| 
1. Vaugh. 400.
2. 10 Edw. I.
3. 12 Edw. I
4. 4 Inst. 345
5. It may justly be doubted, whether even such an infringement (though a manifest breach of good faith, unless done upon the most pressing necessity) would of itself dissolve the union: for the bare idea of a state, without a power somewhere vested to alter every part of its laws, is the height of political absurdity. The truth seems to be, that in such an incorporate union (which is well distinguished by a very learned prelate from a foederate alliance, where such an infringement would certainly rescind the compact) the two contracting states are totally annihilated, without any power of a revival; and a third arises from their conjunction, in which all the rights of sovereignty, and particularly that of legislation, must of necessity reside. (See Warburton's alliance, 195.) But the wanton or imprudent exertion of this right would probably raise a very alarming ferment in the minds of individuals; and therefore it is hinted above that such an attempt might endanger (though by no means destroy) the union.
To illustrate this matter a little farther: an act of parliament to repeal or alter the act of uniformity in England, or to establish episcopacy in Scotland, would doubtless in point of authority be sufficiently valid and binding; and, notwithstanding such an act, the union would continue unbroken. Nay, each of these measures might be safely and honorably pursued, if respectively agreeable to the sentiments of the English church, or the kirk in Scotland. But it should seem neither prudent, nor perhaps consistent with good faith, to venture upon either of those steps, by a spontaneous exertion of the inherent powers of parliament, or at the instance of mere individuals. — So sacred indeed are the laws abovementioned (for protecting each church and the English liturgy) esteemed, that in the regency acts both of 1751 and 1765 the regents are expressly disabled from assenting to the repeal or alteration of either these, or the act of settlement.
6. Hale Hist. C. L. 183.1 Sid. 382. 462. 2 Show. 365.
7. Cro. Jac. 543. 2 Roll. abr. 292. Stat. 11 Geo. I. c. 4. 4 Burr. 834.
8. Stat. Hiberniae. 14 Hen. III.
9. Pryn. on 4 inst. 249.
10. 4 Inst. 358. Edm. Spenser's state of Ireland. p. 1513. edit. Hughes.
11. Vaugh. 294. 2. Pryn. Rec. 85. 7 Rep. 23.
12. 1 Inst. 141.
13. A. R. 30. 1 Rym. Feod. 443.
14. A. R. 5. pro eo quod leges quibus utuntur Hybernici Deo detestabiles existunt, et omni juri dissonant, adeo, quod leges censeri non debeant; nobis et consilio nostro satis videtur expediens, eisdem utendas concedere leges Anglicanas. [Inasmuch as the laws by which the Irish are governed, are hateful to God and incompatible with justice, and therefore ought not to be considered as laws; it seems highly expedient to us and to our council, to give them the laws of England for their government.] 3 Pryn. Rec. 1218.
15. Edm. Spenser, ibid.
16. 20 Hen. VI. 8. 2 Ric. III. 12.
17. Yearbook 1 Hen. VII. 3. 7. Rep. 22 Calvin's case.
18. Irish Stat. 11 Eliz. st. 3. c. S.
19. Ibid. 10 Hen. VII. c. 22.
20. Cap. 4. expounded by 3 & 4 Ph. and M. c. 4.
21. 4 Inst. 353.
22. Irish Stat. 11 Eliz. st. 3. c. 38.
23. cap. 23.
24. 4 Inst. 351.
25. 12 Rep. 112.
26. Puf. L. of N. viii. 6. 24.
27. This was law in the time of Hen. VIII; as appears by the ancient book, entitled, diversity of courts, c. bank le roy.
28. Vaugh. 402.
29. 4 Inst. 284. 2 And 116.
30. Selden tit. hon 13.
31. Camden. Eliz A. D 1594.
32. 1 P. Wms. 329.
33. The bishopric of Man, or Sodor, or Sodor and Man, was formerly within the province of Canterbury, but annexed to that of York by statute 33 Hen. VIII. c. 31.
34. 4 Inst. 286.
35. Salk. 411. 666.
36. 2 P. Wms. 75.
37. 7 Rep. 17. Calvin's case. Show. Parl. C. 31. See also in the case of Campbell v. Hall. Cowp. Rep. 204. a great and elaborate argument of Lord Mansfield, in delivering the judgment of the court of king's bench.
38. Stat. 12 & 13 Will. III. c. 3.
39. Co. Litt. 260.
40. Finch. L. 78.
41. Co. Litt. 94.
42. Gibson's Britain.
43. Seld. of tith. 9. 4. 2 Inst. 643. Hob. 296.
44. in his Britannia.
45. Hob. 29.
46. of tithes, c 9.
47. c. 1.
48. Ibid c. 2. See also the laws of king Canute, c. II. about the year 1030.
49. 3 Inst. 647. 2 Rep. 44. Cro. Eliz. 512.
50. Flet. 1. 47. This the laws of king Edward the confessor, c. 20. very justly entitled, "summa et maxima securitas, per quam omnes statu firmissimo sustinentur; quae hoc modo fiebat, quod sub decennali fidejussione debebant esse universi" ["the best and greatest security by which all persons are kept in the safest state; which was effected in this manner, that every ten should be sureties for each other"].
51. Mirr. c. 1. §. 3.
52. Finch. L. 8.
53. 1 Inst. 115.
54. Co. Litt. 109.
55. Litt. §. 164.
56. 1 Inst. 116.
57. 14 Edw. I.
58. Gloss. 274.
59. Seld. in Fortesc. c. 24.
60. Seld. tit. of honor. 2. 5. 3.
61. Montesq. Sp. L. 30. 17.
62. Tacit. de morib. German. 6.
63. LL. Edw. c. 34.
64. Seld. tit. hon. 2. 5. 8.
65. Pat. 25 Edw. III. p. 1. m. 18 Seld. ibid. Sandford's gen. hist. 112. 4. 204.
66. Cart. 36 Edw. 111. n. 9.
67. Pat. 31 Edw. III. m. 33 Plowd. 215. 7. Rym. 138.
68. l. 3. c. 8. §. 4.
69. 4 Inst. 204.
70. Seld. in Heng. magn. c. 2.
71. Robertson. Cha. V. i. 60.
72. 4 Inst. 205.
73. 215.
74. 4 Inst. 205.
75. Parl. 2 Hen. V. n. 30. 3 Hen. V. n. 15.
76. 1 Ventr. 155.
77. 1 Ventr. 157.
78. Some have entertained an opinion (Plowd. 320, 1, 2. Lamb. Archeion. 233. 4 Inst. 206.) that by this act the right of the duchy vested only in the natural, and not in the political person of king Henry VII, as formerly in that of Henry IV; and was descendible to his natural heirs, independent of the succession to the crown. And, if this notion were well founded, it might have become a very curious question at the time of the revolution in 1688, in whom the right of the duchy remained after king James's abdication, and previous to the attainder of the pretended prince of Wales. But it is observable, that in the same act the duchy of Cornwall is also vested in king Henry VII and his heirs; which could never be intended in any event to be separated from the inheritance of the crown. And indeed it seems to have been understood very early after the statute of Henry VII, that the duchy of Lancaster was by no means thereby made a separate inheritance from the rest of the royal patrimony; since it descended, with the crown, to the half-blood in the instances of queen Mary and queen Elizabeth: which it could not have done, as the estate of a mere duke of Lancaster, in the common course of legal descent. The better opinion therefore seems to be that of those judges, who held (Plowd. 221) that notwithstanding the statute of Hen. VII (which was only an act of resumption) the duchy still remained as established by the act of Edward IV; separate from the other possessions of the crown in order and government, but united in point of inheritance.
79. 4 Inst 220.