is so prerogative in his lands that he will have no one over him" 45 means what 
it says. 
The existence of particular rules of law for the King's demesne within the 
realm could hardly fail to affect judicial thinking with respect to demesnes that 
lay without, especially since the courts were faced with nearly identical limitations 
on their authority as to all—viz., that original writs were not current, 
that peculiar "customs" applied, and that royal prerogative, if it was at all confined, 
was so by virtue of rules beyond the control of the central courts. Their 
use of the artful dominium to describe the King's control of his properties 
irrespective of situs is suggestive enough of a singleness of thought. Unquestionably 
the crown contributed to this first, by declarations respecting both 
Ireland and Gascony 46 as jurisdictions never to be severed from the crown, 
and subsequently, in reference to Wales, when Edward I announced that although 
hitherto held iure feodalis, this land was henceforward in proprietatis 
nostrae dominium annexed and united to the crown. 47 Since the common law 
had already some rules, if not a theory, about lands annexed to the crown, it 
is not surprising to find the judges occasionally bracketing dominions outside 
the realm with the ancient demesne. While fully conscious of practical diversities, 
they would find procedural parallels, 48 they were disposed to conjoin them 
in the elaboration of their analysis of franchises, 49 and ultimately to explain 
the nonextension of Acts of Parliament on the ground of nonrepresentation. 50 
Analogy can be a potent artifice to advance the bounds of the law, but in the 
instance before us the choice of the ancient demesne was not a particularly 
happy one. A body of rules which was concerned primarily with the proprietary 
rights of the King and in which the element of immunity was so emphatic 
was hardly susceptible of contributing to the growth of doctrine about 
a political relationship. It is true that in the era of American settlement the 
crown derived material advantage from the point of view embodied in these 
old precedents, but so far as English law was concerned their immediate effect 
was to hold captive the rudimentary feudal notions of empire, so that the close 
of the Middle Ages saw the common law judges not far from the point at 
45 YB 33-35 Edw. I (R.S.), 406. 
46 1 Bemont, Roles Gascons, No. 2374 ("Ita 
tamen quod predicte terre et castra omnia 
numquam separentur a corona Anglie . . . sed 
integre remaneant regibus Anglie in perpetuum"). 
Cf. 1 Calendar of Irish Documents, 
no. 844. 
47 1 Statutes of the Realm, 55. 
48 Fitzherbert, Abridgment, Errour 83 (33 
Edw. Ill) 1. The distinction is drawn between 
error from Common Bench to King's Bench, 
where the whole record is sent, and error from 
Ireland or ancient demesne, where a transcript 
is sufficient. 
«» YB 36 Hen. VI, 33 (pi- 34); ef- al *> YB 32 
Hen. VI, 25 (pi. 13). 
60 Brooke, Abridgment, Parlement & Statutes, 
101. Certain Yearbook cases appear to have been 
compounded for the generalization: 22 Lib. Ass. 
pi. 45; YB 7 Hen. VI p. 39; 20 Hen. VI, 8 
(pi. 17). Brooke's analysis is discussed in 
Thorne, A Discourse upon .. . Statutes 
(1942), 23 etseq.