To which Holt, chief-justice, in irá, said, that no books ought to be cited at the bar but those which were licensed by the judges." (1 Ld. Raym.537.) One of the earliest reporters who ventured to break through this custom was Tracy Atkyns, who published Reports tempore Lord Hardwicke, which, although not licensed by the judges, were cited by Lord Mansfield. (See 1 Black. Rep. 653, and the Preface to Atkyns' Rep.) Mr. Justice Foster also published his Reports without obtaining the sanction of the judges; an example which was soon afterwards followed by Sir James Burrow, who has stated his reasons for so doing in his Preface. "Licenses by the chancellor and the judges," he observes," proceed upon the character of the reporter only, without saying a word of the work itself, or that the licensers ever saw it. Such licenses (to allow and approve of the printing and publishing) took their rise from the necessity of a license to print, as the law formerly stood, and have continued in the same form of words (without any meaning) since the reason of them has ceased." It appears that the judges themselves were anxious to abolish this unmeaning "I have been assured," says Sir ceremony. James Burrow, in the same preface, "that some now possessed of judicial offices have declared, that they never would sign one, because it hangs out false colours, and misleads those who think

it gives the least approbation or authority to the work." "The same form of license and testimonial," says Mr. Douglas, "continued in use till not many years ago, when, as the one had become unnecessary, and the other was only a general commendation of the writer, and no voucher for the merit of the work, the judges, I believe, came to a resolution not to grant them any longer, and accordingly the more recent reports have appeared without them." (Pref. to Dougl. Rep. iii. and see his Introduction to Election Cases, p. 37.)

It appears to have been formerly usual for the writer of a law book to present a copy to each of the judges, a custom which the editor of Sir William Blackstone's Reports is blamed for having omitted. (See the Character of Sir W. Blackstone, p. 100.) Sir James Burrow makes a formal excuse for his omission of the practice of presenting copies to his friends. "I hope likewise for another favour from all who have honoured me with their acquaintance, which is, that they will be so good as to excuse my not sending them books; such a number have a right to expect presents, if I make any, that I have been advised to make none; it is not just that I should lose by the pains I have taken for the service of the profession; I am not solicitous to gain."

INTEGRITY OF THE JUDGES IN ELIZABETH'S REIGN.

re

It is very observable," says Lord Clarendon, in speaking of the opinions of the judges relative to ship-money," that in times when the prerogative went highest, never any court of law, very seldom any judge, or lawyer of reputation, was called upon to assist in any act of power." The consequence of this forbearance was, that the judges, in the earlier periods of our history, seldom interfered in political matters, and it was not until the reign of James I. that the system of rendering the bench subservient to the politics of the court was introduced. There is an instance, indeed, of an attempt made by Elizabeth to overawe the judges, who had the firmness to offer a successful resistance to the commands of their imperious mistress. Having created a new office in the Common Pleas, she bestowed it upon Richard Cavendish, one of her servants, and commanded the judges to admit him. This they de layed to do, alleging, that the prothonotaries claimed a right to perform the duties of the office. Upon this, her Majesty dispatched a severe letter to them, commanding them to shew the reasons of their contempt and disobedience, to the Lord Keeper and the Earl of Leicester. Which the judges did, alleging the grounds above mentioned. Not contented with this, the queen sent a peremp

tory message to admit Cavendish, adding, that if the others were put out, they were rich and able men, and that her courts of justice were open, where they might demand their rights,—that this was not to take away their right, but to put them to their action. The judges humbly answered, That the queen had taken her oath for the execution of justice according to law,-that they did not doubt but that when her majesty was informed that it was against law, she would do what befitted her; for their parts, they had taken an oath to God, to her, and the commonwealth, and if they should do it without process of law before them, and upon her command put the others out of possession, though the right remained to them, it were a breach of their oaths, and, therefore, if the fear of God were not sufficient, they told her, that the punishment that was inflicted upon their predecessors for breach of their oaths, (citing the case of Thorpe in Richard II.'s time,) might be sufficient warning to them.. The queen, upon hearing the reasons, was satisfied, and her judges heard no more of the business. (See 1 And. Rep. 152, and 3 How. State- Trials, 128.) In the succeeding reign, all the judges, with the exception of Sir Edward Coke, displayed a most pusillanimous spirit upon an occasion similar to the present, an account of which may be found in another part of these volumes,

!

THE BLUE LAWS OF CONNECTICUT.

Many very curious documents are preserved amongst the archives of the towns in the United States, which were the seats of the early settlers from this country. The peculiar opinions which these people, who were often very strict puritans, carried with them to their new abodes, are visible in the strange laws which they enacted, and in the reports of their judicial proceedings, still in existence. The code of 1650, being a compilation of the earliest laws and orders of the General Court of Connecticut, with some extracts from the laws and judicial proceedings of Newhaven Colony, commonly called Blue Law, was lately published, in a small volume, at Hartford, U. S. from which the following cases are extracted. The puritanical strictness of some of these decisions is highly amusing.

"A Court holden July 1, 1640.

"Thomas Parsons and John

servants

to Elias Parkmore, were whipped for their sinful dalliance and folly with Lydia Browne.

"John Lobell, the miller, was whipped for sinful dalliance with a little wench of Goodman -Hall's.

"Goodman Hunt and wife, for keeping the