brother the Right Honorable Henry Pelham Memoirs of Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield Memoirs of George Lord Lyttelton THE BRITISH PLUTARCH. THE LIFE OF SIR JOHN HOLT, KNT; LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF KING'S-BENCH, [A. D. 1642, to 1709.] THIS great ornament of the law, whose character deserves to be held in the highest veneration to latest posterity, both as a patriot and a judge, was the son of sir Thomas Holt, an eminent lawyer who flourished in the reign of Charles II. and was recorder of the town of Abingdon in Berkshire. Our excellent judge was born at Thame, in Oxfordshire, in the year 1642; and his father soon after removing to Abingdon, he received the first rudiments of education at the free-school of that place; from which he was removed at a proper age to Oxford, and entered a fellow-commoner of Oriel-college, under the tuition of Mr. Francis Barry. He remained however but a short time at the university, not long enough to entitle him to a degree; for in 1658, the seventeenth year his age, he entered himself of Gray's inn before he took a degree; some time after which he was called to the bar, where he applied himself with such great industry to the study of the common law, that he soon became a very eminent barı ister. of In 1685, Mr. Holt was made recorder of London, by the king's letters patent. The reason of his being appointed to this office by the crown, as was also the case with his predecessor, was, that the city of London had been deprived of its charter and privileges in the year 1683; but these were restored to them again at the revolution. Mr. Holt executed the office of recorder with great ability, for about a year and a half; and in the mean time received the honor of knighthood. However, he was then removed, because he would not assist in supporting the dispensing power, which king James II. was solicitous to exercise. It is said that Holt also gave offence at court in another instance, by refusing to expound the law agreeably to his majesty'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, he was appointed to be one of the managers for the commons, at the conferences held with those of the lords, about the abdication, and the vacancy of the throne and on that important occasion he had an opportunity of displaying his great abilities, and his attachment to a legal and limited government; which probably contributed to his advancement after the revolution. King William and queen Mary being now fixed upon the throne, on the fourth of May, 1689, sir John was made lord-chief-justice of the court of king's-bench; and soon after was sworn a member of the privy-council. Bishop Burnet says, "That though 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 dispatch; so that, since the lord-chief-justice Hale's time, that bench had not been so well filled as it was by him. During the time lord-chief-justice Holt presided in the court of king's-bench, many cases of the utmost importance, and highly affecting the lives, rights, and properties of the people, came in. judgment before him." There was a remarkable clearness and perspicuity of ideas in his lordship's definitions; a distinct arrangement of them in the analysis of his arguments; and the real and natural difference of things was made most perceptible and obvious, when he distinguished be tween matters which bore an untrue resemblance to each other. Having thus rightly formed his premises, he seldom erred in his conclusions. His arguments were instructing and convincing; and his integrity would not suffer him to deviate from truth and justice, to gratify those of the most exalted rank, not even in compliance to his prince, or either house of parliament. A remarkable instance of his public spirit, fortitude and inte grity, is exhibited in the following cause: On the 20th of June, 1694, lord-chief justice Holt delivered his most excellent argument in the famous cause of lord Banbury. The case was, that an indictment had been found at Hick's-hall against the defendant, lord Banbury, by the name of Charles Knollys, esq. for the murder of captain Lawson (who had married the sister of the defendant), and the indictment was removed by certiorari into the king's-bench, where the defendant pleaded a misnomer in abatement, viz. that William Knollys, viscount Wallingfort, by letters patent under the great seal of England (which he produced in court), bearing date the 18th day of August, 2 Car. I. was created earl of Banbury, to have and to hold, the dignity to him and the heirs male of his body, lawfully begotten; that William had issue Nicholas, who succeeded William in the dignity, from whom the dignity descended upon the defendant, as son and heir to Nicholas. The attorney-general replied in this plea, that the defendant, upon the thirteenth of December, 4th of William and Mary, preferred a petition to the house of peers, then in parliament assembled, that he might be tried by his peers; and that after long considerations and debates, the house of peers dismissed his petition, secundum legem parliamenti, and disallowed his peerage, and made an order, that the defendant should be tried by the course of the common law. To this application the defendant demurred, and the attorney-general joined in demurrer. The case was several times solemnly argued at the bar by sir Edward Ward, attorney-general, sir Thomas Trevor, solicitor. general, and sir William Williams, council for the crown; and by serjeant Pemberton, serjeant Levinz, and sir Bartholomew Shower, for the defendant. The court of king's bench unamimously gave their opinion in favour of lord Banbury; but it was lord chiefjustice Holt who chiefly distinguished himself upon this occassion. He gave it as his opinion in the strongest terms, that lord Banbury was entitled to the privilege of peerage; and that the court of king's-bench could pay no regard to the order of the house of lords, by which it was attempted to deprive that nobleman of his privilege; because peerage was an inheritance, and all inheritance must be determined by the law of the land, and not by an ordinance of the house of peers. He observed, "that the house of lords has no jurisdiction in an original cause, because that supreme court is the last resort. If the parliament," he said, "took cognizance of original causes, the party would lose his appeal, which the com. mon law indulgeth in all cases, for which reason the parliament is kept for the last resort; and causes came 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," he agreed, "has jurisdiction over its 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 hath prescribed for them, which in other respects, hath made them so great." His lordship said also, 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 this realm, or an act of parliament.” He added, "that he considered what had been said by the king's council, of the law of parliament, as only intended to frighten the judges; but," he said, " that he did not regard it; for though he had all respect and deference for that honorable 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." Lord-chief-justice Holt was afterwards summoned to give his reasons for this judgement to the house of peers, and a committee was appointed to hear and report them to the house, of which the earl of Rochester was chairman, But Holt refused to give the reasons for his judg nt in so extrajudicial a manner. He said, however, that if the record was 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." At which answer some lords were so offended, that they would have |