porary with the conquest. Such is the opinion of Blackstone; but Hallam shews that the division of counties existed long before king Alfred's reign, and that there is no sufficient ground for attributing to him the minor divisions. Whether the name of hundred refers to the number of free families, or landholders, or petty vills, contained therein, seems very doubtful; and the very different extent of those divisions, in different parts of England, renders the question still more difficult to decide.3 Hallam doubts whether the tithing-man ever possessed any judicial magistracy over the tithing, and expresses his belief that that functionary was little different from a petty constable. The inhabitants of each tithing were responsible or free pledges to the king for the good behaviour of each other; and if any offence was committed, they were bound to produce the offender within thirty-one days, or else the head of the tithing, or decennary, with two members thereof, were to purge themselves and their decennary, by oath, of any privity with the crime or flight. If they could not do this, they were bound to make compensation.4 Tithing-towns or vills are of the same signification in law, and are said to have had each of them originally a church and celebration of divine service, sacraments and burials. The word town or vill has, indeed, now become a generical term, comprehending under it the several species of cities, boroughs, and common towns.5 A city is defined by Blackstone and Coke to be a borough that has a bishop. Westminster was made a city by letters patent of Henry VIII. It does not seem clear 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 1 Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. ii. c. viii. 4 Blackst. Com. introd. p. 114. Reeves, Hist. of Com. L. v. i. p. 13. 5 Blackst. Com. introd. p. 115. 6 There is something similar to this creation in the civil law; for whether having a bishop is essential to a city not so created. Ingulphus mentions, that by decree of a council held in England A.D. 1071, the bishops' sees were transferred from the towns to cities; and this would prove, if correctly stated by the historian, that the episcopal towns are cities independently of the fact that they have a bishop.1 The two new bishoprics of Manchester and Ripon are not cities. A borough is now understood to be a town, either corporate or not, which sends burgesses to parliament.2 Other towns there are, to the number, Sir E. Coke says, of 8803, which are neither cities nor boroughs; some of which have the privileges of markets, and others not, but both are equally towns in law. To several of these towns there are small appendages belonging, called hamlets, which are taken notice of in the statute of Exeter, 14 Ed. I., which makes frequent mention of entire vills, demivills, and hamlets. A county or shire is made up of an indefinite number of hundreds. Shire is a Saxon word, meaning a division; but a county, comitatus, is plainly derived from comes, the count of the Franks, that is, the earl or alderman (as the Saxons called him) of the shire, to whom the government of it was entrusted. The sheriff, shrive, or shire-reeve, in Latin called vice-comes, was originally the deputy of the count or alderman, and on him the civil administration of the county is now totally devolved.3 the emperors Theodosius and Valentinian raised the town of Berytus to the dignity of a metropolis, by a decree or constitution. L. unic. cod. de metrop. Berytho. Madox Firma Burgi, 2. 1 Co. Litt. 109 a. b. n. 2, 109 b. n. 3. 2 Litt. § 164. Co. Litt. 108 b. n. 4. * Some counties are divided into parts containing several hundreds ; such are lathes in Kent, and rapes in Sussex: these formerly had their D Three counties, Chester, Durham, and Lancaster, are called counties palatine; a designation derived from the word palace, because the owners thereof enjoyed within those provinces jura regalia, or royal rights, as fully as the king has in his palace. Those privileges were very extensive and important until they were abridged, by statute, in the 27th year of Hen. VIII. Chester and Durham are counties palatine by prescription or immemorial custom, or at least as old as the Norman conquest; and Lancaster was erected by Edward III., in favour of Henry Plantagenet, first earl and then duke of Lancaster. His heiress married John of Gaunt, the king's son, for whom the franchise was confirmed and greatly enlarged in parliament. Until lately the county palatine of Durham was vested in the bishop; but on the death of the late bishop Van Mildert, who made a splendid use of his wealth and power, and bestowed a great part of his revenue to found a university in his episcopal city, the palatinate was separated for ever from the bishopric, and annexed to the crown.1 The earldom of Chester was united to the crown by Henry III., and gives title to the king's eldest son.2 Henry Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt, held the county palatine or duchy of Lancaster when he dethroned king Richard, and assumed the title of king Henry IV. subordinate lathe-reeves and rape-reeves. Where a county is divided into three of these intermediate jurisdictions, they are called trithings, which were anciently governed by a trithing-reeve. The word trithing has, in Yorkshire, been corrupted into the name of riding. The number of counties in England is 40, and in Wales 12. Blackst. Introd. p. 117. 16 W. IV. c. xix. Blackst. Com. introd. p. 118. He procured an act of parliament providing that the duchy should descend to his heirs, and be governed and administered as if he had never attained the royal dignity. Thus it descended to his son and grandson, Henry V. and Henry VI., many new territories being annexed to the duchy by the former. Henry VI. being attainted in the first year of Edward IV., the duchy was declared by parliament to have become forfeited to the crown, and, at the same time, an act was made to incorporate the duchy of Lancaster, to continue the county palatine (which might otherwise have terminated by the attainder), and to vest the whole in king Edward and his heirs kings of England for ever, but under a separate governance from the other inheritances of the crown. In the 1st Hen. VII. another act was made to resume such part of the duchy-lands as had been dismembered from it in the reign of Ed. IV., and to vest the inheritance of the whole in the king and his heirs for ever, separate from the crown of England, as it had been held by the three Henrys and Edward IV.1 Certain towns and cities are called counties corporate, because to them has been granted, by divers kings of England, the privilege of being counties within themselves, and not to be comprised in any county. They are accordingly governed by their own sheriffs and other magistrates, so that no officers of the counties in which they are situated have any power to intermeddle therein. Such are London, York, Bristol, Norwich, Coventry, and many others.2 1 Blackst. Com. introd. p. 119. 2 Blackst. Com. introd. p. ult. The following cities and towns are enumerated in the municipal corporations reform act (as it is commonly called), 5 and 6 W. IV. c. lxxvi. § 61, as being counties: Oxford, Berwick-on-Tweed, Bristol, Canterbury, Chester, Coventry, The islands of Wight, Portland, and Thanet, are comprised within some adjoining county of England. The Isle of Man was formerly a distinct territory, kingdom, or lordship, and is still governed by its peculiar laws and customs, though, by an arrangement between the crown and the duke of Athol, to whom it had descended from the illustrious house of Stanly, who received it by letters patent from Henry IV., it has been annexed to the crown of England. The islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, and Alderney, were part of the duchy of Normandy, and were united to the crown of England by the first princes of the Norman line. They are governed by the old feudal laws or Coutume of Normandy, and have their own independent courts, from whence there is an appeal to the queen in council.1 The kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland, which with England constitute the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, remain to be considered. The two crowns of England and Scotland were united by the accession of King James the First to the English throne; but notwithstanding the desire of that prince to accomplish a thorough union between the two kingdoms, and the remarkable conformity of their ancient laws, the descent of the crown, their parliaments, their titles of nobility, their officers of state and justice, and other institutions, they remained perfectly distinct for a century longer." Exeter, Gloucester, Lichfield, Lincoln, Norwich, Worcester, and York, 1 Blackst. Com. introd. p. 105-107. 2 Coke says, "I never read of any union of divided kingdoms, and therefore I conceive it to be without precedent." And he relates that the judges answered to a question of the king, whether there could |