The Lordship and Bailiwick of Ennerdale: A Royal Liberty “Quasi
Reges in Territorio Suo”
I. Origins of the Royal Bailiwick
The Bailiwick or Liberty of Ennerdale in Cumberland arose as a
royal jurisdiction within the ancient forest of Copeland,
forming part of the Crown’s personal demesne after the attainder of Henry Grey,
Duke of Suffolk, in 1554.
Unlike ordinary manors that were absorbed into the Duchy of Lancaster or subordinated to a
feudal honor, Ennerdale remained “a manor per se” — an independent unit of royal administration.
From the reigns of Mary I through George IV, the monarchs held it directly and
appointed stewards, seneschals, and bailiffs to manage its courts,
woods, and revenues.
Such a bailiwick was more than property: it was an
instrument of local government, endowed with
regalian powers of justice, taxation, and police. To hold
it was to exercise the “franchise of the Crown” within defined boundaries.
II. Royal Alienation and the Transformation of Tenure
When King George IV of the United Kingdom and Hanover sold the
manor and forest outright with sanction from Parliament and Commissioners
to William, Earl of Lonsdale on 26 September 1822 for £2,500,
the sale was not a mere conveyance of land. It was the alienation of a jurisdiction, transferring to the
purchaser the totality of the Crown’s local rights.
Because the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 had already converted feudal
tenures into free and common socage, the purchaser held not by homage or knight service, but in fee simple absolute.
Yet this alienation preserved the character of the domain. The new lord
inherited:
-
the Court Leet and View of Frankpledge,
-
the power to appoint officers of the manor,
-
rights over waste, minerals, and forest, and
-
the ability to exact fines, heriots, and amercements.
Thus, though the property passed into private hands, it continued to
function as a self-contained liberty endowed with royal
franchises.
III. “Quasi Reges in Territorio Suo” — Kings Within Their
Territory
English constitutional jurists long observed that holders of great
liberties and franchises were “as kings within their territory.” Lord Coke in his
Institutes described the Bishops of Durham and the Earls of
Chester as possessing “jura regalia”—the royal rights—within their counties palatine.
Blackstone later wrote that every franchise granted by the Crown “is a branch of the
royal prerogative delegated to a subject.”
The Lord of Ennerdale, as the inheritor of a royal bailiwick alienated in perpetuity, exemplifies that
principle. Within the bounds of the liberty:
-
His court leet replaced the sheriff’s tourn;
-
His steward and bailiff executed minor justice without
interference from the shire;
-
His rents and fines, once payable to the Exchequer, became his
own revenues; and
-
His seal and jurisdiction represented the delegated presence of
the monarch.
In medieval Latin terms, he held “regalia minora”—the lesser rights of kingship—within the King’s peace but not under the King’s hand.
IV. Exercising the King’s Franchise Rights
The phrase “exercising the King’s franchise rights” refers to the
continuation of public authority in private hands. The
Crown alone could create such franchises; when it alienated them, the recipient
became the dominus liberae ballivae—Lord of the Free
Bailiwick.
These powers included:
-
Judicial Franchise — to hold the View of Frankpledge and punish breaches of the peace.
-
Administrative Franchise — to appoint constables,
reeves, foresters, and jurors for local governance.
-
Fiscal Franchise — to collect fines, tolls, and
perquisites formerly payable to the Crown.
-
Territorial Franchise — to exclude county officers
from acting within the liberty without the lord’s consent.
Such authority mirrored the King’s prerogative in miniature:
imperium in imperio, a government within the government of the
realm.
V. Constitutional Significance of a Free Liberty
By the early nineteenth century, few liberties of this type survived as
true seignories. Ennerdale, unlike duchy or ecclesiastical
franchises, had been sold outright in fee simple, making it one of the last
examples of a royal jurisdiction transmuted into private
sovereignty.
Its lord no longer owed service or rent to the Crown, yet continued to exercise the
regalian customs of a forest lordship. In practice he
stood “as a king within his domain, though under the greater
King” — a phrase that perfectly captures the English balance between
delegated sovereignty and ultimate allegiance.
VI. Conclusion
The Lordship and Bailiwick of Ennerdale is more than a relic of feudal
tenure. It embodies the constitutional genius of England: the capacity of the Crown to
delegate fragments of its own authority while maintaining
the unity of the realm.
Because Ennerdale was a Crown bailiwick alienated in fee, its lord inherited the
King’s franchise rights—courts, officers, fines, and jurisdiction—and
thus occupies the classical status described by jurists as “quasi rex in territorio suo.”
In essence, the Lord of Ennerdale is a prince of law, not of rebellion:
a subject who governs by ancient royal authority,
who holds in free and common socage rather than feudal dependence,
and who, within the green borders of that Cumbrian liberty,
still exercises the shadow and dignity of kingship under the Crown.
Citation:
Col. R. P. Littledale, “The Bailiwick or Liberty of Ennerdale, Cumberland,”
Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian &
Archaeological Society, Vol. 31 (1931), pp. 156–185.
https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-2055-1/dissemination/pdf/Article_Level_Pdf/tcwaas/002/1931/vol31/tcwaas_002_1931_vol31_0021.pdf
