|
NOTES:
1. Pollock, First Book of Jurisprudence, p. 113.
2. 16 Law Quarterly Review (1900), pp. 335-354.
3. The theme of this paper was suggested by Dr. Gierke's
Genossenschafsrecht, a portion of which I have lately published
in English: Political Theories of the Middle Ages. (Cambridge,
1900).
4. Placit. Abbrev. p. 339 (15 Edw. II, Northampton).
5. 16 Law Quarterly Review (1900), p. 344.
6. Y.B. 39 Edw. III, f. 7a.
7. Y.B. 14 hen. VIII, f. 3 (Mich. pl. 2).
8. The mistake, so I think, of John Allen's memorable treatise
on the Royal Prerogative (1830; new ed.1849) consists in the
supposition that already in very old days the Folk could be and
was clearly conceived as a person: a single "subject" of
ownership and other rights.
9. 24 Hen. VIII, c. 12 (For the Restraint of Appeals).
10. Case of the Duchy of Lancaster (1561), Plowden,
212; Willion v. Berkley (1559), Ibid. 223; Sir Thomas Wroth's
Case (1573), Ibid. 452.
11. Plowden, p. 213.
12. Plowden, p. 234.
13. Ibid. 261.
14. Co. Lit. 2a, 250a; Sutton's Hospital Case (1612), 10 Rep.
26b.
15. Calvin's Case (1608), 7 Rep. 10a.
16. Calvin's Case (1608), 7 Rep. 11a, b.
17. 1 Comm. 246.
18. 39 & 40 Geo. III, c. 88.
19. 25 & 26 Vict. 37.
20. 36 & 37 Vict. c. 61.
21. 1 Edw. VI, begins the process.
22. 7 Will. IV & 1 Vict. c. 31.
23. 3 Jac. I, c. 2, pr.
24. Child v. Baylie, Palm. 335, 336.
25. Such phrases as "when the danger of the state is great" (1,
135) are occasionally used.
26. 1 Geo. I, stat. 2, c. 50. We must distinguish this Public
from the Public (quilibet de populo) to
whom a highway is dedicated.
27. 11 Geo. II, c. 30, pr. and s. 1.
28. 26 Geo. III, c. 62.
29. Co. Lit. 18b.
30. Dixon v. London Small Arms Co. (1876), L.R. 1 App. Cas. 632,
at 652.
31. The Acts which enable the king to hold "private estates" are
officially indexed under "Crown Private Estates". It is hard to
defend this use of the word unless the Crown is to give garden
parties.
32. Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gibbs (1866), L.R. 1 H.L. 93, 111.
33. Pensions (Colonial Service) Act, 1887, 50 & 51 Vict. c. 13,
s. 8.
34. Act of 12th Nov. 1709 (8 Anne).
35. Act of 1714 (13 Anne).
36. Act of 11th Nov. 1698. Acts of the British Parliament (e.g.
6 Geo II, c. 13, s. 3) sometimes
give a penalty to the use of the king "to be applied for the
support of the government of the colony or plantation where the
same shall be recovered.". See Palfrey, New England, vol. IV, p.
302. Apparently it was over a clause of this kind that James
Otis first came to the front in Massachusetts.
37. Act of 29th Sept. 1693.
38. See Mr E.B. Green's very interesting book on the Provincial
Governor, Harvard Historical Series; especially pp. 177ff. The
Jamaican resolution stands on p. 172.
39. Sloman v. Government of New Zealand (1876), 1 C.P.D. 563,
565-566.
40. Farnell v. Bowman (1887), 12 App. Cas. 643 (N.S. Wales).
41. Hettihewage Siman Appu v. The Queen's Advocate (1884), 9.
App. Cas. 571 (Ceylon).
42. A.-G. of the Straits Settlement v. Wemyss (1888), 13 App.
Cas. 192 (Penag).
43. 30 Vict. c. 3, ss. 110-125.
44. St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888),
14 App. Cas. 46. esp. p. 56; A.-G. of Brit. Columbiav. A.-G. of
Canada, 14 App. Cas. 295; A.-G. of Ontario v. Mercer (1883), 8
App. Cas. 767; A.-G. of Canada v. As.-G. of Ontario, Quebec,
Nova Scotia [1898] A.C. 700.
45. Ilbert, Government of India (3rd. ed. 1915), p. 196.
46. In Kinlock v. Secretary of State for India in Council
(1880), 15 Ch. D. 1, 8 James L.J. said that "there really is in
point of law, no such person or body politic whatever as the
Secretary of State for India in Council." Apparently in his view
this is only a name by which "the Government of India" is to sue
and be sued. But this only has the effect of making "the
Government of India" a person, real or fictious. [The report of
the final apeal to the House of Lords (1882), 7 App. Cas. 619,
adds nothing on this head.]
47. Dillon, Municipal Corporations, ed. 4. section 31.
48. Willion v. Berkley (1559), Plowden, p. 234.
49. 63 & 64 Vict. c. 12.
50. Fulwood's Case (1591), 4 Rep. 64b.
51. The Master of the Rolls (who, however, as a matter of
history, was not quite free from an
ecclesiatical taint) must have been not unlike a corporation
sole, for he held land in right of his
office. 12 Car. II, c. 36; 20 Geo. II, c. 34 (Sir J. Jekyll
granted leases to a trustee for himself).
52. 3 & 4 Vict. c. 96, s. 67 [now 8 Ed. VII, c. 48, s. 45].
53. 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137, s. 47.
54. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 117, s. 2.
55. 27 & 28 Vict. C. 57, s. 9.
56. 39 & 40 Vict. c. 18, s. 1.
57. See 16 Law Quarterly Review, (1900), p. 352.
58. 7 Will. IV & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 40 [now 8 Ed. VII, c. 48, s.
73; 5 & 6 Geo. V. c. 90, s. 9].
59. [The Indicments Act, 1915 (5 & 6 Geo. V, c. 90) Sched. 1, 5,
6, probably does not solve the
difficulty.]
60. See 16 Law Quarterly Review (1900), p. 355.
61. 21 & 22 Vict. c. 92 [repealed by Statute Law Revision Act,
1892]. But this Act does not use the term corporation sole.
62. 51 & 52 Vict. c. 41, s. 64. We do not find it necessary to
use mysterious language about the
coporateness of every public accountant. But when such an
accountant dies the balance to his credit at the bank where the
public account is kept is not "in any manner subject to the
control of his legal representative". See 29 & 30 Vict. c. 39,
s. 18.
ambuscentre at yahoo.com
|
