Observations Jure Ducatus

Seventy-Seventh Proposition

If the conclusions contained in all the aforegoing Propositions had rested merely on the unsanctioned opinions of the Auditor, he would STILL have presumed (with that humility and diffidence which becomes him) to submit them, with the evidence in their support, to the better judgment and decision of others; but now, sanctioned and supported as those opinions are by the high legal AUTHORITIES of the Lords KENYON and ELLENBOROUGH, he does not hesitate to assert them with a confidence which those authorities may justly entitle him to assume.

The numerous Cases of Fact and Precedent, which have been brought to light (by the Auditor, with the able assistance of Mr. Hardy,) from existing, but long concealed Records, in support of these DUCHY Rights, commence with the FORFEITURE of Lands, & c., in GLOUCESTERSHIRE, by Sir John de Minsterworth¹, for HIGH TREASON, (47 Edward III., A. D. 1373.) The Precedents which have been adduced of the ACTUAL OCCUPATION, and BENEFICIAL enjoyment Jure DUCATUS of Lands forfeited for HIGH TREASON, may be considered as terminating in the 26th Elizabeth (A. D. 1584), a period of Two HUNDRED and ELEVEN Years. The ASSERTION by the Duchy Officers of the RIGHT to SUCH Forfei- tures may be considered as coming down to the 6th of Queen Anne (A. D. 1708), a period of THREE HUNDRED and THIRTY - FOUR Years. The DUCHY Rights to ESCHEATS, propter DEFECTUM SANGUINIS, within its FEES and Liberties, may be considered as terminating with the opinion of the late Lord ELLENBOROUGH, A. D. 1800; a period which, from the date of the Forfeiture of Sir John de Minsterworth, embraces a space of no less than FOUR HUNDRED and TWENTY - SEVEN Years. May it not be said, with confidence, that these Cases of Recorded Fact and Precedent, (with one solitary exception of the Error in the reign of Henry IV., for which a reason has with diffidence been offered in explanation,) demonstrate that the practical consequences, which have before been stated, and proved, are the results of the necessary CONCLUSIONS IN LAW, deducible from them, according to the UNIFORM professional opinions of every Attorney and Solicitor - General of the King Jure CORONE, for the time being, throughout this long period? May they not be said to be decisive of the Law of the Land, down to a very RECENT period? Since that very recent period (A. D. 1800), nothing has occurred to shake its validity, excepting the opinions of the late Mr. Perceval (in Potgeisser's Case), and of the late and present Attornies and Solicitors - General, which, with great humility, and a sincere, conscientious feeling of his own inefficiency, the Auditor, in discharge of his zealous and sworn duty to the King, will shortly presume to consider.

Note 1. It is a circumstance, not as affecting the present Question, but as not altogether undeserving of notice as an historical fact, that at the DATE of this Forfeiture to John of Gaunt of the Lands of Sir John de Minsterworth, in Gloucestershire, for HIGH TREASON, there was no Earl PALATINE of Lancaster in existence, Henry, the 4th Earl and 1st Duke, being created Earl Palatine for HIS LIFE only, 25 Edward III. He died in the 35th Edward III., when the PALATINATE ceased as such to exist. And it was not re - erected into a PALATINATE until sixteen years afterwards, in the 51st Edward III., and then for LIFE of JOHN of GAUNT only: -this was confirmed by Statute 2 Richard II., and in the thirteenth year of his Reign, the PALATINATE was extended to the Heirs Male of JOHN of GAUNT.