But notwithstanding the discontinuance of the practice of promulgating general laws by royal charter to bind the whole kingdom, the exercise of prerogative, by means of charters, has partaken of a legis lative character throughout the entire history of the British government. Some of the most ancient and important of these were charters to boroughs and mu nicipal bodies, conferring immunities and franchises, of which the greatest was that of sending representatives to parliament. There are still extant municipal charters of the Saxon kings, and of the Norman kings after the Conquest, conferring various rights upon the inhabitants of boroughs, of which an exclusive juris diction was always one ; but the first charter of incorporation to any municipal body appears to have been granted in 1439, in the reign of Henry VI., to Kings ton-upon-Hull ; although, in the absence of prior charters, it has been usual to presume that charters confirming existing usages had been lost.
But though the king's charters have conferred upon boroughs the right of sending members to parliament, it was held in several cases, by the House of Commons, that the right of voting by the common law, could not be varied by charters from the crown. (Glanville a Reports, p. 47, 63, 70.) Between the reigns of Henry VIII. and Charles II.
no less than 180 members were added to the House of Commons by royal charter, the last borough upon which that right was conferred, in this manner, having been Newark, in 1673. Several of these were ancient boroughs which bad ceased to send members, and whose rights were thus restored by charter ; while some towns, expressly created boroughs by charter, did not send members to parlia ment for centuries afterwards, as Queen borough, for example, to which a charter was granted in 1368, but which did not return members until 1578. Hence it has been argued that, notwithstanding the practice of later reigns, the charter of the crown alone was not sufficient in law to entitle a town to send members to par liament, although expressly created a borough, to which, by the common law, the right of sending members was inci dent. (Merewether and Stephen's His tory of Boroughs and Municipal Corpora tions, Introduction, and pp. 664, 1256, 1774, &c.) This view derives confirma tion from the acknowledged law that the crown was unable, by charter, to exempt a borough from returning members, since that right was always held to be exercised for the benefit of the whole realm, and not for the advantage of the particular place. (Coke, 4th Inst. 49.) Upon these grounds a charter of exemption to the citizens of York was declared void by act of parliament, 29 Henry VI. c. 3. But as parliamentary representation has, at length, been comprehensively arranged for the whole kingdom by the Reform Acts, the legal effect of royal charters upon the elective franchise has become a question merely of historical interest. The peculiar rights of corporations have also been determined by the Municipal Corporations Act ; but a power has been reserved to the crown, with the advice of the Privy Council, to grant charters of incorporation to other towns, upon the petition of the inhabitants, and to extend to them the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Acts (5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 76,
§ 141). [MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.] Charters were formerly granted by the crown, establishing monopolies in the buying, selling, making, working, or using certain things ; an injurious pm tice, contrary to the ancient and funda mental laws of the realm, which was abolished by the act 21 James I. c. 3. [Mom:mots.] The crown has ever exercised, and still retains, the prerogative of inccrporating universities, colleges, companies, and other public bodies, and of granting them, by charter, powers and privileges not incon sistent with the law of the land. But as the most considerable bodies ordinarily require powers which no authority but that of parliament is able to confer, such corporations as the East India Company and the Bank of England, which were originally established by royal charter, have long since derived their extraordi nary privileges from acts of parliament, as well as other public companies which have been incorporated in the first in stance by statute.
But the largest powers now conferred by royal charter are those connected with the colonies and foreign possessions of the crown. Whenever a new country is ob tained by conquest or treaty, the crown possesses an exclusive prerogative power over it, and by royal charters may esta blish its laws and the form of its govern ment; may erect courts of justice, of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and otherwise provide for its municipal order, for the raising its revenue, and the regulation of its commerce. (Chitty, On Preroga tives, c. iii.) This sovereign power, how. ever, is always subject to the ultimate control of parliament ; and even if de puted to a legislative assembly, or other local government, possessing rights and liberties defined by charter, the crown cannot recall the charter, and govern by any laws inconsistent with its provisions, or at variance with the common law.
II. Charters of private persons are the title-deeds of lands, many of which are the ancient grants of feudal lords to their tenants. These pass with the land as in cident thereto, and belong to him who has the inheritance ; or, if the land be conveyed to another and his heirs, the charters belong to the feoffee. A charter of the crown, granted at the suit of the grantee, is construed most beneficially for the crown, and against the party ; but a private charter is construed most strongly against the grantor. (Fleta, lib. iii. c. 14 ; Comyn's Digest, tit. Charters; Coke, lst Inst. 6 a, 7 a, 2nd Inst. 77 ; Cowel, Law Dictionary ; Blackstone and Ste phen's Colanentaries ; Preface to Statutes of the Realm, &c.)