The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1804-12-26 00:00:00

been a part of the Rom to but it neither is, nor
as we conceive ever was, a part of the law of Eng-
land. It is well known that Brae'lon and Fleta
wrote their several treatises upon the plan of the
Imperial laws, and it is as well known that those
laws never obtained here, through the general aver-
sion this nation (always zealous of its liberties) had
towards them, and accordingly, wherever these
writers differ (tom our year books and authentic
reports, they are not allowed to be of anthotity. And '
as to this part of the Roman law in particular,
which relates to the pitri,, pot, .!a., it is acknowledged
by all, even by Justinian himself, that it was so pe-
culiar to the Romans, that it never obtained among
any other people whatsoever. Jas auk," potestotel,
vied iil hsbetems, r*prispte RUMIII4IIIOI,
esim aunt Imikinas, ?at talon rn hbercs tiabeant pa
trstaftem, guteheste nos &theme's.
1. But to give a more particular answer to these
passages, which are the only ones that have the least
appearance of law, it is evident they cannot be made
to affe& the caw of the. Royal Family by any oast:
constru/lion than what will equally affe& every other
family in England. Bat that from these passages
nothing can be concluded to determine the extent of
the 'Wrier pales as in any family here, is clear from
the reason on which the power of the grandfather
among the Romans is founded.
" Now the reason of the Roman law why chil-
dren should not be in the power of the father, but
of the grandfather, exclusive of the father, was, be-
cause the father himself was not oil iftres, and in his
power, but in pi:o'i: jamihiss 4141 matte! pottstale, man-
•ipiere ; which are the words of the law of the
twelve tables ; and it was manifestly absurd, that
he should have others in his power, who WAS nut in
his own.

" This servile condition of the son to the father,
which had ordinarily no end, till the father himself
was pleased, by emancipation, to put an end to it,
being the stile foundation of the grandfather's right
to the grand children, as well as to every thing else
the father was possessed of; when this state of the
father ceased, the power of the grandfather neces-
sarily ceased with it. And so it is declared in Jus-
tinian's Ins. itutes, that if the son was emancipated
and set free from the power of his father, the
chil-
dren begotten after such emancipation are not in the
power of the grandfather, but of the father.
" Quasi post eatanciptitonens conceplvs fiterst, palm
sesi r.na, 5 tpnh poleaals
" But not to insist that by tile laws of England no
father has such a power over his children, even in
their min°, ity, as the Roman law gave, it is undeni-
able that witn us marriage hath the nature of a true
And proper emancipation of the person of the son,
and by consequence, even upon the pounds of the
Raman law, the grandfather with us can have no
right to the children of the son, but the father only.
It, therefore, nothing otherwise appears to dittia-
guish the case of the R„-al Family, there can be no
foundation upon which any prerogati►e can be esta-
blished in the instance now in question ; and %e
humbly apprehend that the only precedents which
can be alleged to support such aperogative, when
considered, will not be found sufficisnt.

a The first, in the 22d Henry the Third, entitled
in Rymer, dr Atormord Aun Gdfr,di, &c. is only a de-
claration under the Great Seal that I albot
had surrendered to King Henry the Third the Castle
of Gloucester, d Alnvwras, consanvithran Mane M.-
met :heolaondn. What can be inferred from hence is
hard to determine any farther than that this A lianor
was in ward to the Crown, and bad been committed
to the care of Talbot, who had surrendered her and
her estate safe again to the King.
" The other precedent, which is in the 11th of
Henry the Fourth, is a grant of an annual sum of
SO') marks to the Prince of Wales for the expense
of the maintenance of Edmund, Earl of March, and
his brother, so lung as they should remain in the
Prince's custody, to whom they had been com-
mitted the Fehruary beige. As to this it appears
by the history and records of those times, that Ro-
ger de Mortimer, their father, W.I; killed in Ireland
22 R. e. and that their mother soon after married
Sir Edward Charlton, Lord Powis, and died 7th
Henry t. so that the eldest son wa; then in ward
to the Crown, by reason of his lands held of the
Crown, as were his Lordships of Wigmore and
Clare inter rein ; and his brother Roger was then
an intuit of very tender age, and under the care of
the King, as next relation ; and it appears that he
died very young ; in which latter Case we humbly
conceive that the care which the Mil WAS pleased
to take of an infant and orphan so nearly related to
him, will not be a precedent to establish a power
in the Crown to dispose of the custody of a child
while the father is living.
" If any stress can be laid upon virinted history,
the case of Richard, son to Edward. the Black
Prince, will be an instance agauast this power, sup-
posed to be lodged by law in the grandfather.—
I le being a minor, lived with his father as part of
his famil, and his tither appointed his Governor,
of which' we have this relation in Holingshead;
that Sir Simen Burlie, kinsman to Dr. Burlie, one
of the initiators of Edward the Black P; ince. hav-
ing been admitted among other young Gentlemen
to be schoolfelloor with the Prince, he grew in such
credit and favour with him, that afterwards, when
his son, Richard of Bourdeaux, —As born, the
Prince, for special trust and confidence which he
had in the said Simon Burlie, committed the go-
vern:mar and education of his son Richard to him ;
and, after the death of the Black Prince, it appears,
by two very remarkable instances in our history,
that Richard continued with his mother till the
death of his grandfather, king Edward the Third.

" The younger children Pi Edward the Fourth
lived with their mother, whose wardship she de.
Glared she claimed by the advice of Learned Coun-
sel, according to the relation given us by Sir Thos.
More, afterwards Lord Chancellor of England, in
his history or those times. Nor was it then pre.
tended that the King had any right to their edues.
tion, or the care of their persons ; and, although the
Queen WAs prevailed upon :o part with her son,
Richard Duke of Yort, her daughters remained to
her co.tody till she herself was contented to send
them to Court.

As to the education of their late Majesties.
Qissen Mary and Quern Anne, during their mino-
rities, it does not appear to us that their rinds., king
( hatles the ltd. appointed their governesses and ser-
vants, or any one person that Attended them; and
we Are 11.. t ramie acquainted with the circumstarta