WILLIAM AND MARY.

295

judges, but bad not made them entirely independent. Theywere remunerated partly by fees and partly by salaries. Over -the fees the King had no control: but the salaries he had fullpower to reduce or to withhold. That William had ever abusedthis power was not pretended: but.it was undoubtedly a powerwhich no prince ought to possess; and this was the sense ofboth Houses. A bill was therefore brought in by which a salaryof a thousand a year was strictly secured to each of the twelvejudges. Thus far all was well. But unfortunately the salarieswere made a charge on the hereditary revenue. No such pro-position would now be entertained by the House of Commons,without the royal consent previously signified by a Privy Coun-cillor. But this wholesome rule had not then been established;and William could defend the proprietary rights of the Crownonly by putting his negative on the bill. At the time there was,as far as can now be ascertained, no outcry. Even the Jacobitelibellers were almost silent. It was not till the provisions of thebill had been forgotten, and till nothing but its title w r as re-membered, that William was accused of having been in-fluenced by a wish to keep the judges in a state of de-pendence.*

* Burnet (ii. 86.). Burnet had evidently forgotten what the hill con-tained. Ralph knew nothing about it but what he had learned from Burnet.I have scarcely seen any allusion to the subject in any of the numerousJacobite lampoons of that day. ' But there is a remarkable passage in apamphlet which appeared towards the close of William’s reign, and whichis entitled The Art of Governing by Parties. The writer says, “We stillwant an Act to ascertain some fund for the salaries of the judges; andthere was a bill, since the Revolution, past both Houses of Parliament tothis purpose: but whetl/er it was for being any way defective or otherwisethat His Majesty refused to assent to it, I cannot remember. But I knowthe reason satisfied me at that time. And I make no doubt but he’ll consentto any good bill of this nature whenever 'tis offered.” These words con-vinced me that the bill was open to some grave objection which did notappear in the title, and which no historian had noticed. I found among thearchives of the House of Lords the original parchment, endorsed with the

CHAP.

XV1JI.

* I