Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T14:00:30.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Allegiance and The Usurper

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

A. M. Honoré
Get access

Extract

Coke said of the Statute of Treasons 1351: “this Act is to be understood of a king in possession of the crown and kingdom,” and “the other [king] that hath right and is out of possession is not within this Act.” In other words, treason can be committed solely against the monarch in possession, and, conversely, breach of allegiance to the monarch in possession is treason. This doctrine is repeated, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and elaboration, by the later writers, for example, Hale, Hawkins, Foster, Bacon and East, and it appears in the modern books. Only Blackstone expresses a doubt: he thinks the law does not go further than to excuse obedience to a king de facto without commanding opposition to a king de jure who is out of possession.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , November 1967 , pp. 214 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Coke, , Institutes, III, 7Google Scholar.

2 Hale, Pleas of the Crown, 101, with qualifications not accepted by his editor Emlyn, note s. ad loc.

3 Hawkins, , Pleas of the Crown, I, 35–36Google Scholar. Cf. East, I, 54.

4 Foster, Crown Cases (3rd ed., 1809), 188, 397–400.

5 Bacon's Abridgement (3rd ed., 1768), 152, sub nom. Prerogative A.

6 Russell on Crime (12th ed., 1964), I, 211. Likewise the constitutional writers, e.g., Phillips, Hood, Constitutional and Administrative Law (3rd ed., 1962), 434Google Scholar; 7 Halsbury (3rd ed.), 215; 10 Halsbury, 1025.

7 Blackstone, Commentaries (5th ed., 1773), IV, 77–78.

8 East, Pleas of the Crown, I, 54, attempts to explain this on the ground that Vane was actively preventing Charles return, which is irrelevant if no allegiance is owed to a king out of possession. See R. v. Vane (1662) 6 St.Tr. 119.

9 Pollard, , “The de facto Act of Henry VII,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, VII, 1–12 (1929–30)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Doe v. Acklam (1824) 2 Barn. & Cres. 779; Doe v. Mulcaster (1826) 5 Barn. & Cres. 771; Fitch v. Weber (1847) 6 Hare 51. Cf. Jephson v. Riera (1835) 3 Knapp 130; Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbour (1830) 3 Peters 99.

11 R. v. MacGrowther (1746) 18 St.Tr. 391.

12 De Jager v. Attorney-General of Natal [1907] A.C. 326Google Scholar. Cf. R. v. Casement [1917] 1 K.B. 98Google Scholar; R. v. Lynch [1903] 1 K.B. 444Google Scholar; Joyce v. D.P.P. [1946] A.C. 347Google Scholar; R. v. Macdonald (1747) 18 St.Tr. 858.

13 Foster, op. cit., 403.

14 Hawkins, op. cit., Chap. 17, s. 18. R. v. Cook (1660) 5 St.Tr. 1077, 1113.

15 Foster, op. cit., 188.

16 Bacon, History of the Reign of Henry VII (ed. Lumby, 1876), 133–134. Lumby (p. 279n.) interprets the Act as an advance pardon to successful rebels.

17 2 Samuel xxiv, 17.

18 On what follows see Bacon, op. cit.; Polydore Vergil, Anglicae Historiae, 588–597; Pollard, The Reign of Henry VII from Contemporary Sources, I, 109 et seq.; Mackie, The Earlier Tudors, 123–124; Fisher, History of England from the Accession of Henry VII to the Death of Henry VIII, 55–63; Elton, The Tudor Constitution, 2; Pickthorn, Early Tudor Government, 151–157; Tanner, Tudor Constitutional Documents, 1485–1603.

19 On attainder, see Lander, J. R., “Attainder and Forfeiture 1453–1509,” Historical Journal, IV, 119–151Google Scholar.

20 Rot.Parl., V, 489a; Pollard, “The de facto Act of Henry VII,” supra, 2.

21 Lander, op. cit., 147.

22 Hale, op. cit., 60.

23 Hawkins, op. cit., Chap. 17, s. 16.

24 Stephen, , History of Criminal Law, II, 254Google Scholar.

25 Holdsworth, , History of English Law, 3, 468Google Scholar; 4, 500 (Holdsworth gets the date of the statute wrong).

26 Pollard, , op. cit., I, 12Google Scholar. Elton, op. cit., 2, is along similar lines.

27 e.g., Fisher, op. cit., 63.

28 Bacon, op. cit., 134.

29 Ibid.

30 Blackstone, IV, 77.

31 e.g., 25 Hen. 8, c. 22 (1534); 35 Hen. 8, c. 1 (1543); 1 Will. & M. sess. 2, c. 2 (1689); 12 & 13 Will. 3, c. 2 (1700); 6 Anne, c. 11 (1706); 1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6, c. 3 (1936).

32 Above, notes 8–12.

33 Blackstone, IV, 78.

34 Interpretation Act 1889, s. 30.

35 Promissory Oaths Act 1868, s. 10.