exercised, was a power of ordinance or disposition. It was regarded as a power of commanding according to mere will. The people of England were regarded as subjects of the Government of England, except in so far as it had granted liberties" to them.

This claim on the part of the King forced the people of England to combine against him for the purpose of extorting concessions from him. By 1249, during the reign of Henry III., they had succeeded in having inserted in the enacting clause of all laws the statement that they were enacted "by the authority" of the Lords and Commons, as well as by their "consent," thus laying the foundation for the subsequent claim made by the Lords and Commons, and afterwards by the House of Commons, of absolute and unconditional power.

At the same time, the practice of the English monarchy in exercising governmental power continued to follow along the lines of the French monarchy. Though the King claimed unconditional and unlimited power, he acted, as did the King of France, by the advice of a Council composed of men expert in statecraft, called the Privy Council, who were in continuous attendance upon him, who enjoyed his closest confidence, and with whom he advised concerning every act of government. Acts of State done by the King by the advice of his Privy Council were called acts of the King in Council. The Privy Council of the King thus became opposed to the Great Council of the Kingdom, consisting of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, but the real issue was not changed nor greatly obscured by reason of the existence of the Privy Council and the House of Lords, and there was a continual struggle between the King and the House of Commons, each claiming to be the rightful Sovereign of England.

Queen Elizabeth's policy was to recognize the House of Commons as an existing and necessary institution, to

endeavor to ascertain the part which it ought to play in the Government of England as the representative of the people, and to confine it to the sphere of action to which she thought it properly belonged.

Her idea seems to have been that the Parliament (in which, though legally composed of King, Lords, and Commons, the House of Commons was the controlling factor) ought to have only the power to negative the acts of the King in certain cases. When the Speaker of the House demanded, as usual, liberty of speech for the Commons, she replied that liberty of speech they should have, but that that liberty consisted in the privilege of saying yes or no. She admitted that the Parliament had the supreme power with respect to changing the law, but claimed that it could not initiate legislation and could only negative legislation proposed by her. She also admitted that the House of Commons had full control over the supplies.

The Parliament of Elizabeth's time was therefore essentially a popular assembly with strictly limited powers. The Queen exercised certain powers to the exclusion of Parliament, both because it was recognized that these powers could be better exercised by an expert body than by a representative body elected by the people, and because Elizabeth, by her remarkable personality and ability, had succeeded in establishing a modus vivendi between herself and the House of Commons, by which, in consideration that she admitted that they had a power for certain specific purposes to supervise, and negative her acts, they agreed for all other purposes to leave the whole government in her hands.

Perhaps no English monarch brought out more clearly than did Queen Elizabeth the distinction between the King, as the expert part of the Government-the Crown -and the Parliament, as the popular part. Under this conception, the King, in his official capacity, was the

depositary of all governmental power, except that which had been appropriated by Parliament or surrendered by Charter. Though Elizabeth recognized that Parliament had appropriated to itself the power of changing the laws and of raising money, and that under Magna Charta the King was bound by the judgments of his Judges given in causes in which the private rights of individuals were involved, she, like all her predecessors, considered that all powers which Parliament had not expressly claimed and insisted upon were vested in her, as the Crown or Head of the English State. As Parliament had never claimed the right of disposition of the public lands of the State, she regarded herself as holding the title to all lands discovered, ceded, or conquered, as trustee for the State, with full powers in the matter of disposing of them.

England of the days of Elizabeth was not without its experience in managing an Empire. Jersey and Guernsey had been dependencies of England at least since the reign of King John (1215), and had been treated as States having their own internal life over which England exercised such power as was thought necessary through the King, who was represented in the Islands by a Governor appointed by him. It had exercised power at various times over many of the French and German States and Provinces as the result of conquest. The power thus exercised resembled rather a military occupation and had not been treated as permanent. Ireland had been a dependency since 1495. During the period from 1495 to 1584 the affairs of Ireland had been administered by the King in Council, but Parliament had not invariably held its hand. While it does not appear to have ever attempted to enact specific legislation applicable only in Ireland, it had in some cases made some laws effective both in England and Ireland.

When the question arose of colonizing America, Queen Elizabeth did not hesitate to take the position that this

was a subject within her power to regulate by royal charter. It was recognized as being the function of the King to grant charters of incorporation to inhabitants of the Realm, to grant by charter the lands belonging to the State, and to wield the external power of the State in pursuance of treaty or for redress, of wrong done by foreign States. In the Charter which Elizabeth granted to Sir Walter Raleigh for Carolina in 1584, she recognized the supremacy of the statutes of the Realm, but she regarded herself as having the exclusive power over the whole subject of the disposition of the lands and populations in America which might by discovery or conquest be brought within the power of England. The Charter gave Raleigh the title to the lands he should discover and occupy and the power of governing them. The provisions having reference to the political relationship between England and the countries so discovered and occupied were as follows:

And for uniting in more perfect league and amity such countries, lands and territories, so to be possessed and inhabited as aforesaid, with our Realms of England and Ireland we do by these presents grant and declare that all such countries, so hereafter to be possessed and inhabited as aforesaid, shall henceforth be of the allegiance of us, our heirs and successors.

We, for us, our heirs and successors, are likewise pleased and contented, and by these presents do give and grant to the said Walter Raleigh, his heirs and assigns forever, that he and they, and every of them, shall and may from time to time forever after, within the said remote lands, and countries in the way by the seas thither and from thence, have full and mere power and authority to correct, punish, pardon, govern and rule by their and every of their good discretions and policies, as well in causes capital or criminal as civil, both marine and other, all such our subjects as shall . . . at any time inhabit any such lands, countries or territories as aforesaid

according to such statutes, laws and ordinances, as shall be by him, the said Walter Raleigh, his heirs and assigns, and every or any of them, devised or established for the better government of the said people as aforesaid, . . . so always as the said statutes, laws and ordinances may be, as near as conveniently may be, agreeable to the form of the laws, statutes, government or policy of England, and also so as they be not against the true Christian faith, now professed in the Church of England, nor in anywise withdraw any of the subjects or people of those lands or places from their allegiance to us, our heirs and successors, as their immediate Sovereign under God.

This Charter made Carolina a Province of England, under Raleigh as Lord Proprietor. The method of colonization thus employed was evidently an application of the method of disposition of the public lands which had been employed in England for centuries, according to which the King granted to those who had deserved well of the State such portions of the public lands as he thought proper, with certain rights of lordship, and the inhabitants of the land became tenants of the Lord Proprietor, who was himself a tenant of the King—that is, of the State. The very full powers of government granted to Raleigh over the inhabitants of Carolina were evidently an extension of the powers (almost entirely judicial or military) of Lords Proprietors in England over their tenants, and were evidently given, from the necessity of the case, on account of the remoteness of the lands.

According to the theory of this Charter, the regions in America to be discovered and occupied were external to the State of England-"remote lands and countries "related to that State by a contractual and constitutional bond-a "union." The power of both King and Parliament over the countries was taken for granted. The provision that Raleigh and his successors should make their statutes, laws, and ordinances "as near as con