reign of Edward the Firft: our parliament rolls of Edward the Third's time, of Richard the Second's time, for the pernicious refolutions given at Notting'ham caftle, afford examples of this kind. In latter times, the parliament journals of 18 and 21 Jac. the judgment of the ship-money, in the time of Charles the Firft, queftioned, and the particular 'judges impeached 33.

THAT the conduct of the judges, even in their collective capacity, may fometimes be as cenfurable and corrupt as that of any other clafs of men, the decision of the judges in the cafe of fhip-money, affords, indeed, a very memorable inftance. Lord Clarendon himself, though both a lawyer and a royalift, expreffes great indignation at the iniquitous conduct of the judges at that period, and speaks of their decifion as

33 Vaughan's Reports, p. 139.

having been productive of the most pernicious confequences. He remarks, that the payment of fhip-money was more firmly opposed, after the judges had declared it to be legal, than it had been before. • That 'preffure,' fays he,' was borne with much 'more chearfulnefs before the judgment 'for the king, than ever it was after ; men before pleafing themselves with do'ing fomething for the king's fervice, as a 'teftimony of their affection, which they were not bound to do; many really be'lieving the neceffity, and therefore thinking the burthen reafonable; others obferving that the advantage to the king 'was of importance, when the damage to 'them was not confiderable; and all affuring themselves, that when they 'fhould be weary, or unwilling to con'tinue the payment, they might refort to 'the law for relief, and find it. But when

'law, as a right, and found it, by fworn judges of the law, adjudged fo, upon such grounds and reasons as every ftander-by 'was able to fwear was not law, and fo ⚫ had loft the pleasure and delight of being

kind and dutiful to the king; and, inftead of giving, were required to pay, ' and by a logic that left no man any thing which he might call his own, they no C more looked upon it as the case of one

man, but the case of the kingdom, not as 'an impofition laid upon them by the king, but by the judges; which they thought themselves bound in confcience to the public juftice not to fubmit to.'And here the damage and mifchief cannot be expreffed, that the crown and state sustained by the deferved reproach and infamy that attended the judges, by 'being made use of in this and like acts of power; there being no poffibility to preferve the dignity, reverence, and estima

tion of the laws themfelves, but by the integrity and innocency of the 'judges 34'

IN no cafes have the judges behaved with more shameful partiality, than in trials for libels, and in trials for high treafon. In many inftances, in fuch cafes, their conduct has been fo notoriously indefenfible, that the State Trials have been pleasantly termed, " a libel upon the judges." Indeed, the unfavourable statement of their conduct, in that collection, is fo much the more libellous, as it is unquestionably true. Hence, however, fufficient evidence may be adduced of the extreme folly and abfurdity, which would be manifefted by the people of this country, if they were to suffer juries to be deprived of any part of their ancient power and authority in fuch cafes. These are the cafes, in which judges are the most

34 Hift. Vol. 1. Part I. p. 69, 70. Edit. 8vo. 1707.

likely

likely to be under an undue influence on the part of the crown; and these, therefore, are the cafes, in which the fsubject has the moft occafion for the protection of a jury.

NOTHING can be more infamous, nor more inconfiftent with a free conftitution, than the doctrines which have been maintained by fome of the judges concerning libels. Mr. Juftice Allybone, in the case of the feven bishops, laid down the following doctrine respecting libels. I think, in the firft place, that no man can take upon him to write against the actual exercife of 'the government, unless he have leave from

the government, but he makes a libel, be • what he writes true or falfe; for if once we 'come to impeach the government by way of argument, 'tis the argument that makes "the government or nor the government; fo that I lay down that in the first place, 'that the government ought not to be impeached