respecting the right of nomination. The matter was at length accommodated by the interposition of the king himself, who, although the Lord Chief Justice might have enforced his right; stipulated with him to make a handsome allowance out of the profits to an orphan, who had lost his father in the service of the country. To this his lordship consented, and immediately appointed his brother, Mr. Rowland Hunt, who enjoyed the place with his death.

On the 20th of June, in Trinity term, 1694, (6 William and Mary,) Lord Chief Justice Holt delivered his admirable judgment in Lord Banbury's case, upon the right of that nobleman to be tried by his peers, for the murder of Captain Lawson, who had married his sister. Mr. Serjeant Skinner, speaking of this judgment, says, that it was more explicit than that of the other Judges; and delivered with greater reason, courage, and authority +. Upon one of the objec tions, that the judgment was said to be given secundum legem parliamenti, his lordship said, that " he did not know any reason for this objection which the king's counsel had inserted, if it was not to frighten the Judges. But that, he said he did not regard; for though he had all respect and deference for that honourable body, yet he sat there to administer justice, according to the law of the land, and according to his oath; and that he ought not to regard any thing but the discharge of his duty. As to the law of parliament he did not know of any such law, and every law which binds the subjects of this realm, ought either to be the common law and usage of the realm, or an act of parliament; nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, aut per legem terræ ; but if there were any such law and custom of parliament, (the which Mr. Attorney said, was inter arcana imperii, which is a strange notion of a law, though it may be good in politics; and for which the lords would not thank him, when they considered that the law which governs the inheritance of their dignity is inter-arcana) it ought either to be recognized by act of parliament, and there is no such act; or it ought to be by custom, and no more is there any such custom." With the concurrence of the whole court, judgment was given for the defendant.

The bold and manly manner in which the Lord Chief Justice expressed his opinion, upon some nice and questionable points of privilege, arising in this case, produced con

It is reported in Lord Raymond, Salkeld, Carthew, Comberbatch, Skinner, and the Modern Reports.

+ Skinner's Rep. p. 517.

siderable ferment in the upper house; and in Hilary term, 1697, he was summoned by the peers to give his reasons for his judgment. A committee, of which the Earl of Rochester was chairman, being appointed to hear and report them to the house. But with that firmness which peculiarly cha racterized him, his lordship refused to give them in so extrajudicial a manner. "If," said he, "the record were removed before the peers, by writ of error, so that it comes judicially before them, I will give my reasons very willingly; but if I give them in this case, it will be of very prejudicial consequence to all Judges hereafter, in all cases." This answer so offended some of the lords, that they pressed for his committal to the tower; but his decision and firmness disappointed all their efforts.

This hostile and illegal attempt on the part of the House of Lords, to intimidate the Chief Justice, produced no effect upon him, as an instance which occurred a few years afterwards proves. The bishop of St. David's applied to the King's Bench for a prohibition, which the Chief Justice refused. This produced a petition to Lord Chancellor Somers for a writ of error, upon this denial of the prohibition. The writ being granted, and the whole record brought by the Chief Justice into Parliament, the lords upon hearing his reasons for the opinions he had given, concurred with him that a writ of error could not lie in this case. But his Lordship told Lord Chief Justice Raymond*, that even if the lords had been of opinion that the prohibition ought to have been granted, that he never would have granted it.

The next important case which occupied the attention of Lord Chief Justice Holt, was one, well-known by the name of the Banker's Case; and it derives part of its great interest from producing a difference of opinion between the Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor Somers, whose argument in the Exchequer Chamber, on the 23d of June, 1696, is equally admired for the great elegance of the style and method, and for its comprehension and learning. It is not only esteemed one of the finest performances of the law, but has satisfied very able lawyers of the legality of his judgment +.

King Charles II. had mortgaged the whole revenue of the crown to different bankers, for an immense debt, and paid

* Lord Raymond, vol. i. p. 545.

+ It is said that the search of records and precedents to enable Lord Somers to give his judgment in this case, cost him 7001,

them interest at the rate of 8 per cent. while those who entrusted their property to the bankers, to enable the latter to nake these loans to the crown, received only 6 per cent. In the year 1672, the Exchequer payments were stopped, and multitudes ruined. About five years after, his Majesty granted letters patent to all persons concerned, for the payment of the annual pension of 6 per cent. out of the hereditary excise given by parliament, instead of the wards and liveries, upon the principal sums due to them, on delivering up their securities, and accepting proportionable assignments in satisfaction of their debts. The payments were made regularly by virtue of these letters patent, until Ladyday, 1693, after which they were stopped during the remainder of King Charles's reign, the whole reign of King James II. and for three quarters of a year after the revolution.

In Hilary term, 1 William & Mary, 1689, a petition was presented by Joseph Hornby, to the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer, for the allowance of the letters patent. The attorney-general demurred generally, and the court gave judgment for the petitioner Hornby; upon which the attorney general brought a writ of error in, the exchequer chamber, where Lord Chief Justice Holt, delivered his opiDion in affirmance of judgment, in Trinity term, 1695 *.

The first point in question in the case was-Whether the grant under the letters patent was good?-Upon that Lord Chief Justice Holt argued in the affirmative, being of opinion that the king was seized of an estate in fee of this revenue, to which a power of alienation was incident.

The second point was- -Whether a proper course of procceding had been adopted by the patentees? Upon this point also, the Lord Chief Justice held, that the petitioners had taken a proper and legal remedy, and that the judgment of the barons in favour of the petitioners should be affirmed.

Lord Chief Justice Treby differed in opinion with the other Judges, and Lord Somers concurring, the judgment was reversed. The ground upon which the latter delivered the elaborate judgment which has been already noticed, was that the patentees had not taken a proper remedy by petition to the barons, who have no power or control over the king's treasury, and that their only remedy was by petition to the king himself.

* Mod. Rep. vol. v. p. 29, 30. 53.

This decision occasioned much clamour from the extensive and ruinous consequences to the persons concerned, but an act which was soon afterwards passed, appeased their dissatisfaction. By the statute 12 & 13 Wm. III. c. 12, the revenue of the excise was applied as a security for 820,00001. and a weekly payment of 3,700l. to the civil list; subject at the same time to an annual payment of 3 per cent. on the whole principal due to the bankers, from the 26th of December, 1705, which principal was made redeemable on payment of a moiety.

Upon the resignation of Lord Somers, on Saturday, the 27th of April, 1700, after the seal had remained for some time undisposed of, King William pressed Lord Chief Justice Holt to accept of it*; but he steadily refused, and at last told his majesty," That he never had but one Chancery cause in his life, which he lost, and consequently could not think himself qualified for so great a trust. It being then term time, and much inconvenience arising from the vacancy, a commission was issued, in which Sir John Holt was named the first commissioner, Sir Thomas Trevor, master of the Rolls, Sir George Treby, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and Sir Edward Ward, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, being the other commissioners. The commission, however, was but of short duration, the great seal being in a few days afterwards delivered to Sir Nathan Wright.

Upon queen Ann's accession to the throne, notwithstanding the act of parliament +, which had been passed in the preceding reign, empowering all persons in offices of trust, to act therein after the devise of the crown as before, for six months, unless displaced by the successor, and particularly in the office of Chief Justice; yet Lord Chief Justice Holt held his patent to be determined by that event, and therefore declined executing the duties of his office; upon which the queen in council gave immediate orders to issue a new writ for him §.

It would be an endless task to enumerate the various

• Prior, in a letter to the Earl of Manchester, dated at Hamptoncourt, 2d May, 1700, says, My Lord Chief Justice Holt, having been here to-day, and with the king in private, has given people occasion to say, that he has refused the seals: if it be so or not, I cannot say, but as yet the seals are not disposed of."

+ Boyer's history of queen Anne, p. 52.

Stat. 12 & 13 William III. c. 2.

Lord Reymond Rep. vol. ii. p. 747. Fortescue, Rep. 389.

judgments delivered by Lord Chief Justice Holt, upon questions of great public importance, and in which his great learning and talents were particularly displayed; for he was never satisfied with merely delivering an opinion, but laboured to convice all who heard him.-Many of his luminous decisions contain a complete investigation of the law, from the earliest periods, and this observation particularly applies to his judgment in the case of Coggs and Bernardt, in which he illustrated with great ability the important subject of the law of bailments.

In the year 1708, Lord Chief Justice Holt published a a volume of Reports of Cases in Pleas of the Crown, tempore Charles the Second, with instructions for justices of the peace and others, collected by Sir John Keyling, Knt.*

+ Lord Raym. Rep. vol. ii. p. 909.

Sir John Keyling was of the Inner Temple, and called to the degree of a Serjeant at Law in Michaelmas Term, 13 Charles II. 1661; on which occasion he gave rings with this singular inscription-a Dest Caro LVs MagnVs: the large letters (MDCLVV) made the year of the Restoration, 1660. He was made one of the Judges of the King's Bench the 18th of June, 1663, in the room of Sir Thomas Mallet, who retired from town to his country seat, having first petitioned the King to dispense with his attendance, by reason of his great age, which the King granted, continuing to him his patent and salary; so there were five Judges, although but four attended. Sir John Keyling was constituted Chief Justice on the 21st of November, 1665, 17 Car. II.-In Michaelmas term, 1669, 21 Charles 2d, Mr. Serjeant Powys coming to the King's Bench bar, who was the junior of seventeen who had been made a day or two before in that term, the Lord Chief Justice told him that he had something to say to him, viz. " That the rings which he and the rest of the serjeants had given, weighed but eighteen shillings a-piece; whereas Fortescue in his book, De Laudibus Legum Angliæ, (cap. 50. p. 114.) says that the rings given to the Chief Justices ought to weigh twenty shillings a-piece; and that he spake not this expecting a recompense, but that it might not be drawn into a precedent, and that the young gentlemen there might take notice of it."

Burnet, in the History of His Own Times, (p. 184,) says that Chief Justice Keyling prepared the Act of Uniformity. (Stat, 13 and 14. Charles II. cap. 4.)

The hasty temper of the Chief Justice seems to have subjected him to some unpleasant occurrences; for in the year 1666 he was questioned in parliament for over-awing and putting a restraint upon juries; when the house came to several resolutions upon his case, and ordered him to be prosecuted; but the house being prorogued, and he himself not long after dying in discontent, it does