48

SIR JOHN HOLT, KNT.

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.*

[1642-1709.]

THIS ornament of the bench, whose character deserves to be transmitted with veneration to the latest posterity, was the son of Sir Thomas Holt, Recorder of Abingdon. He was born at Thame, in Oxfordshire, in the year 1642; and his father soon afterward removing to Abingdon, he received the rudiments of his education at the free-school of that place; whence, at a proper age, he was transferred to Oxford, and became a gentleman-commoner of Oriel College. There, however, he did not remain long enough to entitle him to a degree; having in 1658 removed to Gray's Inn, where he applied himself with such industry to the study of the law, that he quickly became an eminent barrister.

In 1685, he was made Recorder of London, by the King's letters patent.† This office he exe

* AUTHORITIES. Life of Sir John Holt, 1764; Macaulay's History of England; Biographia Britannica; and British Biography.

+ The reason of his being appointed, as well as his predecessor, by the crown, was that the city of London had been de

cuted with great ability for about a year and a half, in the course of which he received the honour of knighthood; but declining to lend his assistance in support of the dispensing power, which James II. was then solicitous to exercise, he was removed. He had previously, also, given offence by another instance of uncourtliness, in refusing to expound the law agreeably to that Monarch's pleasure.

In 1686, he was called to the degree of Serjeant at Law; and being chosen a member of the Convention Parliament in 1688, was appointed one of the Managers for the Commons, at the conferences held with the Lords about his Majesty's Abdication and the consequent vacancy of the Throne. Upon this important occasion, he had abundant opportunities of displaying his attachment to a limited government, which probably contributed to his advancement after the Revolution.

6

After the accession of the new Sovereigns, in 1689, Sir John Holt was made Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and soon afterward sworn ex officio a member of the Privy Council: and though (as Burnet observes) he was a young man for so high a post, yet he maintained it all his time with an high reputation for capacity, integrity, courage, and great despatch; so that, since the Lord Chief Justice Hale's time, that bench had not been so well filled as it was by him.' To the functions of his important office he applied himself, indeed, with the utmost assiduity. He was perfect master of the common law; and with his solid

prived of it's charter in 1683; but this was restored to it at the Revolution.

judgement, extensive capacity, and perspicacious understanding he united such a degree of resolution and intrepidity, that he never could be induced to swerve for a moment from what he believed to be right.

During the period of his presiding in this court, many cases deeply affecting the lives, rights, and liberties of the people came in judgement before him. In his definitions, there was a remarkable clearness and perspicuity of ideas; and a distinct arrangement of them, in the analysis of his ratiocinations. Having rightly formed his premises, he seldom erred in his conclusions. His arguments were instructive and convincing; and his integrity would never suffer him, even in compliance with his Prince or with either House of Parliament, to deviate from truth and justice.

*

A remarkable instance of his public spirit and integrity was exhibited upon the following occasion: On June 20, 1694, he delivered his admirable argument in the celebrated case of Lord Banbury. An indictment had been found at Hicks' Hall against the defendant Lord Banbury, by the name of Charles Knollys, Esq. for the murther of Captain Lawson, who had married his sister: this indictment was removed by certiorari into the King's Bench, where the defendant pleaded a misnomer in abatement, viz. that William Knollys, Viscount Wallingford, by letters patent under the great seal of England bearing date the eighteenth day of August, 2 Car. I. was created Earl of Banbury, "to have and to hold the

They are most of them well reported by Chief Justice Raymond.

dignity to him and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten;" that William had issue Nicholas, his successor; and that through him the dignity had descended upon the defendant, as his son and heir.' To this plea the Attorney General (Sir Edward Ward) replied, that the defendant, upon the thirteenth of December, 4 William and Mary, had preferred a petition to the Lords, then in parliament assembled, that he might be tried by his Peers; and that after long consideration that House, disallowing his peerage, had dismissed his petition secundum legem parliamenti, and made an order that he should be tried by the course of the common law. To this replication the defendant demurred, and the Attorney General joined in demurrer.

Upon this case, which was several times solemnly argued at the bar, the Court of King's Bench unanimously pronounced in favour of the defendant. The Chief Justice in particular gave it as his opinion, in the strongest terms, that the Court could pay no regard to the order of the House of Lords, by which it was attempted to deprive Lord Banbury of his privilege; as peerage was an inheritance, and all inheritance must be determined by the law of the land. "That House (he observed) had no jurisdiction in an original cause, because it is the last resort. If the parliament took cognisance of original causes, the party would lose his appeal, which the common law indulgeth in all cases, for which reason the parliament is kept for the last resort; and causes come not there, until they have tried all judicatories. If a peer commits treason, or any other crime, he ought to be tried by his peers; but that does not give them any

right to deprive him of his peerage, when the discussion of his title does not come in a legal manner before them. The House of Peers has jurisdiction, indeed (he admitted) over it's own members, and is a supreme court: but it is the law, which has invested them with such ample authorities; and therefore it is no diminution of their power to say, that they ought to observe those limits which this law has prescribed for them, which in other respects hath made them so great.' His Lordship farther remarked, that as to 'the law of parliament,' which had been talked of, he did not know of any such law; and every law, which binds the subjects of this realm, ought to be either the common law and usage of the realm, or an act of parliament. What had been said of the law by the King's counsel, he considered as only intended to frighten the Judges; but that he did not regard it: 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 should regard nothing but the discharge of his duty.'

He was afterward summoned to give his reasons for this judgement to the House of Peers; and a Committee, of which the Earl of Rochester was chairman, was appointed to hear and report them to the House. But with this summons he refused to comply. " If the record indeed," he said, "were removed before the Peers by Writ of Error, so that it came judicially before them, he would give his reasons very willingly; but, if he gave them in this case, it would be of very ill consequence to all Judges hereafter in all cases." By this answer, some of the Peers were so highly of