C. H. McIlwain, _The High Court of Parliament and its Supremacy_ (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1910), pp. 109, 158, 352 _ff._, 137, 145. Footnote 741: Osgood, _American Colonies_, vol. III, p. 15; C. M. Andrews, _British Committees_, p. 10. Footnote 742: F. S. Oliver, _Alexander Hamilton_ (London, n.d.), pp. 450, 447. During the period covered by this volume, control over the colonies was asserted in various ways and at various times by both Parliament and the Crown. Patentees of the royal charters not infrequently asked Parliament to confirm their privileges; while that body often inquired into the use which was being made of those monopolistic documents; for it is sometimes forgotten that such a charter as that obtained by Massachusetts, for example, while regarded by the company as the basis of its liberties, could also, quite as legitimately, be regarded by the nation as creating a monopoly in one of its worst forms—that of the exclusive use of the Crown, or public, lands. For the most part, however, Parliament confined itself to passing legislation regarding trade only, its control over the customs being continuous from 1641.[743] Footnote 743: Osgood, _American Colonies_, vol. III, p. 14; Beer, _Origins_, p. 341; _Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum_ (London, 1911), vol. II, p. 425. Those who intended to found plantations necessarily had to apply to the king for a charter, in order to obtain possession of the soil and exemption from certain laws covering emigration and export. Technically, the charters of the corporate colonies ranked merely with those of English municipal corporations. According to a strict interpretation of the law, therefore, so long as the private rights of individuals were not infringed, the English government would be technically justified in altering colonial institutions, or in dividing and combining colonies, without the consent of the inhabitants.[744] As is always the case, old laws and institutions were slightly altered by the use of legal fictions and by modifications in practice, to meet the needs of a new situation. It is unthinkable that an entirely new body of law, and a wholly new set of institutions, should have been created, to serve political contingencies that could by no means have been foreseen. Footnote 744: Osgood, _American Colonies_, vol. III, pp. 7 _ff._ The provinces were the equivalents of English counties.