in his capacity not amenable to t Sovereign remedy obtainable by the subject for personal acts of personal tyranny and oppression on the part of the sovereign which have not been instigated by bad advisers, but have proceeded from the personal misconduct of the authority. monarch himself. Should any such cases occur, so far as the ordinary course of law is concerned, they would be covered by the maxim which forbids the imputation of wrong to the sovereign, and the erring prince must be left to the rebukes of his own conscience, and to his personal accountability to God alone. No decisions in regard to common criminal offences committed by any English king are to be found in the books; the jurists contending that the case of a sovereign being guilty of a common crime must be treated as the laws of Solon treated parricide, it must be considered an impossibility." It was truly observed by Locke, in his essay on Government,' that the inconveniency of some particular mischiefs that may happen sometimes, when a heady prince comes to the throne, are well recompensed by the peace and public security which result from the person of the chief magistrate being set out of reach of danger. Personal acts and opinions of sove It would be unparliamentary to put questions to ministers of the crown, in either House, in regard to any personal acts or opinions of the sovereign, or of reign and any of the royal family, for which ministers are not refamily not sponsible." In 1871, Mr. Gladstone replied to a question. cognizable of this kind, under protest, and in order to disabuse the public mind of an erroneous impression. royal by Parliament. And it is contrary to the usages of Parliament to address the Crown upon matters which have not been made matters of compact between the sovereign and Parliament." Broom's Leg. Max. p. 63. Mir. of Parl. 1841, pp. 60, 78. 217, pp. 1187, 1446. Ib. v. 228, p. 1495. * Hans. D. v. 204, p. 866. y Mr. Gladstone, Hans. D. v. 206, p. 323. And see similar precedents in Com. Papers, 1868-9, v. 35, p. 959. Questions relating to the discharge of public duties by the sovereign are not irregular, but they must be couched in respectful and parliamentary language." The curious question, whether the sovereign is examinable as a witness, was raised in 1818, in the Berkeley peerage case, in reference to the Prince Regent. The crown lawyers were unanimous in their opinion that the reigning monarch could not, by any mode, give evidence as a witness in a civil suit. On the other hand, it has been asserted by Lord Campbell, that the sovereign, if so pleased, might be examined as a witness. in any case, civil or criminal, but that he must be sworn; although there would be no temporal sanction to the oath,' inasmuch as he is the fountain of justice, and no wrong may be imputed to him." 6 How far the king is bound in his private capacity to undertake municipal charges or offices is said to be doubtful. George III. was nominated churchwarden of St. Martin's, and the parishioners absurdly threatened to bring an action to compel him to assume the functions! He accepted the office, and got himself represented by deputy.c The sove reign as a witness. come. The civil list' which is granted by Parliament for Royal inthe support of the royal household, and for the maintenance of the dignity of the crown in England, has, ever since the accession of George III., been given in exchange for the hereditary revenues of the crown, which are all surrendered to Parliament. The civil list is settled anew upon the accession of every sovereign, and was fixed, in the case of Queen Victoria, at £385,000 per annum. But more than one-third of this amount is allotted, by Act of Parliament, to defray salaries and superannuation allowances of the royal establishment. The sole remaining portions of the ancient estates of the Civil list. crown which continue under the exclusive control of the royal family, are the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The former is a peculium of the Queen, although the chancellorship of the duchy is considered as a political office. Parliament is annually informed of the revenues of the duchy, though the nett receipts. are paid into the Queen's privy purse. Under the improved management effected by the late Prince Consort, the estates of the duchy are becoming increasingly valuable. The Duchy of Cornwall is the independent inheritance of the Prince of Wales, as heir-apparent, and only becomes the property of the crown when there is no heir-apparent of the throne. Without denying the abstract right of Parliament to interfere with the disposal of the income arising from these royal duchies, it is not customary for the House of Commons to enter upon such enquiries. There is a moral liability laid upon Parliament to provide to an adequate extent for the honourable support of the junior branches of the royal family as they come to years of maturity, or are about to form matrimonial engagements, upon being invited to do so by message from the crown. This obligation has been invariably undertaken by Parliament in a loyal and liberal spirit." e See the Crown Lands, by J. W. Lyndon (London, 1871). As to the distinction between lands which have been assigned by the state for the maintenance of the honour and dignity of the crown and estates which belong to the reigning sovereign, for the time being, as a private person, see Smith's Parl. Remb. 1862, p. 104. And see a discussion upon a Bill to grant to her Majesty the enjoyment of Claremont House during her life or pleasure. Hans. D. v. 182, pp. 960965, 1075. Ib. v. 183, pp. 423, 921, And Act 29 & 30 Vic. c. 62, sec. 30. Com. Papers, 1874, v. 35. For a history of all the ancient crown revenues, see Com. Pap. 1868-9, v. 35, pp. 915–961. Hans. D. v. 206, p. 323; v. 210, pp. 284–299. Mr. Gladstone, Hans. D. v. 208, pp. 570-575, v. 217, p. 1338. For precedents of such grants, from 1688 to the present time, see Com. Pap. 1869-9, v. 35, p. 607, &c. For practice, in both Houses, on such messages, see Hans. D. v. 217, p. 1180. And see Amos, Fifty Years of the Eng. Const. p. 226. tive in powers. There are some branches of the royal prerogative Preroga which may fitly engage our attention in the present chap- relation to ter: those wherein the sovereign represents the state in foreign its dealings with foreign nations. They will naturally admit of the following classification:-1. The right of declaring war and making peace. 2. Intercourse with foreign powers. 3. The right of making treaties. 4. Interference in the internal concerns of foreign nations. Under each head the constitutional limits of parliamentary interference with the prerogative in question will be briefly stated. (1.) The Right of declaring War and making Peace. war and peace. The Constitution has vested this right exclusively in Right of the crown, to be exercised according to the discretion declaring of the sovereign, as he may judge the honour and in- making terests of the nation to require. But this, like all other prerogatives, must be exercised by the advice and upon the responsibility of ministers, who are accountable to Parliament, and are liable to parliamentary censure or impeachment for the improper commencement, conduct, or conclusion of a war.h The previous consent of Parliament, either to the commencement of a war or the conclusion of a peace, is not formally required by the Constitution. The necessity for obtaining adequate supplies for the prosecution of a contest with any foreign power, and the control possessed by Parliament over the army and navy by means of the annual Mutiny Acts, coupled with the existence of ministerial responsibility, constitute a sufficiently powerful check against the improper use of this prerogative. Nevertheless, if the hostilities about How far to be entered into are likely to involve serious conse- parlia quences, it would be the duty of ministers, before en- mentary h Cox, Inst. Eng. Govt. 596. Bowyer, Const. Law, 160. And see Amos, Fifty Years of the Eng. subject to control. Inter ference of Parlia gaging therein, to summon Parliament, to communicate to it the reasons for resorting to arms, and to ask for its advice and co-operation in carrying on the war. If Parliament be in session at the time, it is customary for a royal message to be sent down, announcing the commencement of hostilities; but this form has not been invariably observed. the A debate arose in the House of Commons in 1867 k upon question of whether the conduct of the government in prosecuting the expedition for the forcible release of certain British subjects imprisoned in Abyssinia, without immediate appeal to Parliament, was constitutional. The 54th Clause of the Indian Government Act1 expressly directs that when any order to commence hostilities is sent to India the fact shall be communicated to Parliament within three months, if Parliament be sitting, or within one month after its next meeting. The China war (1857-1860) was 'begun and finished without the servants of the crown thinking fit to ask for a direct approval of their policy by Parliament,' although resolutions condemnatory of the war were proposed in both Houses and carried in the House of Commons.m The crown, in communicating to Parliament the breaking out of hostilities, the existence of a state of war, or the commencement of negotiations for peace," rogative. thereby invites an expression of opinion upon the same. ment with this pre When negotiations for peace have failed, Parliament should be immediately informed thereof, in order that some action should be taken thereupon, if necessary." The advice tendered by Parliament may be unfavourable to the policy of ministers, and its indispensable Macaulay, in Hans. D. v. 84, p. 889. Palmerston, Ib. v. 144, p. 168, and v. 146, p. 1638. Earl Grey, Ib. v. 144, pp. 72, 2475. Disraeli, Ib. v. 218. p. 89. For precedents of parliamentary interference in questions of war and peace, see May, Const. Hist. v. 1, p. 458. Smith's Parl. Rememb. 1859, p. 95; 1860, p. 1. J Com. Jour. Feb. 11, 1793. May 22, 1815. March 27, 1854. No message was sent upon the commence ment of the China War; see Mir. of * Hans. D. v. 190, p. 178. n Com. Jour., Dec. 8, 1795, Oct. 29, 1801, Jan. 31, 1856. Hans. D. v. 138, pp. 105, 181, 560, 836, &c. |