Consolida

tion of the kingdom.

Wales.

The consolidation of the kingdom with respect to both Wales and Ireland, was considerably advanced under Henry VIII. By the Statutum Walliae (12 Edward I. A.D. 1284) the land of Wales and its inhabitants, theretofore only feudally subject to the kings of England, had been wholly annexed and united to the English crown. But, although many material alterations were at the same time made in the Welsh laws, the conquered people still retained several provincial immunities and disabilities. They preserved their ancient rule of inheritance, similar to the English Gavelkind, by which lands were divided equally among all the issue male, instead of descending to the eldest son alone; but on the other hand, with the exception of two Parliaments of Edward II. in 1322 and 1326, to which 24 members were summoned as representatives of South, and other 24 as representatives of North Wales, the Welsh people had continued without any representation in the House of Commons. By the statute 27 Henry VIII., c. 26 (1536), Wales was thoroughly incorporated into and united with England; all persons born in the Principality were admitted to enjoy and inherit all the freedoms, liberties, rights, privileges and laws of England; and lands in Wales were declared to be inheritable after the English tenures and rules of descent. By a subsequent statute (34 & 35 Henry VIII., c. 26), Wales was divided into 12 counties,2 each empowered to send one knight to Parliament; and every borough, being a shire town, was to send one burgess. In the same year (1543), the County Palatine of Chester was admitted to parlia

1 Rymer, ii. 484, 649; Lingard, iii. 328.

2 This was exclusive of Monmouthshire, which, though formerly part of Wales, had been made, by the 27 Hen. VIII. c. 26, before mentioned, one of the counties of the realm of England, and as such entitled to return two knights of the shire to Parliament. Under the statute 34 & 35 Hen. VIII. c. 26 (1542-3), superior courts of justice called Courts of Great Session were established, with a jurisdiction independent of the process of Westminster Hall. These continued to administer law and equity in civil cases, and also criminal matters arising within the Principality, down to the year 1830, when the courts were abolished by statute (1 Will. IV. c. 70), and it was enacted that Assizes should be held in the Principality for the trial of all matters criminal and civil in like manner and form as had been usual for the counties in England.

mentary representation, two knights for the county, and two burgesses for the city of Chester.1

During the Wars of the Roses, the authority of the Ireland. English crown over Ireland had sunk to a very low ebb. At the accession of Henry VIII. his rule was practically limited, with the exception of the principal seaports, to the English Pale, consisting of the eastern half of the five counties of Louth, Meath, Dublin, Kildare, and Wexford. The western half of these counties was a march land, more disorderly, if possible, than the rest of the island, which was divided among a large number of petty chieftains, mainly of Irish but partly of English origin, who governed the inhabitants of their respective territories and made war upon each other with the freedom of independent princes. Under the strong government of the Tudor kings the English ascendancy in Ireland was re-asserted and placed upon a firmer basis than it had occupied since the days of Henry II. In the contest between the rival houses of York and Lancaster, the Anglo-Irish had for the most part espoused the cause of the White Rose, and they readily gave their support to the two pretenders who successively put in jeopardy the throne of Henry VII.2 It was with the view of reducing to subjection the settlers within the Pale, that in 1495 was passed the celebrated Poynings's Law, as the statute of Drogheda Poynings's was styled from Sir Edward Poynings, the deputy of young 1495. Henry, Duke of York (afterwards Henry VIII.), who at the age of four years had been appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. This statute contained a variety of provisions for restraining the power of the great lords within the Pale, and strengthening the Royal authority. Its two most important enactments were: (1) All statutes lately made

1 34 & 35 Hen. VIII. c. 13.

2 Lambert Simnel was undoubtedly an impostor. It is a question of much uncertainty who the young man really was who called himself Richard, Duke of York, son of Edward IV., and who is generally styled by historians Perkin Warbeck. The evidence is not conclusive either way, but the balance seems to incline in favour of his pretensions. [Mr. Bailey, on the other hand (Succes sion to the Crown, p. 96), does not profess to doubt but that Perkin 'was an impostor.' Yet his marriage seems a point in his favour.-ED.]

Law, A.D.

in England, and belonging to the public weal of the same,' should have the force of law in Ireland. (2) No Parliament should in future be holden in Ireland till the King and his Council had been informed by the Lieutenant of the necessity of the same, and of the Acts proposed to be passed in it, and the Royal licence and approbation had been previously obtained. By securing the initiative power to the King and his English Council, a check was placed upon the action of every Irish Parliament, and upon the lord-deputies, sometimes powerful Irish nobles 'whom it was dangerous not to employ, but still more dangerous to trust.' 'Whatever might be its motive,' says Hallam, 'it proved, in the course of time, the great means of preserving the subordination of an island, which, from the similarity of constitution, and the high spirit of its inhabitants, was constantly panting for an independence which her more powerful neighbour neither desired nor dared to concede.' 1

The stern and systematic despotism of Henry VIII., coupled with the intimidation produced by his relentless vengeance against the powerful family of Fitzgerald, had still greater effect in reviving the Royal authority. From a Lordship, the title which it had hitherto borne under the successors of Henry II.,—Ireland was raised to the higher rank of a Kingdom; the native chiefs came in and submitted; peerages were sought and obtained, not only by the Anglo-Irish, but by some of the most powerful of the old Irish families; and although still far from secure, the English government in Ireland assumed during the last years of Henry VIII. a much more settled aspect than it had borne for very many years previously.

3

1 Const. Hist. iii. 362.

2 Henry assumed the style of King of Ireland, January 23, 1542, under an Irish Statute, 33 Hen. VIII. c. I. The change was confirmed in 1544 by an English Act of Parliament, 35 Hen. VIII. c. 3.

3 William Bermingham was created Lord Carbery in 1541; Con O'Neill and his son Matthew, respectively Earl of Tyrone and Lord Dungannon, in 1542; Morogh O'Brien was made Earl of Thomond, Ulick de Burgh, Earl of Clanricarde, and Donough O'Brien, Lord Ibracken, in 1543.

Character of

The Ecclesiastical changes under EDWARD VI. and EDWARD VI. 1547MARY, as well as those effected by Henry VIII., will be 1553treated of in the succeeding chapter on the 'Reformation MARY, in England.' In their civil aspect the reigns of Edward 1553-1558. VI. and Mary were scarcely, if at all, less despotic than their civil that of their father, although we shall see some signs that government. the House of Commons was beginning to recover a little of its ancient independence. The youth of Edward VI. precluded him from exercising any but a very slight influence upon affairs, the Royal power being practically vested first in the Protector Somerset and afterwards in John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland.

treasons

abolished.

One of the first acts of the young King's advisers was to New endeavour to propitiate the nation by abrogating some of the sanguinary and unconstitutional laws of Henry VIII. By a statute of Edward's first Parliament all new treasons and felonies created during the last reign were abolished; and the Act of Edward III. again became the standard of high treason, except that to affirm in words or writing that the King was not, or that the Pope was, head of the Church, still remained a treasonable offence.1

1552.

treason.

In 1552, however, after the fall of Somerset, many of the But are retreasons created under Henry VIII., and abolished by this enacted in statute, were re-enacted, together with some new ones. But in this Parliament the Commons exhibited an un- Two wonted independence, and zeal for liberty and justice, witnesses required in They threw out the bill as originally framed by the minis- cases of ters, and substituted one of a much more moderate nature, in which was embodied what has been justly described as 'one of the most important constitutional provisions which the annals of the Tudor family afford.' The constant complaint of persons accused of treason, that they could not establish their innocence because never confronted with their accusers, had brought home to the public mind the

Law.

iniquity of the usual method of procedure. It was now enacted that no person should in future be indicted or attainted for any manner of treason except on the testimony of two lawful witnesses, who should be brought face to face with the accused at the time of his trial, unless he should willingly confess the charges. Although shamelessly evaded, or utterly disregarded, in the State-trials under Elizabeth and James I., this salutary statute was ultimately recognised, when all ranks and parties had learnt moderation in the school of adversity, as the foundation of a rule of procedure which has afforded to the subject a mighty safeguard against oppressive prosecutions.' 1

1 Foster, Crown Law, 238.

LAW OF TREASON.-The Law of Treason, with all its subtle distinctions and cruel constructions, is so interwoven with the thread of English Constitutional History, that some notice of it is absolutely necessary. In the following brief sketch every important feature has been touched upon. The crime of Treason by High Treason as it existed at Common Law prior to the statute of Edward III. the Common was vague and indefinite. The fundamental principle upon which the law of treason was based, was the allegiance, either natural or local, due from every man who lives under the King's protection. Every subject from the age of fourteen, was bound to take the oath of allegiance if called upon to do so (Britton, lib. i. c. 13); but allegiance was equally due whether the oath had been taken or not. The smallest breach of allegiance was punished as treason; but the ruling of the judges as to what constituted a breach was at once arbitrary and unlimited, varying in different reigns according as the power of the King or of the barons happened to be in the ascendant. In the reign of Edward I., appealing to the French courts, in opposition to the King's, was adjudged high treason in the case of Nicholas Segrave. Under Edward II., the Spencers were accused of 'accroaching or exercising royal power,' by keeping the administration in their own hands, though without violence to the sovereign. A similar charge was brought against Roger Mortimer in Edward III.'s reign. Killing the King's uncle, father, brother, or even a messenger, was held to be treason, and a knight was indicted for the treason of 'accroaching royal power' by assaulting one of the King's subjects on the highway, and forcibly detaining him till he paid £90. At length, after frequent complaints and petitions from the Commons against the arbitrary decisions of the courts, the popular statute of 25 Edward III. st. 5, c. 2, was passed, strictly defining the limits of treason (supra, p. 276, n. 1). Seven heads of treason were declared by this statute, which also provided that no other cases should be adjudged by the judges to be treason until the King and his Parliament should declare whether they ought to be so judged. The treasons enumerated in the statute of Edward are: (1) When a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady the Queen, or of their eldest son and heir; or (2) if a man do violate the King's companion, or the King's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir; or (3) if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or (4) be adherent to the King's enemies [=alien enemies, subjects of a hostile foreign power] in the realm, giving them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere, [and in any

Treason by stat. 25 Edw. III. A.D. 1352.