Worcester.
I observe that the substance of M. W. B.'s Note has been reprinted in a mutilated form in several newspapers; his preliminary remark, and concluding Query, being omitted! The effect of this is to circulate as a fact what your correspondent himself questions. My object however in this communication, is not so much to draw attention to the injurious effects of partial quotation, as to point out what, in my opinion, renders the occurrence of an execution under the circumstances detailed a manifest impossibility. I believe I am correct in stating that there never was, nor is there now (out of London), such a thing as a warrant for the execution of a criminal. At the close of each Assize, a fair copy of the Calendar, with the sentences in the margin, is signed by the Judges, and left with the sheriff; this is the only authority he has given him; and in the event of a sentence of death, he has no alternative but carrying it into effect; unless he receives from the Crown a pardon, a reprieve, or a warrant commuting the sentence. Blackstone observes upon this:
"It may afford matter of speculation, that in civil causes there should be such a variety of writs of execution to recover a trifling debt, issued in the king's name, and under the seal of the court, without which the sheriff cannot legally stir one step; and yet that the execution of a man, the most important and terrible task of any, should depend upon a marginal note."
J. B. COLMAN.
Eye.
DUCHESS OF LANCASTER.
(Vol. v., p. 320.)
Your correspondent is alarmed lest the honour he claims for the Lancastrians should be denied them, because it has been "discovered that William III. never created himself Duke of Lancaster." Where is it asserted that either he or any other of our sovereigns ever did? When Henry of Bolingbroke merged the lesser name of duke in the greater name of king, he was no more Duke of Lancaster than he was Earl of Derby or Duke of Hereford; but the title of Duke of Lancaster he willed not to be lost altogether as the others were, and therefore by an act of parliament (1 Hen. IV., Art. 81.) it was enacted Que le Prince porte le nom de Duc de Lancastre. The act, after reciting that "our said Lord the King, considering how Almighty God of his great grace had placed him in the honorable Estate of King, and nevertheless he cannot yet for certain cause bear the name of Duke of Lancaster," then ordains that "Henry his eldest son should have and bear the name of Duke of Lancaster, and that he be named Prince of Wales, Duke of Aquitaine, of Lancaster, and of Cornwall, and Earl of Chester." The fact is, that the King or Queen of England cannot be Duke or Duchess in the realm of England. Our kings have held inferior titles drawn from other kingdoms, as Duke of Normandy and Earl of Anjou; but Lord Coke says the sovereign cannot be rex and dux in the same realm. The Queen, as queen, holds her palatinate of Lancaster, and the other duchy lands and franchises; but she holds them jure ducatus, so distinguished from those estates which she holds jure coronæ. She cannot however properly be styled Duchess of Lancaster.
W. H.
In your last Number (Vol. v., p. 320.) is an inquiry on the Duchess of Lancaster. The best answer to this is to be found in a book, 8vo., entitled Harrison on Crown Revenues, or a Memoir, &c. respecting the Revenues of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster: no date or printer's name. I purchased a copy at a sale a short time ago. Everything will be ascertained here perhaps better than any where else.
J. D.