The question is, in the present state of the controversy, according to my apprehension of it, whether, by the common law of England, the judges of the King's bench and common bench, had estates for life, in their offices, determinable on misbehaviour, and determinable also on the demise of the crown? General Brattle still thinks they had, I, cannot yet find reasons to think so: And as, whether they had, or had not, is the true question between us. I will endeavour to confine myself to it, without wandering.—

Now in order to pursue my enquiry, regularly, it is necessary, to determine with some degree of precision, what is to be understood by the terms “common law”—Out of the Mercian laws, the laws of the West Saxons, and the Danish law, King Edward the confessor extracted one uniform digest of laws, to be observed throughout the whole kingdom, which seems to have been no more than a fresh promulgation of Alfreds code or domebook, with such improvements as the experience of a century and an half had suggested, which is now unhappily lost. This collection is of higher antiquity than memory or history can reach. They have been used time out of mind, or for a time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. General customs which are the universal rule of the whole kingdom, form the common law in its stricter and more usual signification. This is that law, which determines that there shall be four superior courts of record, the chancery, the king's bench, the common pleas, and the exchequer, among a multitude of other doctrines that are not set down in any written statute or ordinance, but depend merely upon immemorial usage, that is upon common law for their support. Judicial decisions are the principal and most authoritative evidence, that can be given, of the existence of such a custom as shall form a part of the common law. The law, and the opinion of the judge are not always convertible terms, tho' it is a general rule that the decisions 278of courts of justice are the evidence of what is common law. See 1 Black. Com. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73. I have endeavoured to ascertain what is meant by the common law of England, and the method of determining all questions concerning it from Blackstone. Let us now see what is said upon the same subject by justice Fortescue Aland in the preface to his reports.1

Our judges, says he, do not determine according to their Princes or their own arbitrary will and pleasure, but according to the settled and established rules, and ancient customs of the nation, approved for many successions of ages. King Alfred who began to reign in 871, Magnus Juris Anglicani Conditor, the great founder of the laws of England, with the advice of his wise men, collected out of the laws of Ina, Offa, and Aethelbert, such as were the best, and made them to extend equally to the whole nation, and therefore very properly called them, the common law of England, because these laws were now first of all made common to the whole English nation. This jus commune, jus publicum, or Folcright, i.e. the peoples right, set done down in one code, was probably the same with the doombook or liber judicialis, which is referred to in all the subsequent laws of the Saxon Kings, and was the book that they determined causes by. And in the next reign, that of Edward the elder, the King commands all his judges to give judgment to all the people of England according to the doom book. And it is from this origin that our common law judges fetch that excellent usage of determining causes, according to the settled and established rules of law, and that they have acted up to this rule above eight hundred years together, and continue to do so to this day. Edward the confessor was afterwards but the restorer of the common law, founded by Alfred, and William the conqueror confirms and proclaims these to be the laws of England, to be kept and observed under grievous penalties, and took an oath to keep them inviolable himself. King Henry the first promised to observe them—King Stephen, King Henry the second and Richard the first confirmed them. King John swore to restore them. King Henry 3d confirmed them. Magna Charta was founded on them. And King Edward the first in parliament confirmed them—page 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

Now I apprehend General Brattle's opinion to be, that the common law of England, the birthright of every subject, or in the language of the Saxons, the Folcright, determines, the judges of the King's bench, and common pleas to have estates for life in their offices, determinable only on misbehaviour, or the demise of the Crown. And this I suppose 279was the meaning of Sir Thomas Powis, when he said, “I take it, by the common law, and the ancient constitution of the kingdom, all officers of courts of justice, &c. were in for their lives, &c. not only my lords the judges of the courts in Westminster Hall, were anciently, as they now are since this revolution, quam diu se bene gesserint.”2

I have never expressed any disrespect to the character of Sir Thomas Powis, and I have no disposition, to harbour any: It is enough for me to say, that these expressions were used by him, when arguing a cause for his client at the bar, not when he was determining a cause as a judge; that they were entirely unnecessary for the support of his cause, which was a very good one, let these expressions be true, or otherwise, i.e. whether the judges, were anciently, in for their lives, or only at pleasure: that they depend wholly upon his affirmation, or rather his opinion, without the colour or pretence of an authority to support them; and that I really believe them to be untrue. And I must add, it appears to me, extraordinary, that a gentleman, educated under that great Gamaliel, Mr. Reed, should ever adduce the simple dictum, of a council at the bar, uttered arguendo, and as an ornament to his discourse too, rather than any pertinent branch of his reasoning, as evidence of a point “settled and determined by the greatest sages of the law formerly and more lately.” Does Sir Thomas Powis produce, the doom book itself, in support of his doctrine? That was irrecoverably lost for ages before he had a being? Does he produce any judicial decision ancient or modern, to prove this opinion? No such thing pretended,—Does he produce, any legal authority, a Hengham, Britton, Fleta,3 Fortescue, Coke, or any Antiquarian, Mathew Paris, Dugdale, Lambard, or any other, or even the single opinion of one historian, to give a colour to his doctrine? No such matter. Nay I must enquire further, can general Brattle, draw from any of these sources, a single Iota to support this opinion? But in order to show for the present the improbability that any such authority will be found, let us look a little into history. Mr. Rapin, in his dissertation on the government of the anglo Saxons, vol. 1. 157.4 says, “one of the most considerable of the kings prerogatives was the power of appointing the earls, viscounts, judges and other officers, civil and military, very probably, it was in the king's power to change these officers, according to his pleasure, of which we meet with several instances in history.” By this it appears to have been Mr. Rapin's opinion, that very probably, the kings, under the ancient Saxon constitution, had power to change the judges, according to their pleasure. I would not be understood however to lay any great stress, 280on the opinions of historians, and compilers of antiquities, because it must be confessed, that the Saxon constitution, is involved in much obscurity, and that the monarchical and democratical factions in England, by their opposite endeavors, to make the Saxon constitutions, swear for their respective systems, have much increased the difficulty of determining to the satisfaction of the world, what that constitution in many important particulars, was. Yet Mr. Rapin certainly was not of that monarchical faction, his byass, if he had any, was the other way, and therefore his concession, makes the more in my favour.

Mr. Hume in his “feudal and Anglo Norman government and manners” v.i. quar. 412.5 says “the business of the court was wholly managed by the chief justiciary, and the Law Barons, who were men appointed by the king, and wholly at his disposal.” And since I am now upon Hume, it may be proper to mention the case of Hubert deBurgo, who while he enjoyed his authority, had an entire ascendency over Henry the Third, and was loaded with honours and favours beyond any other subject, and by an unusual concession was made chief justiciary of England for life. 2. Hume 162. Upon this I reason thus, if his being made justiciary for life, was an “unusual concession,” it could not be, by the immemorial, uninterrupted usage and custom, which is the criterion of common law. And the very next words of Hume shew, how valid and effectual this grant, of the office for life was then esteemed, “yet Henry, says Hume, in a sudden caprice, threw off this faithful minister,” which implies, that he was discarded and displaced in both his capacities because the summus justiciarius, or chief justiciary, was in those reigns, supream regent of the kingdom, and first minister of state, as well as of the law. And this seems to shew that the grant for life, was void and not binding on the King in the sense of those times, ancient as they were 1231. This summus justiciarius, is the officer, whose original commission, I gave the public, from lord Coke in my first paper, which was expressly during pleasure. And my lord Coke's account of the change of the chief justice's commission and authority may receive some additional light from lord Gilbert's historical view of the court of exchequer,6 page 7, towards the latter end of the Norman period; the power of the justiciar was broken, so that the Aula Regis, which was before one great court only distinguished by several offices, and all ambulatory with the King before Magna Charta, was divided into four distinct courts, Chancery, Exchequer, King's Bench, and Common Pleas. The justiciary was laid aside, lest he should get into the throne, as 281Capet and Pippin, who were justiciars in France, had done there. See also Gilbert's history and practice of the high court of chancery.7

Now from the exorbitant powers and authority of these justiciaries arises a proof from the frame of the government and the ballance of the estates that the office in those ages was always considered as dependent on the pleasure of the King, because the jealousy, between the Kings and Nobles, or between the monarchical and aristocratical factions, during the whole Norman period, were incessant and unremitted, and therefore it may be depended on that Kings never would have come into the method, of granting such an office usually for life. For such a grant, if had been made, and been valid, must have cost the grantor his throne, as it made the justiciar, independent of the King, and a much more powerful man than himself—and if during the whole Norman period and quite down to the death of Sir Edward Coke, a course of almost six hundred years, the offices of judges were held during pleasure, what becomes of the title to them for life, which General Brattle sets up, by immemorial, uninterrupted usage or common law?

Sir Thomas Powis, however, has not determined, whether, by the ancient constitution of the kingdom, he meant, under the Norman, or the Saxon period; and in order to shew the improbability, that the judges held their offices during good behaviour in either of those periods, I must beg the pardon of your readers, if I lead them into ages, manners and government, more ancient and barbarous, than any mentioned before. Our Saxon ancestors, were one of those enterprizing northern nations, who made inroads upon the provinces of the Roman empire, and carried with them wherever they went, the customs, maxims and manners of the feudal system: And although when they intermingled with the ancient Britons, they shook off some part of the feudal fetters, yet they never disengag'd themselves from the whole. They retained a vast variety of the regalia principis, of the feudal system, from whence most branches of the present prerogatives of our kings are derived. And among other regalia the creation, and annihilation of judges, was an important branch. For evidence of this we must look into the feudal law. It was in consequence of this prerogative, that the courts were usually, held in the aula regis, and often in the King's presence, who often heard and determined causes in person, and in those ages the justiciary was only a substitute or deputy to the king; whose authority ceased entirely in the King's presence. This part of the prerogative, has a long time ago been divested from the crown, and it has been determined 282that, the King has delegated all his authority to his judges. The power of the King in the Saxon period, over the judges, was absolute enough however, and they sometimes treated them with very little ceremony. Alfred himself is said in the mirror of justices8 to have hang'd up 44 of his judges in one year, for misdemeanors.

To some of these facts and principles, Bracton is a witness. “Dictum est, says he, de ordinaria, jurisdictene quae pertinet, ad regem; consequenter dicendum est de jurisdictione delegata ubi quis est seipso nullam habet authoritatem, sed ab illo sibi commissam cum ipse qui delegat non sufficiat per se omnes, causes, sive jurisdictiones terminare et si ipse dom, rex and ad singulus causas terminandas non sufficiat, ut levior fit illi labor, in plures personas, partito onere, eligere debet de regno suo viros sapientes et timentes deum. Item justiciariorum quidam sunt capitales generales, perpetui et majores a latere regis residentes qui omnium aliorum corrigere tenetur, jujurias et errores, sicut etiam alii perpetui certo loco residentes sicut in banco. Qui omnes jurisdictionem habere in cipiunt praestito sacramento. Et quam vis quidam eorum perpetui sunt ut videtur, finitur tamen eorum jurisdictio multis modis. v.g. mortuo eo qui delegavit, &c. Item cum delegans revocaverit jurisdictionem.” &c. Bracton. chap. 10. Lib. 3.9

Serjeant Levenz says,10 “if any judicial or ministerial office be granted to any man to hold, so long as he behaves himself well in the office, that is an estate for life, unless he loose it for misbehaviour. So was Sir John Waller's Walter's case, as to the office of chief baron of the exchequer”. To all this I agree, provided it is an office, that by custom, i.e. immemorial usage, or common law, (as that of the chief baron of the exchequer was,) or by an express act of parliament, (as that of clerk of the peace in the case of Harcourt against Fox was) has been granted in that manner, but not otherwise. And therefore these words have no operation at all against me. But the serjeant goes on, “And so was Justice Archer's case in the time of King Charles the second. He was made a Judge of the common pleas quam diu se bene gesserit, and tho' he was displaced as far as they could, yet he continued judge of that court to the time of his death; and his name was used in all the fines and other records of the court:”—General Brattle thinks these words are full in his favour, and he can't reconcile this patent to Judge Archer, with the history of Charles the second's reign &c. We shall presently see, if a way to reconcile it, cannot be discovered: But before I come to this attempt, as it is my desire to lay before the public, every thing I know of, which favours General Brattle's hypothesis, and to assist his argument to the utmost of my 283power, I will help him to some other authorities, which seem to corroborate, Serjeant Levinz's saying. And the first is Justice Fortescue Aland, Rep. 394. “Justice Archer was removed from the common pleas, but his patent being quam diu se bene gesserit, he refused to surrender his patent, without a scire facias, and continued justice, tho' prohibited to set there. And in his place Sir William Ellis was sworn.” The next is, Sir Tho's Ray. 217.11 “This last vacation Justice Archer was removed from sitting in the court of common pleas, pro quibusdam causis mihi incognitis; but the judge having his patent to be a judge, quam diu se bene gesserit, refused to surrender his patent without a scire facias, and continued justice of that court, tho' prohibited to sit there, and in his place, Sir William Ellis, kt. was sworn.”

But will any man from these authorities conclude, that King Charles the second, had power by the common law to grant Judge Archer an estate for life in his office? If he had, how could he be prohibited to sit? How came Justice Ellis to be sworn in his stead? Was not the admission of Ellis, by his brother judges, an acknowledgment of the King's authority?—Will any man conclude, from these authorities, that it had before been the custom time out of mind, for Kings to grant patents to the judges, quam diu se bene gesserint?—If we look into Rushworth 1366,12 we shall find some part of this mystery unriddled. “After passing these votes against the judges, and transmitting of them unto the house of Peers and their concurring with the house of commons therein, an address was made unto the King shortly after, that his Majesty for the future would not make any judge by patent during pleasure, but that they may hold their places hereafter quam diu se bene gesserint, and his Majesty did readily grant the same, and in his speech to both houses of parliament at the time of giving his royal assent to two bills, one to take away the high commission court, and the other the court of star-chamber, and regulating the power of the council table, he hath this passage—If you consider what I have done this parliament, discontents will not sit in your hearts; for I hope you remember that I have granted that the judges hereafter shall hold their places, quam diu se bene gesserint—And likewise his gracious Majesty King Charles the second observed the same rule and method in granting patents to judges, quam diu se bene gesserint, as appears upon record in the rolls (viz.) to Serjeant Hide Hyde, to lord chief justice of the King's bench, Sir Orlando Bridgeman to be lord chief baron, and afterwards to be lord chief justice of the common pleas, to Sir Robert Foster and others; Mr. Serjeant Archer now living (notwithstanding his removal) still 284enjoys his patent, being quam diu se bene gesserit, and receives a share in the profits of that court, as to fines and other proceedings, by virtue of his said patent, and his name is used in those fines, &c. as a judge of that court.” This address was in 1640.

This address of the two houses of parliament, which was in 1640, was made in consequence of a general jealousy conceived of the judges, and the general odium which had fallen upon them, for the opinion they gave in the case of ship money, and other cases, and because there had been not long before changes and removals in the benches; to mention only one, Sir Randolph Crew not shewing so much zeal for the advancement of the loan, as the King was desirous he should, was removed from his place of lord chief justice, and Sir Nicholas Hyde succeeded in his room. See Rushworth, 420. 2. Rush. Append. 266.13 —And King Charles in 1640 began to believe the discontents of his subjects to be a serious affair, and think it necessary, to do something, to appease them.

But will it do to say, that he had power to give away the prerogative of the crown, that had been established in his ancestors for 800 years, and no man can say how many centuries longer, without an act of parliament? against the express words of Lord Coke, which the General thanks me for quoting. “It is a rule in law that ancient offices must be granted in such forms and in such manner as they have used to be, unless the alteration was by authority of parliament.”

As to King Charles the IId, his character is known to have been a man of pleasure and dissipation, who left most kinds of business to his ministers, and particularly in the beginning of his reign, to my Lord Clarendon, who had perhaps a large share in procuring that concession from Charles the 1st, and therefore chose to continue it under the second.

But notwithstanding all this, Charles the IId, soon discovered that by law, his father's concession and his own, had not divested him of the power of removing judges, even those to whom he had given patents, quam diu se bene gesserint, and he actually re-assumed his prerogative, displaced Judge Archer and many others in the latter end of his reign, and so did his successor, see Skinner's reports14 and Ray. 251. These examples shew that those Kings did not consider these concessions as legally binding on them. They also shew, that the judges in Westminster-Hall were of the same mind, otherwise they would not have admitted the new judges in the room of those displaced; and it seems that even the judges themselves who were then displaced, Judge Archer himself did not venture to demand his 285place, which he might have done, if he had an estate for life in his office. Nay, it may be affirmed, that the house of Commons themselves, were of the same mind, for in the year 1680, in the reign of Charles the IId, after the removal of Archer and many other judges, the commons brought in a bill, to make the office of judge during good behaviour: see 8. Hume. 143. Now I think they would not have taken this course, if they had thought Archer had an estate for life in his office, but would have voted his removal illegal, and would have impeached the other judges for admitting another in his room.

Archers “continuing judge,” and “receiving fees for fines” and “his name's being used in the fines,” I conjecture are to be accounted for in this manner. He refused to surrender his patent, without a scire facias. The King would not have a scire facias brought, because, that would occasion a solemn hearing, and much speculation, clamour and heat, which, he chose to avoid; and as his patent remained unsurrendered and uncancelled, and as by law there might be more judges of the common pleas than four, and therefore the appointment of another judge, might not be a supersedeas to Archer, they might think it safest to join his name in the fines, and give him a share in the fees. And no doubt, this might be done in some instances to keep up the appearance of a claim to the place, and with a design to provoke the King's servants and friends to bring a sci. fa. and so occasion an odium on the administrations, and hasten on a revolution.

I have hazarded these conjectures, unnecessarily, for it is incumbent upon General Brattle to shew from good authorities, for the affirmative side of the issue is with him, that, by common law the judges had estates for life in their offices. In order to do this, he ought to shew that the King, at common law, i.e. from time immemorial, granted patents to these judges during good behaviour, or that he the King had his election to grant them either durante beneplacito or quam diu se bene gesserit, as he pleased. Nay, it is incumbent on him to shew that a patent, without either of these clauses, conveys an estate for life. None of these things has he done, or can he do.

It was never denied, nor doubted by me that a grant made in pursuance of immemorial custom, or of an act of parliament, to a man to hold so long as he should behave himself well, would give him an estate for life. The unanimous judgment of the court in that case of Harcourt against Fox proves this. But then, in that case an express act of parliament impowered the custos retulorum, to constitute a clerk of the peace for so long time as he should behave himself well. Nor have I any doubt that the patents to the Barons of the 286exchequer, which are by immemorial usage, quam diu se bene gesserint, convey to them an estate for life: but my difficulty lies here, no custom, no immemorial usage, no act of parliament enabled the King, to grant patents to the judges of Kings bench and common pleas, expressly quam diu se bene gesserint; and therefore, if Lord Coke's rule is right “that ancient offices must be granted in such forms and in such manner as they have used to be, unless the alteration be by authority of parliament,” —the Kings grant, at common law, to a judge of King's bench or common pleas, of his office for life in terms, or during good behaviour, which is tantamount, would have been void,—void I mean quoad an estate for life or good behaviour, but good as an estate at will, and I conceive when we read that the King cant make a Lord Chancellor for life, but that such a grant would be void, the meaning is, that the habendum for life or good behaviour shall be void; but that this shall not vitiate the other parts of the patents, but that they shall convey such estate, and such estate only, as the King had power by custom, or by statute to grant. I don't suppose that the writ to Lord Holt, or the patents to his brothers in the reign of King William were void, but I fear that had the King seen fit to have removed them, by writ, it would have been legally in his power, notwithstanding that clause in their commissions.

Two or three anecdotes, were omitted in my last, for want of room, which may be here inserted, in order to shew that General Brattle's “rule of the common law of England” originated in the reign of King Charles the first. I say originated, because the example of Hubert de Burgo, is so ancient and so uncertain, that it is even doubted by Baron Gilbert, whether he was ever chief justiciary or not.

In 1641 King Charles the first, finding his affairs in a desperate condition was obliged to consent to an act of the Scottish parliament, that no member of the privy council, no officer of state, none of the judges, should be appointed, but by advice and approbation of parliament; and all the officers of state were to hold their places quam diu se bene gesserint. Four of the present judges, who had been active on the side of prerogative, were displaced.

In 1642, the parliament of England, transmitted to the King at York, nineteen propositions, in order for an accommodation of the differences then subsisting, the twelfth of which, was, that the judges should hold their places quam diu se bene gesserint. See Rapin and Mrs. Maccaulay.

This was but about two years after the King had given orders, at the instance of parliament, and his royal promise in his public speech, that the judges commissions should for the future be granted quam diu se bene gesserint. And it proves incontestibly one of these things, either that the parliament thought the King's promise was void, as being what he had not power by law to promise—or that the grants so made would be void, at least as to the Habendum during good behaviour, or at least that the crown had its election by law to make judges at pleasure or at will, as it should see fit. Now if either of these apprehen-288sions were just, it could not be true that at common law, the judges had their commissions quam diu se bene gesserint, nor could it be true that by common law, the judges had estates for life in their offices, whether quam diu se bene gesserint was in their commissions or not.

I believe enough has been said, concerning these dark sayings of Powis and Levenz, let us now proceed to consider what was said by Lord Holt. And I must think the General has discovered a degree of art in managing his lordship's words that is very remarkable; and I beg the reader's patience while I develope in some detail this complicated mystery. In order to this I must state the case of Harcourt against Fox, for this will shew that the decision of that case, is no proof of any thing that I have ever denied, and that General Brattle has unaccountably misinterpreted Lord Holt's words.

The act of Parliament made in the first year of William and Mary says, “the Custos Rotulorum, or other having right to nominate a Clerk of the Peace, shall nominate and appoint a fit Person for the same, for so long Time only as such Clerk of the Peace shall demean himself well in his office.”

The Earl of Clare is made Custos, according to that Statute. By his deed he constituted the Plaintiff Harcourt to be Clerk of the Peace, “to have and execute that office so long as he did well behave himself in it.”

After this the Earl of Clare was removed, and my lord of Bedford was made Custos, and he by his deed appointed Fox the Defendant to be Clerk of the Peace, for so long Time as he should continue Custos, if the said Fox did behave himself well in the Office. And the Question as stated by Lord Holt, was “Whether or no, by the amotion of my lord of Clare from the office of Custos, Harcourt ceased to be Clerk of the Peace? for then the Law was for the Defendant, otherwise it was for the Plaintiff.”

Lord Holt concurred with his Brothers, that Judgment should be for the Plaintiff, and that he was still Clerk of the Peace—And after explaining his Reasons, at great length, and with great Learning and Perspicuity, he hath these Words.

“All that the Custos hath to do in reference to this Office of Clerk of the Peace, is to point out the Person that should have it; and as the other (i.e. the officer appointed by the C.J.) is in by custom, so here he is in by act of parliament; the custos where when he hath named him, he hath executed his authority, and cannot qualify the interest, which passeth by the act.

I am the more inclined to be of this opinion, because I knew the 289 temper and inclination of the parliament, at the time when this act was made; their design was that men should have places not to hold precariously, or determinable upon will and pleasure, but have a certain durable estate, that they might act in them without fear of loosing them; we all know it, and our places as judges are so settled, only determinable upon misbehaviour.”1

Now I would ask any impartial person, to what those words “We all know it” refer? We all know it? Know what?—That such was the temper and inclination of that parliament, and that such was their design. Can it be said that these words refer to words that follow? We all know it. Know what? “that our places as Judges are so settled?” —Some new kind of grammar, logick and common sense must be invented, and applied to this paragraph, before this construction can be adopted.

I will now repeat the words of General Brattle, “It is manifest to every one that doth not depend upon their memory, that Lord Chief Justice Holt, one of the sages of the law, apprehended that for the judges commissions being during good behaviour, was upon the rule of the common law. He says after a cause had been argued upon a special verdict; after Sir T. Powis and Serjeant Levenz had most positively affirmed, that this was the rule of the common law, not denied by the council for the other side, but rather conceded to; that in giving his opinion upon the whole matter, we all know it, says that great lawyer, and our places as judges are so settled, only determinable by misbehaviour.”2

Now I will ask the same impartial person, to what those words “We all know it” appear to refer, in the foregoing words of General Brattle? We all know it. Know what? That this was the rule of the common law as Powis and Levenz had most positively affirmed.

In Lord Holt's own mouth they referred to the temper, inclination and design of parliament, in General Brattle's writings they are made to refer seemingly, if not necessarily, to the sayings of Powis and Levenz, and to the rule of the common law. I hope this was the effect of haste, inadvertence, any thing rather than design in the General.

I must intreat every gentleman to look into that case of Harcourt and Fox, which is repeated in 1 Shower, at great length, and he must be convinced that taken all together, it makes against General Brattle rather than for him. It was determined, in that case as it had been long before 3. Ass. p1. 93 that to hold an office during good behaviour, was to hold it for life, determinable upon misbehaviour: this was never, and will never be deny'd by me. But it was not determined, 290that the judges offices were held so, or that the King had power to grant them so—What was said by Lord Holt concerning the judges offices, had no direct relation to the point then in judgment before him, which concerned only the office of clerk of the peace. It was only said incidentally, and not explained. It might and probably did mean no more than it was so settled by King William, in the patents he had given the judges as far as it was in his power to settle it; and that it was the inclination and design of the parliament and the then governing interest in the nation, that it should be so settled by act of parliament as soon as it would bear. For it should be here observed, that, although the friends of K. William were most numerous and powerful, yet James had friends too—many and powerful friends, and the government was then weak—the revolution was so recent, that they all had their fears. And the most sagacious of King Williams friends might not choose to have this matter settled very suddenly—they might choose that the judges should remain, subject to a revocation of their patents, if they should fail in supporting King William, altho' they chose to have their patents granted quam diu bene se gesserint, that they might have some hold of the royal word and honour, in order to obtain in due time a settlement of it by act of parliament.

Let me subjoin to this the authority of a very modern, tho' a very able and upright judge, I mean Sir Michael Foster 394.4 “The King (Richard the second) and his ministers, soon after the dissolution of the parliament, entered into measures for defeating this commission. One expedient was to take the opinion of the judges upon the whole proceeding; a refuge constantly open to a corrupt administration, though, be it spoken to the honor of the profession, not always a sure one; even while the judges commissions were determinable, at the pleasure of the Crown.” And in page 396, We find the eighth question propounded by the King to those judges was this, “Since the King can whenever he pleaseth, remove any of his judges and officers, and justify or punish them for their offences; Whether the lords and commons can without the will of the King impeach in parliament any of the said judges or officers for any other offences.” To which the judges answered unanimously, “That they could not, and if any one should do so, he is to be punished as a traitor.” See 1 State Trials,5 the proceedings against Chief Justice Tresillian and others.

It was said in a former paper, that the supream jurisdiction in all causes, and the power of creating and annihilating magistrates, was an important branch of the Jura Regalia Principis of the Feudal Law. These regalia were distributed into two principal divisions, the regalia 291majora and minora. The majora were those “quae personam et dignitatem principis et administrationem republics concernunt, ut collatio dignitatum regalium,6 et jurisdictio summa in causis ecclesiasticis et secularibus,” as well as the “jus belli et pacis &c. et haec alias jura magistatis dicuntur.” Strykii Examen Juris Feudalis.7

Supream sovereign jurisdiction therefore in all causes temporal and spiritual, was one of the greater royalties, or sublimest prerogatives of the feudal princes, and were inseparable from the feudal majesty: and they could not be granted away by the prince to any subject, so as to be irrevocable. And the feudal law says expressly, if an infeudation of these regalia majora should be made, “majestas divisionem non recipiat, nec jura ab ea seperari possint; distinguendum est inter ipsum, jus, et exercitium hujus juris; hoc alteri concedi potest, ut eodem utatur dependenter; illud veropenes principem remanet.”

Stryk. 173.

That this was one of the regalia majora. see, the Consuetudiners Feudorum, Tit. 56. Quae sint Regaliae—Potestas constituendorum magistratuum ad justitiam expediendam.

It was this old feudal idea, that such prerogatives were inseparable from majesty, and so incident and essential to the kingly office that not even an act of parliament could divest it of them; which puzzled the heads of the two James's and the two Charles's, and cost them and the nations they governed, very dear. It was this which was intended by Sir Edward Herbert and his brothers, who determined for Sir Edward Hale's case mentioned in a former paper,8 and gave their opinions and made it a general rule in law that the dispensing power, was an incident inseperable prerogative of the Kings of England, as of all other sovereign princes; and that this was not a trust invested in and granted to the King, but the ancient remains of the sovereign power of the Kings of England, which was never yet taken from them nor can be.

The way is now prepared for the most important question of all.

General Brattle declares his opinion in very strong terms, “that the Governor and Council cannot legally or constitutionally remove a justice of the superior court, as the commissions now are, unless there is a fair hearing and trial, and then a judgment that he hath behaved ill.”

This, I am content to make a question, after premising, that we ought in such enquiries, always to obtain precise ideas, and to give exact definitions of the terms we use, in order to arrive at truth. The 292question then appears to me to be different from what it would be, if we were to ask whether a justice of that court can be constitutionally removed without a trial and judgment? Many people receive different ideas from the words legally and constitutionally. The law has certainly established in the crown many prerogatives, by the bare exertion of which, in their utmost extent, the nation might be undone. The prerogatives of war and peace, and of pardon, for examples, among many others. Yet it would be absurd to say that the crown can constitutionally ruin the nation, and overturn the constitution. The British constitution is a fine, a nice, a delicate machine, and the perfection of it depends upon such complicated movements, that it is as easily disordered as the human body. And in order to act constitutionally every one must do his duty. If the King should suffer no parliament to sit for 12 years, by reason of continual prorogations, this would be an unconstitutional exercise of prerogative. If the commons should grant no supplies for 12 years, this would be an unconstitutional exertion of their privilege. Yet the King has power legally to do one, and the commons to do the other. I therefore shall not contend with General Brattle, what the Governor and Council can constitutionally do, about removing justices, nor what they can do in honor, integrity, conscience, or Christianity. These things I shall leave to the internal sentiments of future Governors and Councils: And shall confine myself to the question, whether they can legally remove a judge.

And it is with great reluctance that I frankly say, I have not been able hitherto, to find sufficient reason to convince me, that the Governor and Council have not, as the law now stands, power to remove a judge as the commissions now are, without a trial and judgment, for ill behaviour.

I believe it to be true that the judges, in all King William's reign, had their commissions quam diu se bene gesserint: Our Charter, and our Province Law erecting the Superior Court, were made in that reign. In the charter the King grants power to the Governor with advice and consent of Council to nominate judges, &c. and to the General Court to erect Judicatories, &c. and that “all and every of the subjects of us, our heirs and successors, which shall go to and inhabit within our said province and territory, and every of their children which shall happen to be born there, or on the seas in going thither, or returning from thence, shall have and enjoy, all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within any of the dominions of us, our heirs and successors, to all intents, constructions and purposes 293whatsoever, as if they and every of them were born within this our realm of England.”9

Now admitting for arguments sake, that the judges in England in that reign held their offices legally for life, determinable upon mis-behaviour, and that it was by law in that reign a liberty, of free and natural subjects born within the realms, that the judges should hold such an estate in their offices, what will be the consequence? Will it not be, that the Governor and Council, have power by charter and by law, to grant their commissions quam diu se bene gesserint? And that if the Governor and Council should grant their commissions in that manner, the judges would have estates for life in their offices. But will it follow, that they have such estates, if the Governor and Council do not grant them in that manner? Here then, if these principles are all just, let the just consequence be drawn; let the Governor and Council, I speak with humble defference and submission, issue the commissions to the judges, quam diu se bene gesserint; and if that is declined, let the province, I speak with all possible respect again, make their humble supplications to his Majesty that his Governor may be permitted, or instructed if you will, to grant them in that manner. I fear there is too much reason to think, as no judicature can be created but by the legislature, and the jurisdiction must appear in the erection, and as no judge at common law, or by the law of the province, can hold an office but by commission, that the duration of the judges office or estate must appear in the commission itself.

However, all this reasoning in favour of an estate for life in our judges, is built upon this principle, that Lord Holt and the judges in England, under King William, had estates for life, by law in their offices. And this principle implies, that the Crown at common law had authority to make judges to hold for life, or at will, at its pleasure, which is a problematical doctrine at least. Some of the passages of law and history which I have quoted in former papers, seem to be evidence, that at sometimes the houses of parliament, and some of the ministers of the law had such an apprehension, but a multitude of others, produced in the same papers betray an apprehension of the contrary. But I don't recollect a single circumstance in law or history, that favours the opinion that a judge there had an estate for life, without the words quam diu se bene gesserit, in his commission.

General Brattle took the right way of establishing the independency of our judges, by affirming that they had estates for life, by their nomination and appointment, and by common law, whether their commissions expressed quam diu se bene gesserint or not, or whether they 294had any commissions at all or not. And if he could have proved these allegations, he would have got his cause. But he has been extreamly unfortunate, in having Bracton, Fortescue, Coke, Foster, Hume, Rapin and Rushworth, directly against him, and nothing in his favour, but the say of a lawyer in arguing a cause for his client, and that say by no means so extensive as the General's assertions—for Powis himself don't say the judges at common law were in for their lives, without the clause quam diu se bene gesserint in their commissions. The questions that have been considered are liberal and of much importance. I have done little more than labour in the mines of oar and the quarries of stones. The materials are at the service of the public; and I leave them to the Jeweller and Lapidary, to refine, fabricate and polish them.