Subjecthood in England and the British Empire

Bierbach, Jeremy B.

doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-165-4_2

Subjecthood in England and the British Empire

Jeremy B. Bierbach²

Chapter
First Online: 10 February 2017

285 Accesses
1 Altmetric

Abstract

An analysis of the legal roots of US citizenship in British subjecthood, dating from the period of the English, later British colonies in North America and prior, is essential to understanding the development of the relationship of state and federal citizenship in the United States. This analysis of the development of British legal doctrine on subjecthood, and the centrality of allegiance in it, will help to define the ideal type for subjecthood, and later nationality, that is employed in this book as a foil to citizenship. This chapter starts with a review of Sir Edward Coke’s legal opinion in Calvin’s Case, a 1608 case defining subjecthood. It goes on to review the rise of Parliamentary power in England, from the Civil War to the Glorious Revolution, and the redefinition of subjecthood from the Cokean ideal as being owed not to the king, but to the King-in-Parliament. The Whiggish ideals of the British Parliament, however, would come to clash with those of the British subjects in the North American colonies. The American revolutionaries would employ Cokean arguments in the Declaration of Independence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 119.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Bull 1977, p. 245; cf. Grawert 1973, pp. 236–237.
2.
See, at least with regard to the rise of nationality in the 19th century as states gained interest in controlling the movements of “nationals”, Torpey 2000, p. 7 and pp. 72–73.
3.
Bosniak 2006, p. 4.
4.
See Schönberger 2005, p. 42. [Reference to Grawert 1973, p. 235 ff.]
5.
Willson 1956, pp. 251–252.
6.
Wheeler 1956, pp. 588–589.
7.
Kettner 1978, p. 17.
8.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 1a.
9.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 2a.
10.
Stein 1999, p. 20.
11.
Stein 1999, p. 122.
12.
Calvin’s Case 16082b–3a.
13.
Calvin’s Case 1608 4a.
14.
Kettner 1978, pp. 14–15.
15.
Untitled book by John Rastel (1527), quoted in Kim 1996, p. 164.
16.
25 Edw. III st. 2, summarized in Blackstone 1832, p. *373.
17.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 4b.
18.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 8a.
19.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 6b.
20.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 7a.
21.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 7a.
22.
Kettner 1978, pp. 32–33, referring to Parry 1954, pp. 54–58.
23.
The accepted etymology, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is: “late Middle English deynseyn, via Anglo-Norman French from Old French deinz “within” (from Latin de “from” + intus “within”) + -ein (from Latin -aneus “-aneous”). The change in the form of the word was due to association with citizen”.
24.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 5b.
25.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 18b.
26.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 5b.
27.
Cf., for the prescribed form of the indictment for treason, Blackstone 1832 Book IV, p. *252 (in Chapter XXIII, “Of The Several Modes of Prosecution”).
28.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 6b.
29.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 7a.
30.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 8a.
31.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 14a.
32.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 17a.
33.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 18b.
34.
Karatani 2003, p. 50.
35.
On citizenship in ancient Greece and Rome, see Riesenberg 1992, pp. 1–84.
36.
Riesenberg 1992, p. 204.
37.
Parry 1957, pp. 38–39.
38.
Parry 1957, p. 49.
39.
See Parry 1957, p. 51.
40.
Parry apparently only sees this passage as being relevant for implying that the power of denization was exclusive to the King (i.e., unavailable to lower lords or mayors), and is silent on what it might say about any limitations to this royal prerogative. Parry 1957, p. 38.
41.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 14b–15a.
42.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 10a.
43.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 11b.
44.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 11a.
45.
Calvin’s Case 1608,12a.
46.
Kantorowicz 1957. In particular, a deeper relevance of Coke’s assertion of accession to the throne ex jure in Calvin’s Case is discussed on p. 317.
47.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 18b.
48.
Calvin’s Case 1608 10b. About the case of the Duchy of Lancaster, see Kantorowicz 1957, pp. 7–9.
49.
Price 1997, pp. 89–92.
50.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 4a.
51.
Wheeler 1956, pp. 588–589.
52.
Bacon 1826, Vol. IV, pp. 319–362.
53.
Kettner 1978, p. 20.
54.
Wheeler 1956, p. 591.
55.
Altman 1986, p. 222.
56.
Parry 1954, p. 54. In fact, Parry notes here, Scots were given preferential treatment in the denization procedure, not being required to pay the fee that other aliens had to, which Kettner sees as evidence for King James making maximal use of the royal prerogative available to him to endenize his Scottish subjects in England. Kettner 1978 p. 27, n. 44.
57.
Parry 1957, p. 55.
58.
Maitland 1961, p. 302.
59.
Supra at n. 21.
60.
Pocock 1987 [1957], p. 38.
61.
Quoted in Pocock 1987 [1957], pp. 32–33.
62.
Pocock 1987 [1957], p. 36. Kantorowicz 1957 identifies this myth as being based on the medieval notion of aevum, whereby a political order could not be shown to change, p. 279 et seq.
63.
Maitland 1961, pp. 300–301.
64.
Maitland 1961, pp. 257–258.
65.
Maitland 1961, pp. 261–263.
66.
Maitland 1961, p. 302.
67.
Maitland 1961, pp. 306–307.
68.
As Maitland already noted, this Act may have been erroneously based on the notion that the Court of the Star Chamber derived its authority from the 1487 statute. However, the Act left no stones unturned by declaring “that no court should exercise the same or the like jurisdiction as had been exercised by the Star Chamber.” Maitland 1961, p. 311.
69.
Kantorowicz 1957, pp. 20–23.
70.
Maitland 1961, pp. 282–283.
71.
Maitland 1961, p. 309.
72.
Beddard 1988, p. 64.
73.
Beddard 1988, p. 65.
74.
Horwitz 1977, pp. 9–10.
75.
Horwitz 1977, pp. 10–11.
76.
Maitland 1961, p. 296.
77.
Maitland 1961, p. 309.
78.
Maitland 1961, p. 284.
79.
Maitland 1961, p. 283.
80.
Maitland 1961, pp. 284–285.
81.
Lynch 1992, pp. 300–302.
82.
Locke c. 1681, in particular, Chap. 8.
83.
Wootton 1993, p. 22.
84.
For a more in-depth analysis of the Machiavellian influence, see Pocock 1975, in particular Chaps. 10–13.
85.
Behrens 1941, at pp. 48–49.
86.
Wootton 1993, pp. 18–22.
87.
Kettner 1978, Chap. 3, “Coke, Locke, and Perpetual Allegiance”, pp. 44–61.
88.
Kettner 1978, p. 44.
89.
Wootton 1993, p. 18.
90.
Wootton 1993, pp. 36–37.
91.
In particular, Robbins 1959.
92.
Pocock 1987 [1957], pp. 363–365.
93.
Kettner 1978, pp. 50–51.
94.
Pocock 1987 [1957], p. 46.
95.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 14a, cf. supra n. 31.
96.
Coke 1628, 129a. Quoted in Kettner 1978, p. 50.
97.
See also Resnick 1987, at pp. 380–381.
98.
Locke c. 1681, §107.
99.
Locke c. 1681, §170–171.
100.
Kettner 1978, pp. 54 and 60.
101.
Reprinted in Resnick 1987.
102.
Cf. supra n. 42 and 43.
103.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 12a.
104.
Locke c. 1681. Also partially cited in Kettner 1978, p. 53.
105.
Pocock 1987 [1957], pp. 47–48.
106.
Smith 1906, cited by Maitland 1961, p. 255.
107.
Riesenberg 1992, pp. 242–243.
108.
Riesenberg 1992, p. 244.
109.
Pocock 1987 [1957], p. 127.
110.
Pocock 1987 [1957], p. 232. [Pocock mentions the use of this theory by Thomas Paine, see also infra at n. 197].
111.
From the surviving text of a January 1689 speech by William Petyt, Keeper of the Records of the Tower of London, upon being consulted by the House of Lords during its debate on the resolution. Quoted in Pocock 1987 [1957], pp. 229–230.
112.
Bacon 1826, Vol. III, pp. 288–307.
113.
Price 1997, pp. 97–98.
114.
Henriques 2006 [1909], p. 241. Kettner 1978 at p. 67 also mentions this act and provides the citation reference for it: 7 Jac. I, c. 2.
115.
Robbins 1962, p. 169.
116.
Robbins 1962, p. 170.
117.
In Robbins 1962, p. 177.
118.
Robbins 1962, p. 170.
119.
For a brief review of the Act of Abjuration by which the Dutch had declared their independence, see infra at n. 184 et seq.
120.
Although, of course, as Eijsbouts points out, the citizens of Dutch towns created their civic independence within the matrix of a common subjecthood to the Habsburg emperor. Eijsbouts 2011, p. 17. Furthermore, while it is not legally significant, the modern Dutch national anthem, which retells the story of the independence of the Low Countries from a fictional narrative perspective of William of Orange (or William the Silent), still contains the line, curious to modern audiences: “The king of Spain/I have always honored”. For a further discussion of the legal underpinnings of the independence of the Dutch Republic, see infra at n. 184.
121.
Obdeijn and Schrover 2008, pp. 26–27.
122.
Parry 1954, pp. 27–28.
123.
Parry 1954, p. 32.
124.
Parry 1957, pp. 36–38.
125.
At n. 32 supra.
126.
At n. 33 supra.
127.
Robbins 1962, p. 174.
128.
Robbins 1962, pp. 170–172.
129.
Sir John Knight the Younger, in Cobbett’s parliamentary history of England from the Norman conquest to the year 1803 1806, Vol. 6, pp. 780–783. First quote from Resnick 1987, p. 379, second quote from Robbins 1962, p. 171.
130.
Robbins 1962, p. 173; quote from p. 177.
131.
Resnick 1987, p. 372.
132.
Resnick 1987, p. 370; in this Resnick cites both Robbins 1962, 1959.
133.
Locke 1694 (reproduced in Resnick), p. 385.
134.
Resnick 1987, p. 379.
135.
Cf. Resnick 1987, pp. 372–373.
136.
Robbins 1962, p. 170; and (in an entry about Montagu) Cruickshanks and Handley 2002, Vol. 1, p. 884.
137.
Kettner 1978, pp. 71–72.
138.
Robbins 1962, p. 176.
139.
We shall limit our primary analysis to the British colonies that would end up constituting the United States.
140.
Greene 1905, pp. 13–16.
141.
Greene 1905, pp. 17–24.
142.
Greene 1905, p. 45.
143.
Maitland 1961, pp. 199–200.
144.
Maitland 1961, pp. 388–390.
145.
Greene 1905, pp. 46–48.
146.
Greene 1905, pp. 49–51. The Connecticut annulment is also mentioned by Fehrenbacher 1981, p. 104 as an example of the tradition of judicial review that the American constitution was to inherit.
147.
Greene 1905, pp. 53–55.
148.
Calvin’s Case 1608 18a.
149.
This conception was most notably elaborated on in Wilson 1774 (Angermann 1965, p. 72 n. 2; Bailyn 1992, p. 225).
150.
Bailyn 1992, p. 223.
151.
Parry 1957, pp. 46–47.
152.
Parry 1957, p. 58.
153.
Parry 1957, p. 59.
154.
Parry 1957, p. 57.
155.
Karatani 2003, p. 51.
156.
In re: the Stepney Election Petition (Isaacson v. Durant) 1886.
157.
Parry 1957, pp. 59–60.
158.
In re: the Stepney Election Petition (Isaacson v. Durant) 1886, p. 65.
159.
Parry 1957, pp. 46–47.
160.
Hoyt 1952, p. 262.
161.
Hoyt 1952, p. 248; also Kettner 1978, p. 95.
162.
See supra at n. 19 and 40.
163.
Hoyt 1952, pp. 252–253.
164.
Hoyt 1952, p. 252.
165.
Hoyt 1952, p. 250 at n. 9; also Kettner 1978, pp. 102–103.
166.
Roche 1949, p. 2.
167.
Kettner 1978 reviews the cases on record, including the case of the originally French denizen of New York Arnold Nodine, which led directly to the 1700 order from the Privy Council, on pp. 90–97.
168.
Kettner 1978, pp. 73–74. This statute is also described in Parry 1957, p. 75.
169.
Kettner 1978, pp. 74–77.
170.
Parry 1957, speaking very much from the British perspective, can think of no reasonable explanation for this practice other than to identify it as part of a separatist tendency on the part of the colonies, in opposition to the trend toward a common Imperial subjecthood. pp. 75–76.
171.
Kettner 1978, p. 104.
172.
Kettner 1978, p. 120.
173.
Kettner 1978, pp. 104–105.
174.
Kettner 1978, p. 121.
175.
Kettner 1978, pp. 121–122.
176.
Angermann 1965, pp. 62–63.
177.
Becker 1922, p. 18.
178.
Angermann 1965, pp. 76–77.
179.
Angermann 1965, pp. 72–73.
180.
Angermann 1965, p. 77.
181.
His MAJESTY’s most Gracious SPEECH to both Houses of Parliament, on Thursday the 26th of October, 1775. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eccodemo/K124613.0001.001/1:1?rgn=div1;view=fulltext.
182.
Angermann 1965, pp. 68–69 and 79.
183.
Angermann 1965, pp. 78–80.
184.
Angermann 1965, pp. 83–84; and Plakkaat van Verlatinghe http://nl.wikisource.org/wiki/Plakkaat_van_Verlatinghe. My translations from the Dutch.
185.
Angermann 1965, pp. 80–81.
186.
Angermann 1965, pp. 87–89.
187.
Maitland 1961, pp. 13–14.
188.
Glanville 1812, p. 225. (Book 9, Chap. 4). Coke quoted this passage as “mutua debet esse domini et fide litatis connexion ita quod quantum debet omino ex homagio, tantum illi debet dominus ex dominio, præter solam reverentiam”.
189.
Calvin’s Case 1608, 4b–5a.
190.
Bailyn 1992, pp. 70–79.
191.
Angermann 1965, p. 89.
192.
See supra at n. 97 et seq. a.
193.
Angermann 1965, pp. 81–82.
194.
The going doctrine of the parliamentarians was that the Commons “virtually represented” the interests of Britons in the colonies, in precisely the same way as it “virtually represented” the nine-tenths of the people of Britain who lacked the franchise. Daniel Dulany countered this argument by saying that the point of virtual representation was that the interests of those who voted should be bound up with the interests of those who could not vote: a vote to tax the people of Britain affected voters and non-voters there alike, but a vote to tax the people of the colonies did not affect the voters of Britain. Bailyn 1992, pp. 166–168.
195.
Angermann 1965, p. 75.
196.
Boyd 1950, pp. 337–345.
197.
Bailyn 1992, p. 286 and Common Sense http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1776-1785/thomas-paine-common-sense/some-writers-have-so-confounded.php, Chap. 2.
198.
Bailyn 1992, p. 80.
199.
Supra at n. 108 et seq.
200.
Indeed, as Arendt notes, the “rights of Englishmen” could be claimed as a completely opposite ideal to universal human rights, as Edmund Burke did in a 1790 writing criticizing the Enlightenment-based French Declaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen. Arendt 1994, p. 299.
201.
Bell 1980, p. 24.
202.
Boyd 1950, p. 426.
203.
Angermann 1965, p. 80.
204.
Boyd 1950, p. 338.
205.
Boyd 1950, p. 425, n. 10.
206.
Kaufman, M, “Jefferson changed ‘subjects’ to ‘citizens’ in Declaration of Independence”. The Washington Post, 3 July 2010.

References

Altman A (1986) Legal realism, critical legal studies, and Dworkin. Philos Public Aff 15(3):205–235
Google Scholar
Angermann E (1965) Ständische Rechtstraditionen in der amerikanischen Unabhängigkeitserklärung. Historische Zeitschrift 200(1):30–61
Google Scholar
Anonymous (1806) Cobbett’s parliamentary history of England from the Norman Conquest to the year 1803. Hansard, London
Google Scholar
Arendt H (1994) The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt, San Diego
Google Scholar
Bacon F (1826) The works of Francis Bacon, New Edition edn. Longman, Hurst and Co, [S.l.]
Google Scholar
Bailyn B (1992) The ideological origins of the American revolution, Enl. edn. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass
Google Scholar
Becker CL (1922) The Declaration of Independence: a study in the history of political ideas. Alfred A. Knopf, New York
Google Scholar
Beddard R (1988) A kingdom without a king: the journal of the provisional government in the revolution of 1688. Phaidon, Oxford
Google Scholar
Behrens B (1941) The Whig theory of the Constitution in the reign of Charles II. Camb Hist J 7(1941):42
Article Google Scholar
Bell D (1980) Race, racism and American law. Little, Brown, Boston
Google Scholar
Blackstone W (1832) Commentaries on the laws of England: with an analysis of the work. J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia
Google Scholar
Bosniak L (2006) The citizen and the alien: dilemmas of contemporary membership. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Book Google Scholar
Boyd JP (ed) (1950) The papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 1760–1776
Google Scholar
Bull H (1977) The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics. MacMillan Press, London
Book Google Scholar
Coke E (1628) The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England
Google Scholar
Cruickshanks E, Handley S (eds) (2002) The House of Commons, 1690–1715. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Eijsbouts WT (2011) Onze primaire hoedanigheid: Rede over recht en burgerschap van de Europese Unie, gegeven bij de aanvaarding van het hoogleeraarschap Europees recht aan de Universiteit Leiden. Europa Instituut, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden
Google Scholar
Fehrenbacher DE (1981) Slavery, law, and politics: the Dred Scott case in historical perspective. Oxford University Press, New York
Google Scholar
Glanville Rd (1812) A translation of Glanville. A.J. Valpy, London
Google Scholar
Grawert R (1973) Staat und Staatsangehörigkeit: Verfassungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Staatsangehörigkeit. Duncker und Humblot, Berlin
Google Scholar
Greene EB (1905) Provincial America, 1690–1740, New York
Google Scholar
Henriques HSQ (2006 [1909]) Jewish marriages and the English law. The Lawbook Exchange, Clark, NJ
Google Scholar
Horwitz H (1977) Parliament, policy and politics in the reign of William III. Manchester University Press, Manchester
Google Scholar
Hoyt EA (1952) Naturalization under the American colonies: signs of a new community. Polit Sci Q 67(2):248–266
Article Google Scholar
Kantorowicz EH (1957) The king’s two bodies: a study in mediaeval political theology. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Google Scholar
Karatani R (2003) Defining British Citizenship: empire, commonwealth and modern Britain. Frank Cass, London
Google Scholar
Kettner JH (1978) The development of American citizenship, 1608–1870. Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill
Google Scholar
Kim K (1996) Calvin’s case (1608) and the law of Alien status. J Leg Hist 17(2):155–171
Article Google Scholar
Locke J (1694) For a general naturalization (in Resnick, pp 385–388)
Google Scholar
Locke J (c. 1681) The Second Treatise of Government
Google Scholar
Lynch M (1992) Scotland: a new history. Pimlico, London
Google Scholar
Maitland FW (1961) The constitutional history of England: a course of lectures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Google Scholar
Obdeijn HLM, Schrover M (2008) Komen en gaan: immigratie en emigratie in Nederland vanaf 1550. Bakker, Amsterdam
Google Scholar
Parry C (1954) British Nationality Law and the History of Naturalisation. University of Milan, Milan
Google Scholar
Parry C (1957) Nationality and citizenship laws of the Commonwealth and of the Republic of Ireland. Stevens, London
Google Scholar
Pocock JGA (1975) The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Google Scholar
Pocock JGA (1987 [1957]) The ancient constitution and the feudal law: a study of English historical thought in the seventeenth century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Price PJ (1997) Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin’s Case. Yale J Law Humanit 9(1):73–129
Google Scholar
Resnick D (1987) John Locke and the problem of naturalization. Rev Polit 49(3):368–388
Article Google Scholar
Riesenberg PN (1992) Citizenship in the Western Tradition: Plato to Rousseau. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill
Google Scholar
Robbins C (1959) The eighteenth-century Commonwealthman: studies in the transmission, development, and circumstance of English liberal thought from the restoration of Charles II until the war with the thirteen colonies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Book Google Scholar
Robbins C (1962) A note on general naturalization under the later Stuarts and a speech in the House of Commons on the subject in 1664. J Mod Hist 34(2):168–177
Article Google Scholar
Roche JP (1949) The early development of United States citizenship. Ithaca, NY
Google Scholar
Schönberger C (2005) Unionsbürger: Europas föderales Bürgerrecht in vergleichender Sicht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Smith T (1906) De Republica Anglorum: a discourse on the Commonwealth of England
Google Scholar
Stein P (1999) Roman law in European history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Torpey JC (2000) The invention of the passport: surveillance, citizenship and the state. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Wheeler H (1956) Calvin’s case (1608) and the McIlwain-Schuyler Debate. Am Hist Rev 61(3):587–597
Article Google Scholar
Willson DH (1956) King James VI and I. Cape, London
Google Scholar
Wilson J (1774) Considerations on the nature and the extent of the legislative authority of the British Parliament. Printed and sold by William and Thomas Bradford at the London Coffee-House, Philadelphia
Google Scholar
Wootton D (1993) Introduction. In: Wootton D (ed) Political Writings of John Locke. Mentor, New York, pp 7–122
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Franssen Advocaten, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Jeremy B. Bierbach

Authors

Jeremy B. Bierbach
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy B. Bierbach .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bierbach, J.B. (2017). Subjecthood in England and the British Empire. In: Frontiers of Equality in the Development of EU and US Citizenship. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-165-4_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-165-4_2
Published: 10 February 2017
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-164-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-165-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

TMC Asser Press (opens in a new tab)