[13] See among others Mr. Locke on Government, and Dr. Priestley’s Essay on the first Principles of Government.
[14] See Dr. Priestly on Government, page 68, 69, &c.
[15] The independency of the Judges we esteem in this country one of our greatest privileges.—Before the revolution they generally, I believe, held their places during pleasure. King William gave them their places during good behaviour. At the accession of the present Royal Family their places were given them during good behaviour, in consequence of the Act of Settlement, 12 and 13 W. III. C. 2. But an opinion having been entertained by some, that though their commissions were made under the Act of Settlement to continue, during good behaviour, yet that they determined on the demise of the Crown; it was enacted by a statute made in the first year of his present Majesty, Chap. 23. “That the commissions of Judges for the time being shall be, continue, and remain in full force, during their good behaviour, notwithstanding the demise of his Majesty, or of any of his Heirs and Successors;” with a proviso, “that it may be lawful for his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, to remove any Judge upon the address of both Houses of Parliament.” And by the same Statute their salaries are secured to them during the continuance of their commissions: His Majesty, according to the preamble of the Statute, having been pleased to declare from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament, “That he looked upon the independency and uprightness of Judges as essential to the impartial administration of Justice, as one of the best securities to the Rights and Liberties of his loving Subjects, and as most conducive to the honour of his Crown.”
A worthy friend and able Lawyer has supplied me with this note. It affords, when contrasted with that dependence of the Judges which has been thought reasonable in America, a sad specimen of the different manner in which a kingdom may think proper to govern itself, and the provinces subject to it.
[16] Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws, Vol. I. Book 11. C. xix.
[17] This is particularly true of the bounties granted on some American commodities (as pitch, tar, indigo, &c.) when imported into Britain; for it is well known, that the end of granting them was, to get those commodities cheaper from the Colonies, and in return for our manufactures, which we used to get from Russia and other foreign countries. And this is expressed in the preambles of the laws which grant these bounties. See the Appeal to the Justice, &c. page 21, third edition. It is, therefore, strange that Doctor Tucker and others, should have insisted so much upon these bounties as favours and indulgencies to the Colonies.—But it is still more strange, that the same representation should have been made of the compensations granted them for doing more during the last war in assisting us than could have been reasonably expected; and also of the sums we have spent in maintaining troops among them without their consent; and in opposition to their wishes.—See a pamphlet, entitled “The rights of Great Britain asserted against the claims of America.”
[18] It is remarkable that even the author of the Remarks on the Principal Acts of the 13th Parliament of Great Britain, &c. finds himself obliged to acknowledge this difference.—There cannot be more detestable principles of government, than those which are maintained by this writer. According to him, the properties and rights of a people are only a kind of alms given them by their civil governors. Taxes, therefore, he asserts, are not the gifts of the people. See page 58, and 191.
[19] See Observations on Reversionary Payments, page 207, &c.
[21] The author of Taxation no Tyranny will undoubtedly assert this without hesitation, for in page 69 he compares our present situation with respect to the Colonies to that of the antient Scythians, who, upon returning from a war, found themselves shut out of their own Houses by their Slaves.