« PreviousContinue »
the collecting of it seems to have been much neglected: and, there being no queen consort afterwards till the accession of James I, a period of near sixty years, its very nature and quantity became then a matter of doubt: and being referred by the king to the chief justices and chief baron, their report of it was so very unfavorable y, that his consort queen Anne (though she claimed it) yet never thought proper to exact it. In 1635, 11 Car. I, a time fertile of expedients for raising money upon dormant precedents in our old records, (of which ship-money was a fatal instance,) the king, at the petition of his queen, Henrietta Maria, issued out his writw for levying it: but afterwards purchased it of his consort at the price of ten thousand pounds; finding it, perhaps, too trifling and troublesome to levy. And when afterwards, at the restoration, by the abolition of the mili-  tary tenures, and the fines that were conscquent upon them, the little that legally remained of this revenue was reduced to almost nothing at all, in vain did Mr. Prynne, by a treatise which does honor to his abilities as a painful and judicious antiquary, endeavour to excite queen Catherine to revive this antiquated claim.
ANOTHER ancient perquisite belonging to the queen consort, mentioned by all our old writers x, and, therefore only, worth notice, is this; that on the taking of a whale on the coasts, which is a royal fish, it shall be divided between the king and queen; the head only being the king's property, and the tail of it the queen's. “ De sturgione observetur, quod “ rex illum habebit integrum : de balena vero sufficit, si rex “ habeat caput, et regina caudam.” The reasons of this whimsical division, as assigned by our ancient recordsy, was to furnish the queen's wardrobe with whalebone (2).
u Mr. Prynne, with some appearance of Bracton, I. 3. c. 3. Britton. c. 17. Flet. I. reason, insinuates, that their researches were 1. c. 45 and 46. very superficial. (Aur. Reg. 125.)
y Pryn. Aur. Reg. 127.
w 19 Rym. Foed. 721.
(2) The reason is more whimsical than the division, for the whale. bone lies entirely in the head.
VOL. I. 33
But farther: though the queen is in all respects a subject, yet, in point of the security of her life and person, she is put on the same footing with the king. It is equally treason (by the statute 25 Edw. III.) to compass or imagine the death of our lady the king's companion, as of the king himself: and to violate, or defile the queen consort, amounts to the same high crime; as well in the person committing the fact, as in the queen herself, if consenting. A law of Henry the eighth? made it treason also for any woman, who was not a virgin, to marry the king without informing him thereof: but this law was soon after repealed (3), it trespassing too strongly, as well on natural justice, as female modesty. If however the queen be accused of any species of treason, she shall (whether consort or dowager) be tried by the peers of parliament, as queen Ann Boleyn was in 28 Hen. VIII. (4).
. The husband of a queen regnant, as prince George of Denmark was to queen Anne, is her subject; and may be guilty of high treason against her: but, in the instance of
z Stat. 33 Hen. VIII. c. 21.
(3) This was a clause in the act, which attainted queen Catherine Howard and her accomplices for her incontinence; but it was not repealed till the 1 Ed. VI. c. 12. which abrogated all treasons created since the memorable statute in the 25 Ed. III.
(4) Ann Boleyn was convicted of high treason in the court of the lord high-steward. One of the charges against this unhappy queen was, that she had said, “that the king never had had her heart;” a declara. tion, if made, in which there was probably more truth than discretion ; but this was adjudged to be a slander of her own issue, and therefore high trcason, according to a statute which had been passed about two years before for her honor and protection. Harg. St. Tr. 11 vol. p. 10.
Articles of impeachment were prepared against queen Catherine Parr for heresy in presuming to controvert the theological doctrines of the king ; but by her dexterity and address, she baffled the designs of her enemics, and regained the affections of that capricious monarch. 4 Hume, 259.
Articles of impeachment for high treason were exhibited against Henrietta queen of Car. I. from which she saved herself by an escape to France. 7 Hume, 10.
conjugal infidelity, he is not subjected to the same penal re. strictions. For which the reason seems to be, that, if a queen consort is unfaithful to the royal bed, this may debase or bastardize the heirs to the crown; but no such danger can be consequent on the infidelity of the husband to a queen regnant.
A QUEEN dowager is the widow of the king, and as such enjoys most of the privileges belonging to her as queen consort. But it is not high treason to conspire her death, or to violate her chastity, for the same reason as was before alleged, because the succession to the crown is not thereby endangered. Yet still, pro dignitate regali, no man can marry a queen dowager without special license from the king, on pain of forfeiting his lands and goods. This sir Edward Cokea tells us was enacted in parliament in 6 Hen. VI, though the statute be not in print (5). But she, though an alien born, shall still be entitled to dower after the king's demise, which no other alien isb. A queen dowager, when married again to a subject, doth not lose her regal dignity, as peeresses dowager do their peerage when they marry commoners. For Catherine, queen dowager of Henry V, though she married a private gentleman, Owen ap Meredith ap Theodore, commonly called Owen Tudor; yet, by the name of Catherine queen of England, maintained an action against the bishop of Carlisle. And so, the queen dowager of Navarre marrying with Edmond earl of Lancaster, brother to king Edward the first, maintained an action of dower (after the death of her second husband) by the name of queen of Navarre c.
The prince of Wales, or heir apparent to the crown, and also his royal consort, and the princess royal, or eldest daughter of the king, are likewise peculiarly regarded by the laws. a 2 Inst. 18. See Riley's Plac. Parl. 72. b Co. Litt. 31. c 2 Inst. 50.
(5) Mr. Hargrave, in a note to Co. Litt. 133. says, that no such statute can be found. Lord Coke there refers to it by 8 Hen. VI. no 7. in 2 Inst. 18. by 6 Hen. VI. n° 41. In Riley's Plac. Parl. it is called 2 Hen. VI.
For, by statute 25 Edw. III, to compass or conspire the death of the former, or to violate the chastity of either of the latter, are as much high treason as to conspire the death of the king, or violate the chastity of the queen. And this upon the same reason, as was before given; because the prince of Wales is next in succession to the crown, and to violate his wife might taint the blood royal with bastardy: and the eldest
daughter of the king is also alone inheritable to the  crown, on failure of issue male, and therefore more
respected by the laws than any of her younger sisters (6); insomuch that upon this, united with other (feodal) principles, while our military tenures were in force, the king might levy an aid for marrying his eldest daughter, and her only. The heir apparent (7) to the crown is usually made prince of Wales and earl of Chester (8) by special creation,
(6) This statute perhaps was not meant to be extended to the prin. cess royal when she had younger brothers living, for the issue of their wives must inherit the crown before the issue of the princess royal, yet their chastity is not protected by the statute.
(7) This creation has not been confined to the heir apparent, for both queen Mary and queen Elizabeth were created by their father Henry VIII. princesses of Wales, each of them at the time (the latter after the illegitimation of Mary) being heir presumptive to the crown. 4 Hume, 113.
Edward II. was the first prince of Wales. When his father had subdued the kingdom of Wales, he promised the people of that coun. try, upon condition of their submission, to give them a prince who had been born among them, and who could speak no other language.
Upon their acquiescence with this deceitful offer, he conferred the principality of Wales upon his second son Edward, then an infant. Edward, by the death of his eldest brother Alfonso, became heir to the crown, and from that time, this honor has been appropriated only to the eldest sons or eldest daughters of the kings of England. 2 Hume, 243.
(8) Selden tells us, “that the earldom of Chester was once also a “ principality, erected into that title by parliament in 21 Rich. II, “ wherein it was also ordained that it should be given to the king's “ eldest son. But that whole parliament was repealed in the first of “ Hen. IV, although the earldom hath usually been since given with “the principality of Wales.” Seld. Tit. of Hon. 2. c. 5. s. 1.
and investiture (9); but being the king's eldest son (10), he is by inheritance duke of Cornwall, without any new creationd.
d 8 Rep. 1. Seld. tit. of hon. 2. 5.
(9) That is, by letters patent under the great seal of England.
(10) Lord Coke, in the Prince's case, in the 8th Report, has expressly advanced, that the dutchy of Cornwall cannot descend, upon the death of the king's first-born son, to the eldest then living. But this position is beyond all controversy erroneous. Lord Hardwicke, in Lomax v. Holmden, 1 Ves. 294. has observed, “That the eldest son of the king of “ England takes the dutchy of Cornwall as primogenitus; although lord “ Coke at the end of the Prince's case says otherwise. But this was “ not the point there, being only an observation of his own, and has « ever since been held a mistake of that great man. He was also mis“ taken in the fact, in saying that Henry VIII. was not duke of Corn“ wall, because not primogenitus; for lord Bacon in his history of “ Henry VII. affirms the contrary, that the dukedom devolved to him “upon the death of Arthur ; and this is by a great lawyer, and who “must have looked into it, as he was then attorney or solicitor general.” But this point was solemnly determined in 1613, upon the death of prince Henry the eldest son of James I. in the case of the dutchy of Cornwall, the report of which is inserted at length in Collins's Pro. ceedings on Baronies, p. 148. In which it was resolved that prince Charles, the king's second son, was duke of Cornwall by inheritance.
It is more strange that lord Coke should have fallen into this mistake, as the contrary appears from almost every record upon the subject,
In the 5th Henry IV. the second reign after the creation of the dutchy, there is a record, in which prince Henry makes a grant of part of the dutchy lands to the countess of Huntingdon, and the record states, that because the prince is within age, so that in law his grant is not effectual to give a sure estate, he shall pledge his faith before the king and all the lords of parliament, that when he attains his full age, he shall grant a sure estate against himself and his heirs; and that his three brothers, Thomas, John, and Humphrey, shall in like manner pledge their faith to confirm the same estate, si issint aveigne, que Dieux defende, que le dit Duche unques devient en lours mains, if it should so happen, which God forbid, that the said dutchy should ever come into their hands, and thereupon they all made a promise and took an oath to that effect. Rot. Parl. 5 Hen. IV. No. 4.
But the second son would not succeed to the dukedom, if his elder brother leftissue ; in that case it would revert to the crown. The duke