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 incurfions; and that the owners, being encouraged by fo large an authority, might be the more watchful in it's defence. And upon this account alfo there were formerly two other counties palatine, Pembrokeshire and Hexhamshire; the [118] latter now united with Northumberland; but these were abolifhed by parliament, the former in 27 Henry VIII., the latter in 14 Eliz. And in 27 Hen. VIII., likewife, the powers before mentioned of owners of counties palatine were abridged; the reafon for their continuance in a manner ceafing; though still all writs are witneffed in their names, and all forfeitures for treafon by the common law accrue to them 2. Of these three, the county of Durham is now the only one remaining in the hands of a fubject. For the earldom of Chester, as Camden teftifies, was united to the crown by Henry III., and has ever fince given title to the king's eldeft fon. And the county palatine, or duchy, of Lancaster, was the property of Henry Bolingbroke, the fon of John of Gant, at the time when he wrefted the crown from king Richard II., and affumed the title of king Henry IV. But he was too prudent to fuffer this to be united to the crown; left if he loft one, he fhould lofe the other alfo. For, as Plowden and fir Edward Coke obferve, he knew he had the " duchy of Lancaster by sure and indefeasible title, but that his title to the crown was not fo affured: for that after "the decease of Richard II., the right of the crown was in the " heir of Lionel duke of Clarence, fecond fon of Edward III.; "John of Gant, father to this Henry IV., being but the "fourth fon." And therefore he procured an act of parliament, in the first year of his reign, ordaining that the duchy of Lancaster, and all other his hereditary eftates, with all their royalties, and franchifes, fhould remain to him and his heirs forever; and should remain, defcend, be adminiftered, 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 formers. Henry VI. being attainted in 1 Edw. IV., this duchy was declared in parliament to have become forfeited to the crown, and at the [119] fame time an act was made to incorporate the duchy of Lancafter, 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 feparate guiding and governance from the other inheritances of the crown. And in Hen. VII. another act was made, to refume fuch part of the duchy lands as had been difmembered from it in the reign of Edward IV., and to veft 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. n. 15. d of Parl. 2 Hen. V. n. 30. 3 Hen. V. attainder of the pretended prince of I Ventr 155. • Ibid. 157. Some have entertained an opinion (Plowd. 220, 1, 2. Lamb, Archeion, Wales. But it is observable, that in the fame act the duchy of Cornwall is also vefted 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 ftatute of Henry VII., that the duchy of Lancatter was by no means thereby made a separate inheritance from the reit 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 eftate of a mere duke of Lancaster, in the common course of legal descent. The better opinion there fore 4 4 THE ifle of Ely is not a county palatine, though fometimes erroneoufly called fo, but only a royal franchife: the bishop having, by grant of king Henry the first, jura regalia within the ifle of Ely; whereby he exercifes a jurifdiction over all causes, as well criminal as civil (23). fore feems to be that of thofe judges, who held (Plowd. 221.) that notwith landing 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. 8 4 Inft. 220. (23) In Pigge v. Gardner, 1 Lev. 208, it was decided that the court of the royal franchife of the isle of Ely was a fuperior court, and had cognizance of all personal actions, though the cause of the action did not arife within the jurifdiction 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 fuperior court. 1 Saunders 73. In the arguments in the cafe of Grant v. Bagge, 3 East 128, there is a full historical account of the conftitution of the court of Ely; but the court, in giving judgment, does not appear to have adverted to the true fignification of a royal franchife; for every franchise must be prefumed to have its origin from a royal grant, but a roy al franchise is one which has jura regalia, or a palatinate jurif diction. counties was Ely, though frequently called a county palatine, yet could not, in strict propriety, be denominated one, because the divifion of 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 statute 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 statute 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 ifle of Ely, and if he obeyed the mandate of the writ by executing it within the jurifdiction of the ifle, he was fubject to an action of trefpafs. Many learned men THERE are alfo 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 fheriffs and other magiftrates, fo 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 countries 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, New, caftle-upon-Tyne, Pool, Southampton. THE objects of the laws of England are fo very nu merous and extenfive, that, in order to confider them with any tolerable eafe and perfpicuity, it will be neceffary to diftribute them methodically, under proper and diftin& heads; avoiding as much as poffible divifions too large and comprehenfive on the one hand, and too trifling and minute on the other; both of which are equally productive of con fufion. Now, |