nactment had exceeded its powers. The act of parliament by which the
council was constituted contained a provision to the effect that a tax
should be levied only for local purposes, "to be distinctly and
particularly stated in the body of the bill." It was contended that the
restriction was violated, since the Dog Act contained no specific
appropriation, and the amount was carried to the general revenue. The
government, willing to avoid the trial of this point, did not hasten to
enforce the penalty. It was understood that Judge Montagu had not
obtained a license for dogs on his premises, and Mr. Morgan, then editor
of the _Britannia_, announced to the government that he was an owner of
dogs, that he had paid no license fee, and intended to pay none. The
chief constable was directed to recover the penalties. Mr. Morgan being
fined, appealed to the quarter sessions, and then to the supreme court.
The judges, having heard the arguments of counsel, declared that the Dog
Act imposed a tax and exceeded the powers of the council. They therefore
annulled the decision of the inferior courts (Nov. 22, 1847).

The views which dictated this judgment affected a more important
act--the Differential Duties. Several merchants paid these charges under
protest, and entered their suit for recovery. A revenue of L20,000 per
annum was thus in peril. It was stated by the governor and crown
lawyers that the judges themselves had passed the lawful limits of their
jurisdiction, unsettled the whole body of colonial law, encouraged
opposition to the government, and exposed its agents to vexatious
prosecutions. The governor was determined to resist their judgment. The
warrants for the members of the council had not arrived. Thus recourse
to the legislature was impracticable, and the most obvious remedy was
the removal of the judges, and the substitution of others, whose
opinions were known to agree with the executive. The judges were
charged, therefore, with a neglect of duty in omitting, as authorised by
the law, to certify illegality in the Act prior to its enrolment; and by
permitting the question of an act of council, they were said to override
the legislature.[248]

Pending this dispute, a creditor of Mr. Justice Montagu sued him for
L200. The privilege of his office presented a legal obstacle to the
suit. This being decided by the chief justice, the creditor applied to
the governor for relief. Mr. Montagu alleged an understanding, which in