of Lancaster, and all other his hereditary eftates, with all their royalties, and franchifes, fhould remain to him and his heirs. for ever; and fhould remain, defcend, be administered, and governed, in like manner as if he never had attained the regal dignity; and thus they defcended to his fon and grandson, Henry V. and Henry VI.; many new territories and privileges being annexed to the duchy by the former. Henry VI. being attainted in 1 Edw. IV., this duchy was declared in parliament to have become forfeited to the crown, and at the same time an act was made to incorporate the duchy of Lan[119] cafter, to continue the county palatine (which might otherwise have determined by the attainder ) and to make the fame parcel of the duchy: and, farther, to veft 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 Hen. VII. another act was made, to resume such part of the duchy land, as had been difmembered 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 poffeffion of the fame, as the three Henries and Edward IV., or any them, had and held the fame.f of Parl. 2 Hen. V.n. 30. 3 Hen. V. attainder of the pretended prince of n. 15. di Ventr. 155. f Some have entertained an opinion (Plowd. 220, I, 2. Lamb. Archeion, 233. 4 Inft. 206.) that by this act the right of the duchy veted 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 fucceffion 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 duchy remained after king James's abdication, and previous to the Wales. But it is obfervable, that in the fame act the duchy of Cornwall is alfo vested in king Henry VII. and his heirs ; which could never be intended in any event to be feparated from the inheritance of the crown, And indeed it feems to have been understood very early after the statute of Henry VII., that the duchy of Lancaster was by no means thereby made a separate inheritance from the rest of the royal patrimony; fince it defcended with the crown to the halfblood in the inftances 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 there fore THE ifle of Ely is not a county palatine, though sometimes erroneously called fo, 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 jurifdiction over all caufes, as well criminal as civil.8 (23) fore feems to be that of those judges, who held (Plowd. 221.) that notwithstanding the ftatute of Hen. VII. (which was only an act of refumption) the duchy ftill remained as established by the act of Edward IV.; feparate from the other poffeffions of the crown in order and government, but united in point of inheritance. g 4 Inft. 220. (23) In Pigge v. Gardner, 1 Lev. 208. it was decided that the court of the royal franchise of the ifle of Ely was a superior court, and had cognizance of all personal actions, though the cause of the action did not arise within the jurisdiction of the court. In the fame term afterwards the court of king's bench held that the court of the Bishop of Durham was also a superior court. I Saunders, 73. In the arguments in the case of Grant v. Bagge, 3 East, 128, there is a full historical account of the constitution of the court of Ely; but the court, in giving judgment, does not appear to have adverted to the true fignification of a royal franchise; for every franchise must be prefumed to have its origin from a royal grant, but a royal franchise is one which has jura regalia, or a palatinate jurisdiction. Ely, though frequently called a county palatine, yet could not, in strict propriety, be denominated one, because the division of counties was more antient than the grant of the jurisdiction, which was given to a part only of the county of Cambridge. But before the 27 Hen. VIII. c. 24. the ftatute for recontinuing liberties in the crown, the bishop of Ely had all the powers and authority of a lord of a county palatine. and in that ftatute he is named before the bishop of Durham and the archbishop of York, the latter claiming the authority of a county palatine in Hexamfhire, which, by 14 Eliz. c. 14., was made part of the county of Northumberland. The court of king's bench, in the cafe of Grant v. Bagge, held, that if a writ in any action was directed immediately to the chief bailiff of the isle of Ely, and if he obeyed the mandate of the writ by executing it within the jurisdiction of the ifle, he was fubject to an action of trefpafs. Many learned men THERE are also counties corporate; which are certain cities and towns, fome with more, fome with lefs territory annexed to them; to which out of special grace and favour the kings. of England have granted the privilege to be counties of themfelves, and not to be comprized 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 (24). And thus much of the counties fubject to the laws of England. men of the profeffion were of a different opinion, and if it had been a material object to the lord or the officers of the franchise, a writ of error would have been brought. (24) 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 confequently their own sheriffs. The cities are, London, Chefter, Bristol, Coventry, Canterbury, Exeter, Gloucefter, Litchfield, Lincoln, Norwich, Worcester, York. The towns are, Kingston-upon-Hull, Nottingham, Newcaftle-upon-Tyne, Pool, Southampton. COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND. BOOK THE FIRST. OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS. CHAPTER THE FIRST. OF THE ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OF THE objects of the laws of England are fo very numerous and extenfive, that, in order to confider them with any tolerable ease and perfpicuity, it will be neceffary 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 confufion. Now, Now, as municipal law is a rule of civil conduct, commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong; or as Cicero, and after him our Bracton", have expreffed it, fanctio jufta, jubens honefta et prohibens contraria; it follows, that the primary and principal objects of the law are RIGHTS and WRONGS. In the prosecution therefore of these commentaries, I shall follow this very simple and obvious divifion; and fhall in the first place confider the rights that are commanded, and fecondly the wrongs that are forbidden, by the laws of England. RIGHTS are however liable to another fubdivifion; being either first, those which concern and are annexed to the perfons of men, and are then called jura perfonarum or the rights of perfons; or they are, fecondly, fuch as a man may acquire over external objects, or things unconnected with his perfon, which are styled jura rerum or the rights of things. Wrongs alfo are divifible into firft, private wrongs, which, being an infringement merely of particular rights, concern individuals only, and are called civil injuries; and secondly, public wrongs, which being a breach of general and public rights, affect the whole community, and are called crimes and misdemefnors. THE objects of the laws of England falling into this fourfold divifion, the prefent commentaries will therefore consist of the four following parts: 1. The rights of perfons; with the means whereby fuch rights may be either acquired or loft: 2. The rights of things; with the means also of acquiring and lofing them. 3. Private wrongs, or civil injuries; with the means of redreffing them by law. 4. Public wrongs, or crimes and misdemefnors; with the means of prevention and punishment. (1) (1) The diftinction between private wrongs and public wrongs is more intelligible, and more accurately limited by the nature of the fubjects, than the distinction between the rights of things, and the rights of perfons: for all rights whatever must be the rights of certain |