Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Besides the attribute of sovereignty, the law also ascribes to the King, in his political capacity, absolute perfection. The King can do no wrong. Which ancient and fundamental maxim is not to be understood, as if every thing transacted by the government was of course just and lawful, but means only two things. First, that whatever is exceptionable in the conduct of public affairs is not to be imputed to the King, nor is he answerable for it personally to his people. And, secondly, it means that the prerogative of the crown extends not to do any injury; it is created for the benefit of the people, and therefore cannot be exerted to their prejudice. Plowd. 487.

Or perhaps it means that, although the King is subject to the passions and infirmities of other men, the constitution has prescribed no mode by which he can be made personally amenable for any wrong that he may actually commit. The law will therefore presume no wrong where it has provided no remedy. The inviolability of the King is essentially necessary to the free exercise of those high prerogatives which are vested in him, not for his own private splendor and gratification, as the vulgar and ignorant are too apt to imagine, but for the security and preservation of the real happiness and liberty of his subjects.

The King moreover is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong; he can never mean to do an improper thing; in him is no folly or weakness. If, therefore, the crown should be induced to grant any franchise or privilege to a subject, contrary to reason, or any way prejudicial to the commonwealth, or a private person, the law will not suppose the King to have meant either an unwise or an injurious action; but declares that the King was deceived in his grant; and, therefore, such grant is rendered void, merely upon the foundation of fraud and deception, either by or upon those agents whom the crown has thought proper to employ. See title Grants of the King. But a latitude of supposing a possibility of some failure of this personal perfection is allowed in the case of inquiries frequently instituted by Parliament, even as to those acts of royalty which are most properly and personally the King's own; but which are to be conducted in those assemblies with the decency and respect due to the kingly character. See further Parliament. The following is a concise statement of the remedies for the various injuries which may proceed from, and also for those which may affect, the rights of the crown.

The distance between the sovereign and his subjects is such, that it can rarely happen that any personal injury can immediately and directly proceed from the prince to any private man; and as it can so seldom happen, the law in decency supposes that it never can or will happen at all. But injuries to the rights of property can scarcely be committed by the crown, without the intervention of its officers, against whom the law furnishes various methods of detecting their errors or misconduct.

The common law methods of obtaining possession or restitution from the crown of either real or personal property are, by petition of right, (already alluded to above,) or monstrans de droit, manifestation or plea of right; as to both which see title Monstrans de Droit.

The methods of redressing such injuries as the crown may receive from a subject are, either by such usual commonlaw actions as are consistent with the royal prerogative and dignity; or by such prerogative modes of process as are peculiarly confined to the crown. As the King, by reason of his legal ubiquity, cannot be disseised or dispossessed of any real property which is once vested in him, he can maintain no action which supposes a dispossession of the plaintiff, such as an assise or ejectment. Bro. Ab. 1; Prerogative, 89. But he may bring a quare impedit, which always supposes the plaintiff to be seised or possessed of the advowson;

and he may prosecute this writ like every other by him brought, as well in the Court of King's Bench as of Common Pleas, or in whatever court he pleases. F. N. B. 32; 3 Comm. c. 17. So too he may bring an action of trespass for taking away his goods; but such actions (of trespass) are not usual, though in strictness maintainable for breaking his close or other injury done upon his soil and possession. Bro. Ab. 1; Prerogative, 130; F. N. B. 90; Y. B. 4 H. 4, 4. Much easier and more effectual remedies are, however, usually obtained by prerogative modes of process. Such is that of inquisition or inquest of office, as to which see title Inquest. Where the crown hath unadvisedly granted any thing by letters patent which ought not to be granted, or where the patentee hath done any act that amounts to a forfeiture of the grant, the remedy to repeal the patent is by writ of scire facias in Chancery. See Dyer, 198; 3 Lev. 220; 4 Inst. 88. So also, if upon office untruly found for the King, he grants the land over to another, he who is grieved thereby, and traverses the office itself, is entitled before issue joined, to a scire facias against the patentee in order to avoid the grant. Bro. Ab. 1; Scire Facias, 69, 185. See title Scire Facias. An information on behalf of the crown is a method of suit for recovering money, or obtaining damages for any personal wrong to the lands or possessions of the crown; as to which see title Information. A writ of quo warranto is in the nature of a writ of right for the King against any person claiming or usurping any office, franchise, or liberty, to inquire by what authority he supports his claim, in order to determine the right. Finch, l. 322; 2 Inst. 282. See title Quo Warranto. And something of the same nature is the writ of mandamus, as to which see titles Corporation, Mandamus.

The law also determines that in the King can be no negligence or laches, and therefore no delay will bar his right. Nullum tempus occurrit Regi has been the standing maxim upon all occasions; for the law intends that the King is always busied for the public good, and therefore has not leisure to assert his right within the times limited to his subjects. Finch, l. 82; Co. Litt. 90. This maxim applies also to criminal prosecutions which are brought in the name of the King; and therefore by the common law there is no limitation in treasons, felonies, or misdemeanors. By stat. 7 W. 3. c. 7. an indictment for treason, except for an attempt to assassinate the King, must be found within three years after the commission of the treasonable act. See title Treason. But where the legislature has affixed no limit, nullum tempus occurrit Regi holds true; thus a man may be convicted of murder at any distance of time within his life after the commission of the crime. This maxim obtains still in full force in Ireland. 1 Ld. Mountm. 365.

In civil actions relating to landed property, by stat. 9 G. 3. c. 16. commonly called the Nullum Tempus Act, the King, like a subject, is limited (in respect to claims in Great Britain) to sixty years. For the occasion of passing this act, see Belsham's Memoirs of George III. sub. an. 1768. See also the stats. 21 Jac. 1. c. 23; 11 G. 3. c. 4. The provisions of the 9 G. 3. c. 16. were extended to Ireland by the 49 G. 3. c. 47.

The King is also expressly bound by two of the recent statutes of limitations, viz. the 2 & 3 W. 4. c. 100. for shortening the time in claims of modus decimandi; and the 2 & 3 W. 4. c. 71. for shortening the time of prescription in certain cases. See further Modus, Tithes, and the various titles relative to incorporeal hereditaments.

In the King also can be no stain or corruption of blood; for if the heir to the crown were attainted of treason or felony, and afterwards the crown should descend to him, this would purge the attainder ipso facto. Finch, L. 82; Rot. Parl. 1 R. 3.

Neither can the King, in judgment of law, as King, ever be a minor or under age; and therefore his royal grants and

assents to acts of parliament are good, though he has not in his natural capacity attained the age of twenty-one. Co. Litt. 43; 2 Inst. Proem. 3. Indeed by stat. 28 H. 8. c. 17. power was given to future Kings to rescind and revoke all acts of parliament that should be made while they were under the age of twenty-four; but this was repealed by stat. 1 Edw. 6. c. 11. so far as related to that prince; and both statutes are declared by stat. 24 G. 2. c. 24. to be determined. It hath also been usually thought prudent, when the heir-apparent has been very young, to appoint a protector, GUARDIAN, or REGENT for a limited time; but the very necessity of such extraordinary provision is sufficient to demonstrate the truth of that maxim of the common law, that in the King is no minority, and therefore he hath no legal guardian.

The methods of appointing a GUARDIAN or REGENT, in case of an infant-heir to the crown, have been so various, and the duration of his power so uncertain, that from hence alone it may be collected that his office is unknown to the common law; and therefore the surest way is to have him made by authority of the great council in parliament. 4 Inst. 58. The stats. 24 H. 3. c. 12; 28 H. 8. c. 7. [q. 17?] provided, that the successor, if a male, and under eighteen, or a female, and under sixteen, should be till such age in the government of his or her natural mother, (if approved by the King,) and such other counsellors as his majesty should by will or otherwise appoint; and he accordingly appointed his sixteen executors to have the government of his son Edward VI. and the kingdom, which executors elected the Earl of Hertford protector. The stat. 24 G. 2. c. 24. in case the crown should descend to any of the children of Frederic, then late Prince of Wales, under the age of eighteen, appointed the princess dowager; and the stat. 5 G. 3. c. 27. in case of a like descent to any of the children of King George III. empowed the King to name either the queen, the princess dowager, or any descendant of King George II. residing in this kingdom, to be guardian and regent, till the successor attained such age, assisted by a council of regency, the powers of them all being expressly defined and set down in the several acts. See ante, II.

Queen under age prohibited from marrying without the consent of the regent, § 9. Regent disabled from giving royal assent to any bill for changing the order of succession to the crown contrary to act, 1 W. 3. c. 2; or for altering the English act, 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 4; or the Scotch act, 1702, c. 3. for securing the Protestant religion, § 10. If the Duchess of Kent shall during his Majesty's lifetime, without his consent, or after his death if any such regent shall marry a Roman Catholic, or a foreigner, without consent of parliament, or shall cease to reside in the United Kingdom, she shall cease to be regent, § 11. In case of the decease of the Queen of William IV. and his subsequent marriage, the act shall determine, § 12.

As to the mode of proceeding in appointing a custos or guardian of the realm, and executing the sovereign authority in case of a demise of the crown, while the successor is in foreign parts, see Macpherson's Original Papers, containing the secret history of Great Britain, from the Restoration to the accession of the House of Hanover, 4to. 1776, vol. ii. p. 475, &c.; a paper from the minister of the Elector of Hanover, asking the opinion of his friends in England concerning the measures to be taken in the event of Queen Anne's death; and p. 481, &c. a letter from the Earl of Sunderland to the Elector's minister at the Hague, inclosing an answer to the minister's inquiries, and the powers of commissioners necessary on such an occasion.

Upon King George III.'s illness in 1811, the act 51 G. 3. c. 1. was passed to provide for the administration of the royal authority, and the care of his Majesty's person during the continuance of such illness. By this act the Prince of Wales was appointed "REGENT of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland," under certain restrictions, many of which were afterwards removed. The other acts passed for regulating the regency were 52 G. 3. c. 6, 7; 53 G. 3. c. 14; and 55 G. 3. c. 15.

From the maxim that the King, as King, cannot be a minor, grants, leases, &c. made by him, though under age, bind presently, and cannot be avoided by him either during his minority, or when he comes of age: for it is a maxim of politics, that he who is to govern the kingdom should never be considered as incapable, from minority, of governing his own affairs. Dy. 209. pl. 22; Plowd. 289; Co. Lit. 43; 5 Co. 27; Raym. 90.

By the statute 1 W. 4. c. 2. " to provide for the administration of the government in case the crown should descend to the Princess Alexandrina Victoria when under the age of eighteen," her mother, the Duchess of Kent, (widow of the deceased Duke of Kent, the fourth son of King George III.) The law ascribes to the King's Majesty, in his political was appointed her guardian, with authority, in the name of capacity, an absolute immortality. The King never dies. the princess and in her stead, under the style and title of Henry, Edward, or George may die, but the King survives regent, to exercise the royal power during such minority, in them all for immediately upon the decease of the reigning case the King, William IV. should die without issue; with a prince, in his natural capacity, his kingship or imperial digproviso, that if any child of his should be born after his nity, by act of law, without any interregnum or interval, is decease, all the powers of the act should cease and determine, vested at once in his heir, who is eo instanti King to all in$1. If on the demise of the crown there should not be any tents and purposes: and so tender is the law of supposing child living born of his queen, the privy council are directed even a possibility of his death, that his natural dissolution to cause the princess to be proclaimed as sovereign, but sub-is generally called his demise, demissus regis vel coronæ, an ject to and saving the rights of any issue of King William IV. expression signifying merely a transfer of property. By the which might be afterwards born; and such reservation was term demise of the crown, therefore, is understood, that in also to be added to the oath of allegiance till parliament consequence of the disunion of the King's natural body from should otherwise order, § 2. If at the death of King the body politic, the kingdom is transferred or demised to William IV. no child of his should be living, but a child his successor, and so the royal dignity remains perpetual. should be afterwards born, his Queen is to be guardian of the Plowd. 177, 234. Thus, too, when Edward IV. in the 10th child, and regent until the child shall be eighteen, § 3. year of his reign, was driven from his throne for a few Such child shall be proclaimed King or Queen, § 4. In case months by the house of Lancaster, this temporary transfer of of the birth of such posthumous child, parliament shall meet his dignity was denominated his demise; and all process was forthwith, and the laws regarding parliament and all offices, held to be discontinued, as it then was upon the natural &c. shall apply as on a demise of the crown, § 5. All acts death of the King. M. 49 H. 6. pl. 1—8. of royal power exercised during the regency otherwise than according to the direction of this act declared void, § 6. Oath of regent to be administered by and taken before the privy council, § 7. The regent on taking the oath "shall make, subscribe, and audibly repeat," the declaration against Popery required by the 30 Car. 2. st. 2. and produce a certificate of having taken the sacrament, § 8. The King or

King Henry II. took his son into a kind of subordinate regality with him, so that there were Rex Pater and Rex Filius: but he did not divest himself of his sovereignty, but reserved to himself the homage of his subjects. And notwithstanding this King, by consent of parliament, created his son John King of Ireland; and King Richard II. made Robert de Vere Duke of Ireland; and Edward III, made

his eldest son Lord of Ireland, with royal dominion; yet it | individuals of a state, in their collective capacity, can transact has been expressly held, that the King cannot regularly make a King within his own kingdom. 4 Inst. 357, 360. Henry de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, was by King Henry VI. crowned King of Wight Island; but it was resolved that this could not be done without consent of parliament; and even then our greatest men have been of opinion that the King could not by law create a King in his own kingdom, because there cannot be two kings of the same place: and afterwards the same King Henry made the same Earl of Warwick Primus Comes totius Angliæ. Hal. Hist. Coron. A King cannot resign or dismiss himself of his office of King without consent of parliament; nor could Henry II. without such consent divide the sovereignty: there is a sacred bond between the King and his kingdom that cannot be dissolved without the free and mutual consent of both in Parliament; and though in foreign kingdoms there have been instances of voluntary cessions and resignations, which possibly may be warranted by their several constitutions, yet by the laws of England, the King cannot resign his sovereignty without his Parliament. Hale's H. Cor.

3. In the exercise of those branches of the royal prerogative which invest this our sovereign lord, thus all-perfect and immortal in his kingly capacity, with a number of authorities and powers, consists the executive part of the government. This is wisely placed in a single hand by the British Constitution, for the sake of unanimity, strength, and dispatch. The King of England is therefore not only the chief, but properly the sole magistrate of the nation; all others acting by commission from and in due subordination to him.

In the exertion of lawful prerogative, the King is and ought to be absolute, that is, so far absolute that there is no legal authority that can either delay or resist him. He may reject what bills, may make what treaties, may coin what money, may create what peers, may pardon what offences he pleases, unless where the constitution hath expressly, or by evident consequence, laid down some exception or boundary, declaring that thus far the prerogative shall go, and no farther. For otherwise the power of the crown would indeed be but a name and a shadow, insufficient for the ends of government, if, where its jurisdiction is clearly established and allowed, any man, or body of men, were permitted to disobey it in the ordinary course of law. It is not now meant to speak of those extraordinary resources to first principles which are necessary when the contracts of society are in danger of dissolution, and the law proves too weak a defence against the violence of fraud or oppression: and yet the want of attending to this obvious distinction has occasioned these doctrines of absolute power in the prince, and of national resistance by the people, to be much misunderstood and perverted by the advocates for slavery on the one hand, and the demagogues of faction on the other. Civil liberty, rightly understood, consists in protecting the rights of individuals by the united force of society. Society cannot be maintained, and of course can exert no protection, without obedience to some sovereign power and obedience is an empty name, if every individual has a right to decide how far he himself shall obey.

In the exertion, therefore, of these prerogatives, which the law has given him, the King is irresistible and absolute, according to the forms of the constitution; and yet, if the consequence of that exertion be manifestly to the grievance or dishonour of the kingdom, the parliament will call his advisers to a just and severe account. Thus the King may make a treaty with a foreign state, which shall irrevocably bind the nation; and yet, when such treaties have been judged pernicious, impeachments have pursued those ministers by whose agency or advice they were concluded.

With regard to foreign concerns, the King is the delegate or representative of his people. It is impossible that the

the affairs of that state with any other community equally numerous as themselves. Unanimity must be wanting to their measures, and strength to the execution of their counsels. In the King, therefore, as in a centre, all the rays of his people are united, and form by that union a consistency, splendor, and power, that make him feared and respected by foreign potentates, who would scruple to enter into any engagement that must afterwards be revised and ratified by a popular assembly. What is done by the royal authority, with regard to foreign powers, is the act of the whole nation: what is done without the King's concurrence is the act only of private men: and so far is this point carried by our law, that it hath been held, that should all the subjects of England make war with a King in league with the King of England, without the royal assent, such war is no breach of the league. 4 Inst. 152. And by the 2 H. 5. c. 6. any subject committing acts of hostility upon any nation in league with the King, was declared to be guilty of high treason; and though that act was repealed by the 20 H. 6. c. 11. so far as relates to making this offence high treason, yet still it remains a very great offence against the law of nations, and punishable by our laws, either capitally or otherwise, according to the circumstances of the case.

The King, therefore, considered as the representative of his people, has the sole power of sending ambassadors to foreign states, and receiving ambassadors at home. How far the municipal laws of England intermeddle with or protect the right of these messengers from one potentate to another, may be seen in this Dict. tit. Ambassadors, and more fully, 1 Comm. c. 7.

It is also the King's prerogative to make treaties, leagues, and alliances with foreign states and princes: for it is by the law of nations essential to the goodness of a league, that it be made by the sovereign power; and then it is binding upon the whole community and in England the sovereign power, quoad hoc, is vested in the person of the King. Whatever contracts, therefore, he engages in, no power in the kingdom can legally delay, resist, or annul. Although, lest this plenitude of authority should be abused to the detriment of the public, the constitution (as has been already hinted) hath here interposed a check, by the means of parliamentary impeachment, for the punishment of such ministers as from criminal motives, advise or conclude any treaty which shall afterwards be judged to derogate from the honour and interest of the nation.

Upon the same principle, the King has also the sole prerogative of making war and peace. For it is held by all the writers on the law of nature and nations, that the right of making war, which by nature subsisted in every individual, is given up by all private persons that enter into society, and is vested in the sovereign power. Puff. b. 8. c. 9. § 6. This right is given up, not only by individuals, but even by the entire body of people, that are under the dominion of a sovereign. It would indeed be extremely improper, that any number of subjects should have the power of binding the supreme magistrate, and putting him, against his will, in a state of war. Whatever hostilities, therefore, may be committed by private citizens, the state ought not to be affected thereby, unless that should justify their proceeding, and thereby become partner in the guilt. Such unauthorized volunteers in violence are not ranked among open enemies, but are treated like pirates and robbers. In order to make a war completely effectual, it is necessary with us in England that it be publicly [actually or virtually] declared and duly proclaimed by the King's authority; and then all parts of both contending nations, from the highest to the lowest, are bound by it. And wherever the right resides of beginning a national war, there also must reside the right of ending it, or the power of making peace. And the same check of parliamentary impeachment, for improper or in

glorious conduct, in beginning, conducting, or concluding a | And all lands were formerly subject to a tax for building national war, is in general sufficient to restrain the ministers of castles wherever the King thought proper. This was one of the crown from a wanton or injurious exertion of this of the three things, from contributing to the performance of great prerogative. which no lands were exempted; and therefore called by our Saxon ancestors the trinoda necessitas, viz. pontis reparatio, arcis constructio, and expeditio contra hostem. Cowell's Inter. tit. Castellorum operatio. Seld. Jan. Angl. 1, 42. See title Castles, Forts, &c.

The power of making war or peace is enumerated by Lord Hale inter jura summi imperii, and in England is lodged singly in the King; though, says he, it ever succeeds best when done by parliamentary advice. 1 Hale's Hist. P. C. 159; 7 Co. 25.

A general war, according to the same writer, is of two kinds, 1. Bellum solenniter denunciatum. 2. Bellum non solenniter denunciatum. The first is, When war is solemnly declared or proclaimed by our King against another prince or state, which is the most formal solemnity of a war now in use. 2dly, When a nation slips suddenly into a war without any solemnity, which happens by granting letters of marque, by a foreign prince invading our coasts, or setting on the King's navy at sea; and hereupon a real, though not a solemn, war may arise and hath formerly arisen; therefore to prove a nation to be at enmity with England, or to prove a person to be an alien enemy, there is no necessity of showing any war proclaimed; but it may be averred, and so put upon the trial of the country, whether there was a war or not. 1 Hale's Hist. P. C. 163. See further also as connected with this subject, titles Letters of Marque; Safe Conduct.

In all these prerogatives of the King respecting this nation's intercourse with foreign nations, he is considered as the delegate or representative of his people: but in domestic affairs, he is considered in a great variety of characters, and from thence there arises an abundant number of other prerogatives.

First. He is a constituent part of the supreme legislative power, and as such has the prerogative of rejecting such provisions in parliament, as he judges improper to be passed. The expediency of which constitution is evinced at large under tit. Parliament. It may here be added, that the King is not bound by any act of parliament, unless he be named therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised (any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, &c.) affect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights or interests. 11 Rep. 74. Yet where an act of parliament is expressly made for the preservation of public rights, and suppression of public wrongs, and does not interfere with the established rights of the crown, it is said to be binding as well upon the King as the subject. 11 Rep. 71. The King may likewise take the benefit of any particular act, though he be not especially named. 7 Rep. 32.

The King is considered, in the next place, as the generalissimo, or the first in military command, within the kingdom. In this capacity of General of the Kingdom, the King has the sole power of raising and regulating fleets and armies. Of the manner in which they are raised and regulated, more is said in other places. We are now only to consider the prerogative of enlisting and governing them, which indeed was disputed and claimed, contrary to all reason and precedent, by the Long Parliament of King Charles I.; but, upon the restoration of his son, was solemnly declared by the 13 Car. 2. c. 6. to be in the King alone; for that the sole supreme government and command of the militia within all his Majesty's realms and dominions, and of all forces by sea and land, and of all forts and places of strength, ever was and is the undoubted right of his Majesty, and his royal predecessors, Kings and Queens of England; and that both or either house of parliament cannot nor ought to pretend to See title Militia.

the same.

This statute, it is obvious to observe, extends not only to fleets and armies, but also to forts and other places of strength within the realm, the sole prerogative as well of erecting, as manning and governing of which belongs to the King in his capacity of general of the kingdom. 2 Inst. 30.

It is partly upon the same, and partly upon a fiscal foundation, to secure his marine revenue, that the King has the prerogative of appointing ports and havens, or such places only, for persons and merchandize to pass into and out of the realm, as he in his wisdom sees proper. See title Harbours and Havens; and to this head may be referred also the prerogative as to the erection of beacons and lighthouses; as to which see 4 Inst. 148; 12 Co. 13; Carter, 90; 2 Keb. 114; 3 Inst. 204; and title Beacons.

To this branch of the prerogative may also be referred the power which has been vested in the King, from time to time, by various acts, and by the recent statute 3 § 4 W. 4. c. 52, of allowing or prohibiting the importation or exportation of arms, gunpowder, military stores, &c.; and likewise the right which the King has, wherever he sees proper, of confining his subjects to stay within the realm, or of recalling them when beyond the seas.

By the common law, every subject may go out of the kingdom for merchandize or travel, or other cause, as he pleases, without any licence for that purpose; this appears from the statute 5 R. 2. c. 2. made to restrain persons passing out of the realm, but excepts lords, great men, and notable merchants; as also by the statute 26 H. 8. c. 10. which gave power to the King, during his life, to restrain persons from trading to certain countries; which acts had been vain and idle if the King, by his prerogative, might have done it. F. N. B. 85; Dyer, 165, 296; 2 Rol. Rep. 12; 3 Mod. 131; Stil. 442.

But notwithstanding this general liberty allowed by the common law, it appears plainly that the King by his prerogative, and without any help of an act of parliament, may prohibit his subjects from going out of the realm; but this must be by some express prohibition; as by laying on embargoes, which can be only done in time of danger, or by writ of ne exeat regno, which, from the words quamplurima nobis & coronæ nostræ præjudicialia ibidem prosequi intendis, appears to be a state writ, though it is never granted universally, but to restrain a particular person, on oath made, that he intends to go out of the realm; indeed, Fitzherbert says, that the King may restrain his subjects by proclamations, and assigns as a reason for it, that the King may not know where to find his subject, so as to direct a writ to him. 12 Co. 33; 11 Co. 92; Fitz. N. B. 89; 2 Inst. 54. See title Imbargo, Ne exeat Regno.

As the King may restrain any of his subjects from going abroad, in like manner he may command them to return home; and disobeying a privy seal for this purpose is the highest contempt. 1st, It is a disobedience to the command of the King himself, directed to the party. 2dly, The command is, that he shall return upon his faith and allegiance, which is the strongest compulsion that can be used. 3dly, The thing required by the King is the principal duty of a subject, viz. to be at the service of his King and country. Dyer, 128b; Lane, 44; Moor, 109; 3 Inst. 179.

The punishment for this offence is seizing the party's estate till he return; and of this there are many instances in our books; and when he does return he shall be fined. 1 Hawk. P C. c. 22. § 4.

William de Brittain, in the 19th of Edw. 2. refusing to return on the King's writ, his goods and chattels, lands and tenements, were seized into the King's hands; so in the case of Edward of Woodstock, Earl of Kent, in the same reign. Dyer, 128 b.

vel sois Chevalier au nom de Dieu, i. e. Surge aut sis eques in nomine Dei. This is meant of knights bachelors, which is the lowest, but most ancient degree of knighthood with us. As to the privilege belonging to a knight, see in Fern's Glory of Generosity, p. 116.

Of knights there are two sorts, one spiritual, so called by divines in regard of their spiritual warfare, the other temporal. Cassaneus de Gloria Mundi, par 9. considerat. 2. See Selden's Titles of Honour, fol. 770.

Chief justice Popham affirmed, he had seen a commission granted to a bishop, to knight all the persons in his diocese. Godb. 398.

Of the several orders, both of spiritual and temporal knights, see Mr. Ashmole's Inst. of the Knights of the Garter.

He who served the king in any civil or military office or dignity, was formerly called miles; it is often mentioned in the old charters of the Anglo-Saxons, which are subscribed by several of the nobility, viz. after bishops, dukes, and earls, per A. B. militem, where miles signifies some officer of the courts, as minister was an officer to men of quality. Thus we read in Ingulphus, De dono F. quondam Militis Kenulfi Regis, fol. 860.

Afterwards the word was restrained to him who served only upon some military expedition; or rather to him who by reason of his tenure was bound to serve in the wars; and in this sense the word miles was taken pro vassallo. Thus in the laws of William the Conqueror: Manibus ei sese dedit, cuncta sua ab eo miles à Domino recepit. And he who by his office or tenure was bound to perform any military service, was furnished by the chief lord with arms, and so adoptabatur in militem, which the French call adouber, and we to dub such a person a knight. But before they went into the service, it was usual to go into a bath and wash themselves, and afterwards they were girt with a girdle; which custom of bathing was constantly observed, especially at the inauguration of our kings, when those knights were made, who for that reason were called knights of the bath. Cowell.

They were, says Blackstone, called milites, because they formed a part of the royal army, in virtue of their feudal tenures, (see title Tenures, III. 2;) one condition of which was, that every one who held a knight's fee immediately under the crown, (which in Edward II.'s time amounted to 201. per annum, stat. de milit. 1*Edw. 2.) was obliged to be knighted, and attend the king in his wars, or fine for his non-compliance. The exertion of this prerogative, as an expedient to raise money in the reign of Charles I. gave great offence, though then warranted by law, and the recent example of Queen Elizabeth. It was, therefore, abolished by stat. 16 Car. 1. c. 20. Considerable fees used to accrue to the king on the performance of the ceremony. Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth appointed commissioners to compound with the persons who had lands to the amount of 401. a year, and who declined the honour and expense of knighthood. See 1 Comm. 404; and also 2 Comm. 62, 69; 1 Inst. 69, b; 2 Inst. 593, and the notes on 1 Inst.

KNIGHTS BACHELORS, [from Bas Chevalier, an inferior knight. 1 Comm. 404, in n.] The most ancient, though the lowest order of knighthood amongst us; for we have an instance of King Alfred's conferring this order on his son Athelstan. Wil. Malms. lib. 2; 1 Comm. 404. See Knights of the Chamber.

KNIGHTS BANERET, [Milites Vexillarii.] Knights made only in the time of war; and though knighthood is commonly given for some personal merit, which, therefore, dies with the person, yet John Coupland, for his valiant service performed against the Scots, had the honour of baneret conferred on him and his heirs for ever, by patent; 29 Edw. 8. See title Baneret. These knights rank in general next after knights of the garter. By stats. 5 R. 2. st. 2. c. 4; 14 R. 2. c. 11, they are ranked next after barons; and their prece

dence before the younger sons of viscounts was confirmed by order of King James I. in the tenth year of his reign. But in order to be entitled to this rank, they must be created by the king in person in the field, under the royal banners in time of open war, else they rank after baronets. 1 Comm. 403. KNIGHTS OF THE BATH, [Milites Balnei.] Have their name from their bathing the night before their creation. See Knight. The most honourable Military Order of the Bath was introduced by King Henry IV. in 1399, and revived by King George I. in the year 1725, who erected the same into a regular military order for ever; to consist of thirty-seven knights, besides the sovereign. See the antiquity and ceremony of their creation in Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire, 531, 532. They have each three honorary esquires; and they now wear a red ribbon across their shoulders; have a prelate of the order, (the Bishop of Rochester,) several heralds, and other officers, &c. See 1 Comm. 404.

By statute, 2d January, 1815, it was ordained, that the order should be composed of three classes, viz.:—

First class, to consist of knights grand crosses, not to exceed seventy-two, exclusive of the sovereign and princes of the blood royal; one-sixth of which may be appointed for civil and diplomatic purposes. The remainder must have attained the rank of major-general, or rear-admiral in the navy, and must have been previously appointed to the second class.

Second class, not to exceed upon the first institution 180, exclusive of foreign officers holding British commissions, of whom not exceeding ten may be admitted as honorary knights commanders; in the event of actions of signal distinction, or of future wars, this class may be increased. To be entitled to the distinctive appellation of knighthood; to have the same rights and privileges as knights bachelors; but to take precedence of them.

Third class, companions of the order; they are to take precedence of esquires, but not entitled to the appellation, style, &c. of knights bachelors.

No officer can be nominated unless he shall have received a medal or other badge of honour, or shall have been especially mentioned in despatches in the London Gazette, as having distinguished himself in action.

KNIGHTS OF THE CHAMBER, [Milites Camera.] Seem to be such knights bachelors as are made in time of peace, because knighthood in the king's chamber, and not in the field; they are mentioned in Rot. Parl. 28 Edw. 3; 29 Edw. 3. p. 1. m. 39; 2 Inst. 666.

KNIGHTS OF THE GARTER, [Equites garterii; vel periscelidis, otherwise called Knights of the Order of St. George.] The most noble Order of the Garter was founded by King Edward III. A. D. 1344, who, after he had obtained many notable victories, for furnishing this honourable order, made choice in his own realm and all Europe of twenty-five the most excellent and renowned persons for virtue and honour, and ordained himself and his successors, kings of England, to be the sovereign thereof, and the rest to be fellows and brethren, bestowing this dignity on them, and giving them a blue garter, decked with gold, pearl, and precious stones, and a buckle of gold, to wear daily upon left leg only; a kirtle, crown, cloak, chaperon, a collar, and other magnificent apparel, both of stuff and fashion, exquisite and heroical, to wear at high feasts, as to so high and princely an order was meet. Smith's Repub. Angl. lib. 1. c. 20. And, according to Camden and others, this order was instituted upon King Edward III. having great success in a battle, wherein the king's garter was used for a token. See Selden's Tit. of Hon. 2, 5, 41.

the

But Polydore Virgil gives it another original, and says, that the king in the height of his glory, the kings of France

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »