^{page 209 note 1} The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, iii, p. 9.

^{page 210 note 2} The American Revolution, p. 22.

^{page 210 note 3} Ibid. p. 9.

^{page 210 note 4} The documents in this controversy can be found in Rushworth, , Historical Collections, Part III (London, 1692), i, pp. 526Google Scholaret seq.

^{page 210 note 5} A suggestive essay by Theodore F. T. Plucknett entitled ‘The Lancastrian Constitution’ tends to show that the modernity which has been ascribed to the fifteenth-century English constitution as illusory. See Tudor Studies (London, 1924), 161—181.

^{page 211 note 6} Prynne, William, The Treachery and Disloyalty of Papists to their Soveraignes, in Doctrine and Practise. Together with the First Part of The Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes (2nd ed.London, 1643), p. 47Google Scholar; The Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes, Part II, pp. 73 et seq.

^{page 211 note 7} 12 Car. 2, c. 12.

^{page 211 note 8} 13 Car. 2, c. 1.

^{page 211 note 9} Firth and Rait, Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642–1660, III, iv, xviii.

^{page 212 note 1} Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th ed.), p. 37.

^{page 212 note 2} The fiction that rebels in arms against their king were his loyal subjects is evidence of the strength of monarchical sentiment and of the spirit of legalism. It was not invented by the English Puritans. The Scotch Covenanters, while engaged in hostilities with Charles I in 1639, professed loyalty to him (Robort S. Rait, The Parliaments of Scotland, p. 67). So, also, and with better reason, did the Irish Catholics during the Rebellion of 1641.

^{page 212 note 3} A striking illustration of the invincible instinct of the Puritans to seek in history a justification for their innovations, to represent revolution as restoration, is afforded by the act of the Rump abolishing the kingship (March 17, 1649). In this culminating act of revolution it was declared that ‘a most happy way is made for this Nation (if God see it good) to return to its just and ancient Right of being governed by its own Representatives or National Meetings in Council, from time to time chosen and entrusted for that purpose by the people.’ Firth and Rait, op. cit. ii, pp. 19—20.

^{page 212 note 4} The Evolution of Parliament (2nd ed. London, 1926), p. 259.

^{page 213 note 5} This meaning was not commonly attached to the term before the eighteenth century. The word ‘empire’ (imperium) had been used in England in medieval and early modern times, but it had then connoted independence, especially ecclesiastical independence of the papacy, not the possession of dependencies. This was the sense in which it was used in the Act of Appeals of 1533, in which the realm of England was declared to be an empire. For this use of the word, see F. J. C. Hearnshaw, Democracy and the British Empire, s. I. For the history of the term in its modern sense, see The Scottish Historical Review, xv, pp. 185—187, and The American Historical Review, xxvii, pp. 485—489.

^{page 213 note 6} Like their predecessors the Stuarts claimed to be kings of France also, but this claim had long been no better than a farcical pretence. In Calvin's Case (1608), according to Coke's report, the judges were of opinion that though the king of England had ‘absolute right’ to the kingdom of France, ‘yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England.’ Coke, , Reports (London, 1826), iv, p. 31Google Scholar. It would have been a nice exercise in legalistic logomachy to reconcile this opinion with the implications of the doctrine of indefeasible hereditary right as held by James I.

^{page 213 note 7} Firth and Rait, op. cit. ii, p. 122.

^{page 214 note 8} The Rump had already abolished the monarch and the house of lords.

^{page 214 note 9} In acts of January 30 and March 17, 1649, the dominions were referred to as belonging to the people of England.

^{page 214 note 1} E.g. 25 Hen. 8, c. 19, s. 3; 35 Hen. 8, c. 3, s. 1; 2 & 3 Edw. 6, c. 1, B. 1; 1 Eliz. c. 1, s. 16; 35 Eliz. c. 1, s. 3; 3 Jac. 1, c. 4, s. 9; 3 Car. 1, c. 3, s. 1; 16 Car. 1, c. 8 s. 1.

^{page 214 note 2} E.g. 1 Edw. 6, c. 5, s. 1; 1 & 2 Phil. & Mary, c. 8, s. 2; 3 Jac. 1, c. 1, s. 1; 1 Car. 1, c. 1, s. 1.

^{page 214 note 3} E.g. 25 Hen. 8, c. 21, s. 2; 1 Eliz. c. 1, s. 16; 27 Eliz. c. 2, s. 2; 1 Jac. 1, c, 11, s. 1; 16 Car. 1, c. 23, s. 1.

^{page 214 note 4} The term ‘British possession’ was defined in the Interpretation Act, 1889, as ‘any part of Her Majesty's dominions exclusive of the United Kingdom’ (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63, s. 18), but the use of this expression is distinctively modern.

^{page 214 note 5} In the words of Dicey, parliament's claim to the possession of ‘absolute sovereignty throughout every part of the British Empire’ would be admitted as ‘sound legal doctrine by any court throughout the Empire which purported to act under the authority of the King.’ Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th ed.), xxv—xxvi. Legalistically speaking, Dicey's statement remains true, though parliament's power to legislate for the self-governing colonies has been nullified in practice by adverse constitutional usage and is now defunct.

^{page 215 note 6} The American Revolution, p. 24, n. We need not inquire here whether a distinction can properly be drawn between the right to declare law for the dominions and the right to make law for them, a distinction that figures prominently in Professor McIlwain's essay.

^{page 215 note 7} W. R. Williams, The Parliamentary History of the Principality of Wales, p. iii.

^{page 215 note 8} Statutes of the Realm, i, p. 55. Edward I, in the words of Professor Tout (Edward the First, p. 119), ‘never sought to annex the Principality to England, although he incorporated it with the English crown.’

^{page 215 note 9} The Reports of Sir Edward Coke (London, 1826), iv, 37.

^{page 215 note 1} The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (ed. of 1797), p. 239.

^{page 215 note 2} E.g. 2 Hen. 4, c. 17; 5 Hen. 4, c. 15; 2 Hen. 6, c. 4.

^{page 216 note 3} The Works of the Right Honorable Edmund Burke (Boston, 1869), ii, pp. 148—149. Burke thought that this legislation for Wales had been inexpedient and unstatesmanlike, but he did not question its legality. As an example of the acts of parliament to which he referred mention may be made of a statute of 1534 containing a number of enactments for Wales, one of which was that no person resident in the principality or its marches should come under arms to any court to be held therein, on pain of forfeiture of the arms, fine and imprisonment: 26 Hen. 8, c. 6.

^{page 216 note 4} 27 Hen. 8, c. 26.

^{page 217 note 5} Parliamentary Papers, 1878, lxii, Part I, p. 374. W. R. Williams, op. cit. p. iv.

^{page 217 note 6} According to Coke, Calais was ‘a part of the kingdom of France, and never was parcel of the kingdom of England, and the Kings of England enjoyed Calais … by the same title that they had to France.’ Reports (ed. of 1826), iv, p. 38Google Scholar.

^{page 217 note 7} Sandeman, G. A. C., Calais under English Rule (Oxford, 1908), p. 3Google Scholar, says that ‘as a colony it was in a sense unique, for Calais is the only instance of a colony founded on the Greek system—the ousting of the native population in favour of an immigrating community of the conquerors.’

^{page 217 note 8} 1 Hen. 5, c. 9.

^{page 217 note 9} 9 Hen. 5, stat. 1, c. 6.

^{page 217 note 1} 27 Hen. 6, c. 2.

^{page 217 note 2} 1 Hen. 7, c. 3.

^{page 217 note 3} 1 Hen. 7, c. 8. This prohibition applied to England, Wales, Ireland, Calais and Berwick.

^{page 218 note 4} 27 Hen. 8, c. 63.

^{page 218 note 5} The Chronicle of Calais, in the Reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII to the year 1540, ed. by Nichols, John Gough (Camden Society), London, 1846, pp. 166—167Google Scholar.

^{page 218 note 6} Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. by James Gairdner, x, p. 459.

^{page 218 note 7} Parl. Papers, 1878, lxii, Part I, pp. 374, 377, 380, 384, 388, 392, 395 396—399.

^{page 219 note 8} 1 Edw. 6, c. 14, s. 7.

^{page 219 note 9} Ordres du Conseil et Pièces Analogues enregistrés à Jersey (6 vols. Jersey, 1897—1906), i, pp. 27—28.

^{page 219 note 1} The Rights and Immunities of the Island of Guernsey, most humbly submitted to the Consideration of Government; in a Speech, of one of the Magistrates of that Island to the Royal Court there (London, 1771), pp. iv—vi, 4; Cobbett's Parliamentary Debates, v, 629; Le Quesne, Charles, A Constitutional History of Jersey (London, 1856), pp. 297—298Google Scholar, 389; Berry, William, The History of the Island of Guernsey (London, 1815)Google Scholar, Chap. XV; Le Cras, Abraham Jones, The Laws, Customs, and Privileges, and their Administration, in the Island of Jersey (London, 1839), pp. x, 11—12Google Scholar.

^{page 219 note 2} Minute of the Lords of the Committee of Council for the Affairs of Guernsey, and Jersey, April 28, 1806, quoted in Le Cras, op, cit. pp. 70—71.

^{page 220 note 3} Le Cras, op. cit. p. 70; Berry, op. cit. pp. 224—225.

^{page 220 note 4} Parl. Papers, 1847, xv, ‘First Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Criminal Law in the Channel Islands,’ p. xi.

^{page 220 note 5} Ordres du Conseil et Pièces Analogues enregistrès à Jersey, ii, pp. 22—23, 33, 36.

^{page 220 note 6} Ibid. iii, pp. 72—73.

^{page 220 note 7} 7 & 8 Gul. 3, c. 21, s. 10.

^{page 220 note 8} 10 Anne, c. 17, s. 3.

^{page 221 note 9} 2 Geo. 2, c. 7.

^{page 221 note 1} Ordres du Conseil et Pièces Analogues enregistrès à Jersey, iii, pp. 70—73.

^{page 221 note 2} Selden, , Titles of Honor (2nd ed.London, 1631)Google Scholar, Part I, Chap. III. For the history of Man, see Spencer Walpole, The Land of Home Rule, and A. W. Moore, History of the Isle of Man.

^{page 221 note 3} Manx Society Publications, v, p. 107.

^{page 221 note 4} 33 Hen. 8, c. 31; A. W. Moore, Sodor and Man, p. 99.

^{page 222 note 5} Coke, The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, Chap. 69; 5 Geo. 3, c. 26, preamble.

^{page 222 note 6} Referred to in 5 Geo. 3, c. 26, preamble; An Abstract of the Laws, Customs, and Ordinances of the Isle of Man, compiled by John Parr, I ed. by James Gell, Manx Soc. Pubs, xii, pp. 45 et seq. The text of the act of 1610 is given, pp. 61—64.

^{page 222 note 7} The Land of Home Rule, p. 114.

^{page 222 note 8} 12 Car. 2, c. 11, s. 5.

^{page 223 note 9} William Harrison, Illiam Dhône and the Manx Rebellion, 1651, Manx Soc. Pubs, xxvi, p. 44.

^{page 223 note 1} Order in Council, August 5, 1663, quoted in Manx Soc. Pubs, xxvi, pp. 55—56.

^{page 223 note 2} Commentaries on the Laws of England, ed. by William Draper Lewis, i, p. 92.

^{page 223 note 3} 26 Hen. 8, c. 13, s. 1.

^{page 223 note 4} 35 Hen. 8, c. 3, s. 1.

^{page 223 note 5} 32 Hen. 8, c. 49.

^{page 223 note 6} Ordres du Conseil et Pièces Analogues enregistrès à Jersey, i, p. 5.

^{page 223 note 7} 1 Edw. 6, c. 5, s. 1.

^{page 224 note 8} 1 & 2 Phil. & Mary, c. 11, s. 2.

^{page 224 note 9} 27 Hen. 8, c. 14, ss. 1 and 2.

^{page 224 note 1} 8 Eliz. c. 3, ss. 1 and 3.

^{page 224 note 2} 13 Eliz. c. 11, s. 2.

^{page 224 note 3} 23 Eliz. c. 1, s. 1.

^{page 224 note 4} 27 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1.

^{page 225 note 5} 1 & 2 Phil. & Mary, c. 8, s. 1.

^{page 225 note 6} On the eve of the American Revolution it was urged by Americans who disputed parliament's right to interfere in colonial affairs that James I and Charles I had held this opinion. See, e.g. Speeches of the Governors of Massachusetts from 1765 to 1775; and the Answers of the House of Representatives to the same (Boston, 1818), p. 355.

^{page 225 note 7} Proceedings and Debates of the House of Commons, in 1620 and 1621, by a Member of that House (2 vols. Oxford, 1766), i, p. 318. See also Proceedings and Debates of the British Parliaments respecting North America, ed. by Stock, Leo Francis, i (Washington, 1924), pp. 36—37Google Scholar, 39.

^{page 226 note 8} Proc. and Deb. of the House of Commons, cited above, i, p. 319.

^{page 226 note 9} Ibid. ii, p. 258.

^{page 226 note 1} Proceedings and Debates of the British Parliaments respecting North America, i, pp. 65, 67, 68.

^{page 226 note 2} 3 Jac. 1, c. 1, s. 1.

^{page 226 note 3} 3 Jac. 1, c. 4, s. 14.

^{page 227 note 4} 1 Car. 1, c. 1, s. 1.

^{page 227 note 5} 3 Jac. 1, c. 26, s. 20; 7 Jac. 1, c. 23, s. 28; 21 Jae. 1, c. 33, s. 28; 1 Car. 1, c. 6, s. 30; 3 Car. 1, c. 8, s. 33; 16 Car. 1, c. 2, s. 20.

^{page 227 note 6} 1 Jac 1, c. 33, § 1.

^{page 227 note 7} 16 Car. 1, c. 8, § 1.

^{page 228 note 8} The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (ed. of 1797), pp. 281, 287, 351; The Reports of Sir Edward Coke (ed. of 1826), iv, p. 30.

^{page 228 note 9} For cases of medieval legislation by parliament for Gascony see 27 Edw. 3, stat. 1, c. 7; 42 Edw. 3, c. 8; 23 Hen. 6, c. 17.

^{page 228 note 1} 2 Hen. 6, c. 4.

^{page 228 note 2} l Hen. 5, c. 8.

^{page 228 note 3} 1 Hen. 6, c. 3.

^{page 228 note 4} 31 Edw. 3, stat. 4, The Statutes of the Realm, i, p. 857.

^{page 228 note 5} 27 Edw. 3, stat. 2.

^{page 228 note 6} The Statutes of the Realm, i, p. 332, note.

^{page 229 note 7} Statutes and Ordinances, and Acts of the Parliament of Ireland, King John to Henry V, ed. by Berry, Henry F. under the direction of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland (Dublin, 1907), pp. 323—329Google Scholar.

^{page 229 note 8} Records of the Parliament holden at Westminster on the Twenty-Eighth Day of February, in the Thirty-Third Year of the Reign of King Edward the First, ed. by Maitland, Frederic William under the direction of the Master of the Bolls (London, 1893), p. xxxviGoogle Scholar. This volume is commonly cited as Memoranda de Parliamento.

^{page 229 note 9} The Statutes of the Realm, i, pp. 193—194.

^{page 230 note 1} The Statutes of the Realm, i, 194. Statutes and Ordinances, and Acts of the Parliament of Ireland, p. 295.

^{page 230 note 2} Statutes and Ordinances, and Acts of the Parliament of Ireland, p. 301

^{page 230 note 3} Ibid., p. 297.

^{page 230 note 4} The Statutes of the Realm, i, pp. 53, 98.

^{page 230 note 5} Ibid., i, p. 100. Statutes and Ordinances, and Acts of the Parliament of Ireland, p. 103.

^{page 230 note 6} Statutes and Ordinances, and Acts of the Parliament of Ireland, p. 47.

^{page 231 note 7} N. S. B. Gras, The Early English Customs System, pp. 59—61.

^{page 231 note 8} This is in French and is printed in The Parliamentary Writs, ed. by Francis Palgrave, i, p. 1, and in Gras, op. cit., pp. 223—4. There is an English abstract in Calendar of Fine Rolls, i, p. 47.

^{page 231 note 9} Parl. Writs, i, p. 2.

^{page 231 note 1} Parl. Writs, i, p. 1.

^{page 231 note 2} Gras, op. cit., p. 64.

^{page 231 note 3} Parl. Writs, i, p. 381.

^{page 231 note 4} A similar distinction is made in the writ to the justiciar of Ireland, mentioned above.

^{page 232 note 5} Parl. Writs, i, p. 1. Gras, op. cit., pp. 223—4. For an abstract see Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland, 1252–1284 (ed. by H. S. Sweetman), p. 195.

^{page 232 note 6} Dictionary of National Biography, lxi, p. 373. Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland, 1171–1251, p. 433.

^{page 232 note 7} The Latin text of this charter is in Parl. Writs, i, p. 2, and in Stubbs, Select Charters (6th ed.), pp. 451—2. There is an English translation in Adams and Stephens, Select Documents of English Constitutional History, pp. 69—70. The king had previously undertaken that the grant which had been made to him by the magnates in parliament should not prejudice the liberties which they enjoyed in their ports. Cal. Docs. rel. to Ireland, 1252–1284, p. 194.

^{page 232 note 8} Parl. Writs, i, p. 1. ‘Et quia volumus quod dicta consuetudo nobis in terra nostra Hiberniae concedatur et simili modo capiatur, Vobis mandamus quod Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Abbates, Priores, Comites, Barones, Communitates et mercatores de terra predicta, modis quibus expedire videritis, inducalis ad concedendam nobis consimilem consuetudinem percipiendam in terra predicta in forma predicta.’ For an abstract of this document see Cal. Docs. rel. to Ireland, 1252–1284, p. 195.

^{page 232 note 9} Parl. Writs, i, p. 1. ‘Et Lmcam de Lukka et socios suos mercatores de Lukka et Bonasium Bonahuty et socios suos mercatores de Florencia quos ad dictam consuetudinem in terra predicta colligendam et capiendam deputavimus admittatis, et sibi in omnibus, tam scilicet super ordinatione sigillorum nostrorum que ad hoc fieri fecimus et yobis transmittimus, quam super aliis que dictum negotium contingunt consulentes sitis et auxiliantes prout iidem mercatores vobis scire facient ex parte nostra.’ For an abstract of this document see Cal. Docs. rel. to Ireland, 1252—1284, p. 195.

^{page 233 note 1} Parl. Writs, i, p. 2. 'Rex Omnibus Ballivis, etc., de terra sua Hiberniae ad quos, etc., salutem. Sciatis quod assignavimus Lucam de Lukka et socios suos mercatores de Lukka et Bonausium Bonauti et socios suos mercatores Florentinos Custodes et Ballivos nostros ad percipiendam ad opus nostrum dimidiam marcam de quolibet sacco lanae et dimidiam marcam de singulis trescentis pellibus lanutis que faciunt unum saccum et unam marcam de qualibet lesta coriorum exeuntibus terrain nostram Hiberniae et ad ea facienda que contingunt negotium supradictum quamdiu nobis placuerit. Ita quod nobis inde respondeant ad Scaccarium nostrum Dublinae. Et ideo vobis mandamus quod eisdem mercatoribua in hiis que dictum negotium contingunt consulentes sitis et auxiliantes quotiens iidem mercatores vobis scire facient ex parte nostra. In cujus, etc. Teste ut supra [i.e., Teste Rege]. Et tripplicantur.

^{page 233 note 2} Cal. Docs. rel. to Ireland, 1252–1284, p. 234.

^{page 233 note 3} Ibid., p. 243.

^{page 233 note 4} Ibid., 1285–1292, pp. 9, 25, 58, 61, 72, 132; ibid., 1293–1301, pp. 14, 23, 29, 37, 97, 98, 99, 117, 120, 127, 128, 132, 138, 139, 140, 141, 151, 152, 155, 160, 181, 189, 190, 191, 192, 213, 248, 250, 251, 281, 293, 295, 296, 297, 305, 307, 314, 351, 376.

^{page 233 note 5} Ibid., 1293–1301, pp. 266—267.

^{page 233 note 6} Ibid., 1293–1301, pp. 300—301, 361; ibid., 1302–1307, pp. 68, 101.

^{page 234 note 7} On the petitions that came before the Lenten parliament of 1305 see Maitland, Introduction to Memoranda de Parliamento, pp. lv—lxxv.

^{page 234 note 8} On the nature of early parliaments see Maitland, Introduction to Memoranda de Parliamento; McIlwain, The High Court of Parliament; Pollard, The Evolution of Parliament, chaps, ii—vi; J. F. Baldwin, The King's Council in England during the Middle Ages, chap, xii; D. Pasquet, An Essay on the Origins of the House of Commons (trans, by R. G. D. Laffan); G. B. Adams, Council and Courts in Anglo-Norman England, chap. x.

^{page 234 note 9} Pollard, op. cit., p. 20.

^{page 234 note 1} Introduction to Memoranda de Parliamento, pp. lxxxiii—lxxxiv.

^{page 235 note 2} Introduction to Memoranda de Parliamento, p. lxvii.

^{page 235 note 3} Ibid., p. xxxvi. Pollard, op. cit., pp. 33—34. Pasquet, op. cit., pp. 94, 130, 132—134. Adams, op. cit., pp. 309—313.

^{page 235 note 4} Introduction to Memoranda de Parliamento, p. lxxxii.

^{page 235 note 5} Pollard, op. cit., chap. xiv.

^{page 235 note 6} Pollard, op. cit., p. 279.

^{page 236 note 7} France and England, pp. 70—71.

^{page 236 note 8} T. F. Tout, France and England, p. 71.

^{page 236 note 9} Tout, Chapters in the Administrative History of Mediaeval England, vol. ii, p. 149.

^{page 236 note 1} Ibid., vol. ii, p. 150, note.

^{page 236 note 2} Pasquet, op. cit., chaps. iii and iv.

^{page 236 note 3} Introduction to Memoranda de Parliamento, p. xxxvi. Pasquet, op. cit., pp. 94, 117. Pollard, op. cit., pp. 33—34.

^{page 237 note 4} ‘Habet enim Rex curiam suam in consilio suo, in Parliamentis suis, praesentibus praelatis, comitibus, baronibus, proceribus, & aliis viris peritis, ubi terminatae sunt dubitationes judiciorum, & novis injuriis emersis nova constituuntur remedia, & unicuique justitia, prout meruit, retribuetur ibidem’: Fleta (ed. of 1647), Lib. ii, cap. 2.

^{page 237 note 5} Adams, Council and Courts in Anglo-Norman England, p. 302.

^{page 237 note 6} See, e.g., Patent Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, 1216–1225, pp. 298—299, 497—498. In 1237 the council provided that changes should be made in certain legal writs, and the king commanded the justiciar, magnates and free tenants, of Ireland to observe ‘the said provision.’ Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1232–1247, pp. 176—177.