Catholic emancipation

pation, and a disposition on the part of some persons of influence to grant it. Canning was not till 1829. favourable to their claims, and the subject had been occasionally before parliament, though nothing was done. It was not until 1829 that an act was passed abolishing altogether the disabilities under which the Roman Catholics laboured, and thus admitting them to equal civil rights. Certain exceptional clauses disqualified them from holding the offices of lord lieutenant, lord chancellor, or keeper of the great seal; from appointments in Protestant universities or colleges; and from exercising any right of presentation, as lay patrons, to the benefices and dignities of the Church of England.

Conclusion.

But

It is not our intention to trace the history of our constitution directly beyond the reign of William III.,—indirectly, however, matters, have been treated of which belong to a subsequent period. By the Revolution and the Bill of Rights, no doubt, the liberty of the country received a most important improvement. the constitution was settling, not settled; and questions of great consequence to its interests were agitated during the whole of the reign of William. We have the Civil List, the Place Bill, the Triennial Bill, the Treason Bill, the question of the liberty of the press, the question of standing armies, of the responsibility of mi

nisters, and finally we have the veto of the king more than once exercised, and even a sort of debate in the commons on this assertion of prerogative. We cannot close the present chapter more fitly than by laying before our readers one last extract from Creasy's work on the Constitution, to which we have so often previously referred:"With the expulsion of the Stuarts, the long struggle between the king and the people ended: and the substitution on the English throne of a line of princes, who derived their title confessedly through the nation's will, extinguished all those absurd dogmas as to the right divine of kings, the patriarchal principle of government, the duty of the subject to submit to all royal orders, and the like, which had been previously never-failing pretexts for sanctioning or excusing violations of constitutional right, and graspings after absolute power. Indeed, since the reign of William, the royal heads of our limited monarchy have exercised comparatively little personal interference in state affairs. Our kings and queens have carried on the government of the country through ministers, who have been, and necessarily must be, dependent on parliament for their tenure of office. Not that the personal opinions or character of the sovereign of this country ever can be unimportant. His habits and tastes are always matter of notoriety, and often of imitation. Access

to his society is always coveted. He may give that access in a manner useful, or mischievous, or absolutely indifferent. He may call to his court those who are most distinguished by genius or by knowledge; or those whose only merit is their birth or their station; or parasites, buffoons, or profligates."

CHAPTER V.

LEADING CASES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
The Provinces of Constitutional Law and History compared-
Calvin's Case-Allegiance defined-Allegiance how severed
-Denizen-Colonies-Law relating to-Alien friend-
Alien enemy-The Bankers Case - Leach v. Money
-Wilkes v. Wood-Entick v. Carrington-Law as to
General Warrants epitomised-Cases seemingly in opposi-
tion to above-Hill v. Bigge—Civil Liability of a Governor
-Governor not a Viceroy-Criminal Liability of a Governor
-General Picton's Case-Governor Wall's Case-Sum-
mary-Sutton v. Johnstone-Kemp v. Neville.

Ir becomes our duty in this our last chapter to
discuss the points involved in certain leading cases
in constitutional law. Constitutional history traces
the development of our constitution, the gradual
changes and growth of custom, and shows how
the rules and laws which now fix the constitu-
tion have been evolved; it gives us the facts of the
past, and shows us the relation of the past to the
present. On the other hand, constitutional law
only gives us the present; it explains the duties
of subjects towards the state, and the state towards
its subjects.

I. Calvin's case, 6 Jac. I.

Allegiance-what is it? by whom, and to whom

it is due.

The question here was whether the Scotch postnati, after James' accession, were to be deemed

The provinces tional law

of constitu

and history

compared.

Calvin's case.

Allegiance defined.

natives or aliens in England. All seem to have agreed that antenati remained aliens, but as to postnati there was a difference of opinion. Two suits were instituted in the name of Robert Calvin, a postnatus of Scotland, and an infant; one in the King's Bench for the freehold of certain land, the other in Chancery for detaining title deeds. In each suit the defendants pleaded in abatement that plaintiff was an alien born in Scotland since the king's accession to the English crown. A demurrer raised the intended question about the postnati, for if Calvin was an alien he could not maintain either suit. These causes were adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber, in order that the solemn opinion of the judges upon the question raised might be obtained.

Held, that persons born in Scotland, after the accession of James I. to the crown of England, were not aliens, but capable of inheriting land in England.

Allegiance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his sovereign.

There are four kinds of allegiance :

(a) Natural:

(b) Local:

(c) By acquisition or denization:

(d) Legal.

Allegiance is due of every natural-born subject to the crown; it is due to the natural person of the king, not to his politic capacity only; it is due