Such Acts must, from their very nature, extend to Wales in its full and real sense, but cannot therefore disregard the special sense affixed to the word by Parliament. Hence, to avoid ambiguity, they usually specify, in addition, those parts of it not included in the twelve shires; thus bearing witness, in substantial legislation, to the unity of the country, which, in nominal description, they are compelled to divide.
That such and such only was the meaning of this new limitation of Wales, is further evident from the remarkable proceedings taken during the following century concerning the Royal Commission of the Lord President of Wales and the Marches.
Although the ancient Marches were politically abolished by the Act which made them shire-ground,[1] this Commission continued to be worded as before. "Wales," however, in that instrument, began thenceforward to signify the thirteen Welch shires; but the meaning to be attached to "Marches" was not so clear, and became the subject of an important controversy. It seemed applicable to the remainder of the ancient Marches which had been joined to English shires. But English shires were subject, in their entirety, to the English Court of Equity, and hence arose a conflict of jurisdiction.
In the reign of Elizabeth, the Crown, with a view to terminate this conflict, and not unwilling to extend at the same time the powers of its own officer, took occasion to insert the names of the shires of Salop, Hereford, Gloucester, and Worcester in the Lord President's Commission. In the 2 Jas. I. this Commission, so far as it comprised these four shires, was disputed, as an illegal encroachment of the Crown, on the ground that a Commission unauthorised by Parliament cannot raise a Court of Equity. The question was as to the meaning of the word "Marches" in the Act[2] continuing the Lord President and his Court; the Crown alleging that it meant these four border shires. All the judges were specially assembled to consider this question. Sir Francis Bacon, then Solicitor-General, has fully set out the arguments used by the Crown, and the points which they were intended to establish or refute, in his tract on "The Jurisdiction of the Marches."[3] The case against the Commission, the authorities cited in support of the case, and the decision of the judges, are recorded by one of the most eminent of those judges, Sir Edward Coke.[4] The decision was unanimous against the Crown, and the King declared his intention of reforming the Commission accordingly. It was not, however, afterwards reformed at all points, as it ought to have
