THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE. 607

the, people of England in the House of Commons of their parlia-
ment, (c)

But the judicial department, in all the colonies, was poorly and
badly organized. Yet, for the most part, it was so composed of
justices, requring the concurrence of juries, as to sympathize im-
mediately with the people; and to act, most generally, according
to the interests of the colonists, regardless of those of the mother
country. After an angry struggle of many years it had been found,
that the mere appellate power of the king in council, which had been
established from the very beginning, was not alone sufficient, so to
control the colonial tribunals, as to induce them to execute the acts
of navigation and trade. Accordingly, for the purpose of affording
judicial protection to the interests of the mother country in the
colonies, courts of vice-admiralty, with jurisdiction over each colo-
ny, were finally established about the year 1700; by whose powers
the acts of trade were punctually executed. The judges of these
courts were appointed and paid by the king during pleasure; and,
were besides allowed sundry fees and perquisites of office. When
England attempted to lay internal taxes upon the colonies, juris-
diction in cases arising under the laws passed for that purpose was
given to those admiralty tribunals, in like manner as had been done
in cases of external re venue, (d)

(c) " The whole fabric of English liberty rose step by step, through much toil, and
many sacrifices; each generation adding some new security to the work, and trust-
ing that posterity would perfect the labour as well as enjoy the reward. A time
perhaps was even then foreseen, in the visions of generous hope, by the brave knights
of parliament, and by the sober sages of justice, when the proudest ministers of the
crown should recoil from those barriers, which were then pushed aside with impu-
nity."— (2 Hal. Mid. Ages, 179, Phil, edit.)

(d) The navigation acts, first introduced in the year 1651, by the famous Long
Parliament, with the intention of securing to England a monopoly of the trade of
her colonies, (3 Godw. Com. Eng. 382; 1 Bloc. Com. 418; Pown. Adm. Colo. 123,
4th edition, 1768;) being very injurious to their interests were warmly opposed by
them; insomuch so, that those laws remained almost as a dead letter, (Pown. Mm.
Colo. 109,) until, with a view to sustain the supremacy and monopoly of the mother
country, a statute was passed in the year 1696, (7 & 8 W. 3, c. 22, s. 7,) sanction-
ing the establishment of vice-admiralty courts in the colonies; which tribunals,
although some extensions of their jurisdiction were for a time disputed, it seems to
have been finally admitted, about the year 1700, might lawfully take cognizance of
all cases arising under the statutes passed by the parliament of England for the regu-
lation of the external trade of this country, (2 Chal. Opin. Em. Law, 187. 193; 2
Hutch. His. Mass. 74, 78.)

Before the revolution commenced there had been established a vice-admiralty
court for New Hampshire; another for Massachusetts and Rhode Island, (Chal. Pol.