this unanimous reſolution of all the judges of England, thus entered in the council book, and the ſtatute 34 & 35 Hen. VIII. c. 26. §. 61. which expreſſly recognizes this to be the law of the land, ſome of our writers[1] have affirmed, that the king, by his prerogative, may name whom he pleaſes to be ſheriff, whether choſen by the judges or no. This is grounded on a very particular caſe in the fifth year of queen Elizabeth, when, by reaſon of the plague, there was no Michaelmas term kept at Weſtminſter; ſo that the judges could not meet there in craſtino animarwn to nominate the ſheriffs: whereupon the queen named them herſelf, without ſuch previous aſſembly, appointing for the moſt part one of the two remaining in the laſt year's liſt[2]. And this caſe, thus circumſtanced, is the only authority in our books for the making theſe extraordinary ſheriffs. It is true, the reporter adds, that it was held that the queen by her prerogative might make a ſheriff without the election of the judges, non obſtante aliquo ſtatuto in contrarium: but the doctrine of non obſtante's, which ſets the prerogative above the laws, was effectually demoliſhed by the bill of rights at the revolution, and abdicated Weſtminſter-hall when king James abdicated the kingdom. However, it muſt be acknowleged, that the practice of occaſionally naming what are called pocket-ſheriffs, by the ſole authority of the crown, hath been uniformly continued to this day.
Sheriffs, by virtue of ſeveral old ſtatutes, are to continue in their office no longer than one year; and yet it hath been ſaid[3] that a ſheriff may be appointed durante bene placito, or during the king's pleaſure; and ſo is the form of the royal writ[4]. Therefore, till a new ſheriff be named, his office cannot be determined, unleſs by his own death, or the demiſe of the king; in which laſt caſe it was uſual for the ſucceſſor to ſend a new writ to the old ſheriff[5]: but now by ſtatute 1 Ann. ſt. 1. c. 8. all officers appointed by the preceding king may hold their offices for ſix
