during the weak and infant state of the first feodal kingdoms in Europe) were in all probability originally granted to the counties of Chester and Durham, because they bordered upon inimical countries, Wales and Scotland: in order that the inhabitants, having justice administered at home, might not be obliged to go out of the county, and leave it open to the enemy's incursions; and that the owners, being encouraged by so large an authority, might be the more watchful in its defence. And upon this account also there were for. merly two other counties palatine, Pembrokeshire [118] and Hexhamshire; the latter now united with Northumberland: but these were abolished by parliament, the former in 27 Hen. VIII, the latter in 14 Eliz. And in 27 Hen. VIII, likewise, the powers before mentioned of owners of counties palatine were abridged; the reason for their continuance in a manner ceasing; though still all writs are witnessed in their names, and all forfeitures for treason by the common law accrue to them.

Or these three, the county of Durham is now the only one remaining in the hands of a subject. For the earldom of Chester, as Camden testifies, was united to the crown by Henry III, and has ever since given title to the king's eldest son. And the county palatine, or dutchy, of Lancaster, was the property of Henry Bolingbroke, the son of John of Gant, at the time when he wrested the crown from king Richard II, and assumed the title of king Henry IV. But he was too prudent to suffer this to be united to the crown; lest if he lost one, he should lose the other also. For, as Plowdena and sir Edward Cokeb observe, "he knew he had the dutchy "of Lancaster by sure and indefeasible title, but that his title "to the crown was not so assured: for that after the de"cease of Richard II, the right of the crown was in the heir "of Lionel duke of Clarence, second son of Edward III; "John of Gant, father to this Henry IV, being but the "fourth son." And therefore he procured an act of parlia

y Robertson. Ch. V. i. 60:
z 4 Inst. 205.

a 215.

b 4 Inst, 205.

ment, in the first year of his reign, ordaining that the dutchy of Lancaster, and all other his hereditary estates, with all their royalties and franchises, should remain to him and his heirs for ever; and should remain, descend, be administered, and governed, in like manner as if he never had attained the regal dignity and thus they descended to his son and grandson, Henry V and Henry VI; many new territories and privileges being annexed to the dutchy by the former. Henry VI being attainted in 1 Edw. IV, this dutchy was declared in parliament to have become forfeited to the crownd, [119] and at the same time an act was made to incorporate the dutchy of Lancaster, to continue the county palatine (which might otherwise have determined by the attaindere) and to make the same parcel of the dutchy: and, farther, to vest the whole in king Edward IV and his heirs, kings of England, for ever; but under a separate guiding and governance from the other inheritances of the crown. And in 1 Hen. VII another act was made, to resume such part of the dutchy lands as had been dismembered from it in the reign of Edward IV, and to vest the inheritance of the whole in the king and his heirs for ever, as amply and largely, and in like manner, form, and condition, separate from the crown of England and possession of the same, as the three Henries and Edward IV, or any of them, had and held the samef.

e Parl. 2 Hen. V. n. 30. 3 Hen. V. n. 15. d1 Ventr. 155.

e 1 Ventr. 157.

f Some have entertained an opinion (Plowd. 220, 1, 2. Lamb. Areheion. 233. 4 Inst. 206.) that by this act the right of the dutchy vested only in the natural, and not in the political person of king Henry VII, as formerly in that of Henry IV; and was descendible to his natural heirs, independent of the succession to the crown. And, if this notion were well founded, it might have become a very curious question at the time of the revolution in 1688, in whom the right of the dutchy remained after king James's abdication, and previous to the attainder of the pretended prince

crown.

of Wales. But it is observable, that in the same act the dutchy of Cornwall is also vested in king Henry VII and his heirs; which could never be intended in any event to be separated from the inheritance of the And indeed it seems to have been understood very early after the statute of Henry VII, that the dutchy of Lancaster was by no means thereby made a separate inheritance from the rest of the royal patrimony; since it descended with the crown, to the half-blood in the instances of queen Mary and queen Elizabeth: which it could not have done, as the estate of a mere duke of Lancaster, in the common course of legal descent. The better opinion therefore seems to be that of those judges, who

THE isle of Ely is not a county palatine, though sometimes erroneously called so, but only a royal franchise: the bishop having, by grant of king Henry the first, jura regalia within the isle of Ely; whereby he exercises a jurisdiction over all causes, as well criminal as civils.

[120]

THERE are also counties corporate: which are certain cities and towns, some with more, some with less territory annexed to them; to which out of special grace and favour the kings of England have granted the privilege to be counties of themselves, and not to be comprised in any other county; but to be governed by their own sheriffs and other magistrates, so that no officers of the county at large have any power to intermeddle therein. Such are London, York, Bristol, Norwich, Coventry, and many others (23). And thus much of the countries subject to the laws of England.

held (Plowd. 221.) that notwithstanding the statute of Hen. VII. (which was only an act of resumption) the dutchy still remained as established by the act of Edward IV; sepa

rate from the other possessions of the crown
in order and government, but united in point
of inheritance.
g 4 Inst. 220.

(23) 3 Geo. I. c. 5. for the regulation of the office of sheriffs, enumerates twelve cities, and five towns, which are counties of themselves, and which have consequently their own sheriffs. The cities are, London, Chester, Bristol, Coventry, Canterbury, Exeter, Gloucester, Litchfield, Lincoln, Norwich, Worcester, York. The towns are Kingston-upon-Hull, Nottingham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Pool, South

ampton.

COMMENTARIES

ON

The Laws of England.

BOOK THE FIRST.

OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS.

CHAPTER THE FIRST.

OF THE ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OF
INDIVIDUALS.

THE objects of the laws of England are so very nume

rous and extensive, that, in order to consider them with any tolerable ease and perspicuity, it will be necessary to distribute them methodically, under proper and distinct heads; avoiding as much as possible divisions too large and comprehensive on the one hand, and too trifling and minute on the other; both of which are equally productive of confu sion.