tration of its dependencies. French colonists were loyal to France and French methods in India were adopted by the British. The underlying principles of "the colonial pact" were sound. Colonies connected with France by "pact" occupied a dignified position in the political world. As to them, France was a State to some extent foreign, which was their Sovereign, under obligation to protect and guide them by its ordinances and dispositions, but at the same time under obligation not to act except as might be necessary for these purposes.

CHAPTER II

ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION, 1584-1606

WILL

ILLIAM THE CONQUEROR, in 1066, brought with him into England the French theory of governmental power. In his coronation oath, he promised among other things:

To rule over the whole people subject to him justly and with royal providence: to enact and to preserve right law, and strictly to forbid violence and unjust judgments.

By this oath, he recognized that the power which he exercised was conditioned and limited, and that it was exercised under a supreme law which it was his duty to adjudicate and execute.

In the course of a century and a half, Anglo-Saxon influence had predominated, and King John claimed that the power which he exercised was unconditional and unlimited, and that there was no law except his will. Magna Charta, granted by him in 1215, purported to be a gift of privileges from him to the people of England. The enumeration of the privileges granted was preceded by the following words of gift and conveyance :

We have granted moreover to all free men of our Kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the liberties written below, to be had and holden by themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs.

There was contained in this a repudiation of the theory that the governmental power, which the King then

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