it, and where falsehood contends with ignorance. These presumptuous and ignorant and ungrateful men have endeavoured to palm upon their Sovereign the clamour of their faction for the voice of his people, but har:in vain. us now contrast the conduct of this Judge with that of others, in similar emergencies, born Englishmen, and blessed with more learning, modesty, and worth. Take the following as examples. In the memorable contest between the two Houses of Parliament, in the case of THORP, 31st Henry VI., the Judges being required by the House of Lords

to deliver their opinion of the constitutional course (to whom they are obliged by their office to give advice as much as they are to the Crown), made this memorable answer-

" It has not been used before time, nor becomes us to determine matters concerning the High Court *of Parliament, which is so high and mighty in its nature, that it is judge of the law, and makes that to be law which is no law, and that to be no law. which is; and the determination of' its privileges belongs to the Lords in Parliament. and not to the Justices."—Rulls of Parliament, 36 Henry VI., Nos. 25 and 26; and Haines Precedents, Vol. I., p. 239. ed. of 1813.

Thus much of the opinions of Judges as they regard the House of Lords, and its privileges and constitution. Next let us consider them in matters touching the rights and privileges of the Commons„ and "the state of the country." In that great contest between the two Houses of Parliament, when JAMES the First endeavoured to usurp that privilege of the Commons, essential to the inde- pendence of their House, to examine and determine all questions of election, and vI ho are and who are not members of their House, the King and Lords had won. over the Judges to deliver their opinion that the Court of Chancery possessed the only jurisdiction in the trial of elections. The House of Commons declare " this opinion of the Judges to be prejudicial to the rights and liberties of this realm ;" wherehr the freedom of election is extremely injured ; and by the same right, it miglit at all times be iu a Lord Chancellor's power to reverse, de- feat, aril substitute all the elections, and persons elected over all the realm." And they add, of the opinions of the Judges—" Neither thought we that the Judges' opinion,-which yet in due place we greatly reverence, being delivered, what the common law was, which extend only to inferior and standing courts, ought to bring any prejudice to the high Court of Parliament ; whose power being above the law, is not finnuleil on the common law, but have rights and pri- vileges peculiar to themselves." The House of Commons close this memorable Declaration of their Rights with this advice to the King—" Let your Majesty be pleased to receive public information from your Commons in Parliament as to the civil state and Govern- ment ; for private informations pass often by practice. The voice of the Peo- ple, in things of their knowledge, is said to be as the voice of Cod."—HatseIrs Precedents, Vol. I., Appendix. Here we see the constitutional course. Lord LYNDHURST'S conduct has taught us to respect its wisdom, since " private informations pass often by practice." In great emergencies, such as the present, where the safety of the Crown and State are at stake, it is not by the advice of lawyers—were such advice legal— that the Sovereign's conduct should be guided: " of whom SWIFT has truly observed, that, of all others, they seem least to understand the nature of go- vernment in general ; like under-workmen, who are expert enough at making a single wheel in a clock, but arc utterlv ignorant how to adjust the several parts, or regulate the movement"— Church. of England-Man, Vol. I., p. 251. London, 24th May 1832. '