THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 569

But the judicial department, in all the colonies, was poorly and
badly organized. Yet, for the most part, it was so composed of
justices, requiring 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 suffi-
cient, 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 jurisdic-
tion over each colony, 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, jurisdiction 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 revenue, (d)

(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 Godu: Com. Eng. 382; 1 Blac. Com. 418; Pawn.
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. Adm. 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. 23, s. 7.)sanctioning the establishment of Vice-
Admiralty Courts in the colonies; which tribunals, although some exten-
sions 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
regulation of the external trade of this country. (3 Chal. Opin. Em. Law,
187, 193; 2 Hutch. His. Mass. 74, 78.)

Before the Revolution commenced there had been established a Vice-Admi-
ralty Court for New Hampshire; another for Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
(Chal. Pol. Ann. 282; 3 Chal. Opin. Em. Law, 208;) a third for Connecticut,
New York, and New Jersey, (1 Smith's His. N. York, 383; a fourth for Penn-
sylvania and Delaware; (2 Chal. Opin. Em. Law, 190;) a fifth for Maryland,
(1715, ch. 48, s. 7; 1763, ch. 18, s. 97 & 98; Kilt. Rep. 163;) a sixth for Vir-
ginia, (3 Virg. Stat. 178;) a seventh for North Carolina, (1 Chal. Opin. Em.
Law, 378;} an eighth for South Carolina, (6 State Trials, 157,) and a ninth for
Georgia, (Stokes' View Brit. Col. 133). These Vice-Admiralty Courts were
not only invested with authority to take cognizance of the ordinary instance
and prize cases: but also with jurisdiction, according to the course of admi-
ralty proceeding, without a jury, in all revenue cases; and of all prosecu-
tions for the breach of the laws of navigation and trade; and also of the
statutes for the preservation of pine trees for the use of the navy, (2 Hutch.
His. Mass. 328; Pown. Adm. Colo. 312; 1 Chal. Opin. Em. Law, 111, 119; 9
Anne, c. 17; 8 Geo. 1, c. 12, & 3 Geo. 2, c. 35.) The colonists insisted, that