end; the object limited is lost in the limitation. Yet, whatever may be our mode of speech, any such indistinctness of thought will effectually exclude all clear views of the Constitution. In our political system the Crown always has been and still is the sun. Whatever may be its merits, democracy has no place in English law. There is, as Mr. Hallam has observed,* nothing, absolutely nothing that resembles it in our early books. They derive everything from the Crown, and refer everything to its honour and advantage. Nor is this less true of the modern form of our Constitution than it was of an age when the prerogative was exercised chiefly for the King's personal benefit. The lustre of the triple crown of the United Kingdom is not less brilliant than the lustre of that single crown of England which rested on the brows of our Henries and our Edwards. With us no less than with all our ancestors, ever since England was a nation, the Crown enacts laws; the Crown administers justice; the Crown makes peace and war, and conducts all the affairs of state at home and abroad; the Crown rewards them that have done well, and punishes the evil-doers; the Crown still enjoys the other splendid prerogatives which have at all times graced the diadem of England. "I believe," says Burke,†“that many on the Continent altogether mistake the condition of a King of Great Britain. He is a real King, and not an executive officer. If he will not trouble himself with contemptible details, nor wish to degrade himself by becoming a party in little squabbles, I am far from sure that a King of Great Britain, in whatever concerns him as a King, or indeed as a rational man, who combines the public interest with his personal satisfaction, does not possess a more real, solid, extensive power than

the King of France was possessed of before this miserable revolution. The direct power of the King of England is very considerable. His indirect and far more certain power is great indeed. He stands in need of nothing towards dignity, of nothing towards splendour, of nothing towards authority, of nothing at all towards consideration abroad. When was it that a King of England wanted wherewithal to make him respected, courted, or perhaps even feared, in every state in Europe?"

Mode of limitation of the mon

archy.

§ 3. The mode by which the English monarchy obtains in practice its limited character is very remarkable. The law places no restriction upon the extent of the Royal power, but rigorously defines the manner in which the several branches of that power may be exercised. In every part of public affairs the expression of the Royal will is conclusive; but in each case the Royal will must be intimated through the appropriate channel. The Royal will in contemplation of law is by no means the mere personal will of the King. It is his official will, enlightened by the advice, and carried into effect through the agency of councillors and ministers recognized by the law and personally responsible both for their advice and for their acts. The King, as the old Saxon laws declare, " ought to do all things duly and by the advice of his chief men." It is not, as Bracton and Fleta* tell us, everything that pleases the Prince, as in the law of Imperial Rome, or that proceeds from the will of the King, that has the power of law; but that which, "after deliberation held upon it and discussion, has been duly determined by the advice of his great men under the sanction of the Royal authority." The will of the King, as another authority has said, is that which is displayed in

* B. i. c. 5.

his court, not in his chamber.* In accordance with this fundamental principle the law has provided special organs by means of which the various functions of Royalty are lawfully exercised. If the King give laws, no other intimation of the Royal will is sufficient for this high purpose than that expressed by him after solemn deliberation in full Parliament. If the King be the fountain of justice, the streams of right must flow under the direction of those sages of the law whose special duty it is to advise the Crown on all such questions. The whole executive authority rests in the King; and for his assistance in affairs of state the law assigns his Privy Council. Every official act must be performed through the agency of some officer, often indeed of several officers, and must be attested in the mode required by law for each such transaction.

These organs of Royalty are all distinct, and none of them is competent to perform the functions of the other. The Council of Justice cannot make the laws that it interprets; the Council of Legislation cannot in any individual case interpret the laws that it has made. Neither of them can administer the laws so made and interpreted, although they may enforce their observance or supervise their execution. However regularly the Royal will may be expressed for one purpose, that expression is insufficient for any other purpose. If the King through his executive servants issue orders which he could properly issue only under judicial advice—if, for example, he direct an arrest by warrant under the sign manual and not by writ from one of his courts-the command so issued is void. In the quaint language of Spanish loyalty, such irregular commands must be "obeyed and not complied with."+ Every

* Voluntas regis in curia lucet non in camera. 2 Rich. III.

+ See Hallam, Middle Ages, ii. 25.

mandate of the Crown ought to be received with the most profound respect; but those mandates only which are in strict conformity with law can claim or warrant our submission.

§ 4. We thus see the true meaning of the maxim that the King can do no wrong. It applies to the King in his King can do official character. Every official act of the no wrong. Crown must be done in the manner prescribed by law. Every such act so done is lawful. Every act done under colour of the Royal authority, but not in the proper manner, is not an official act of the Crown. Such an irregular act may be thought to convey some intimation of the Royal will, but not such an intimation as the law requires or permits subjects to notice. Thus no injury, no legal wrong, can be done by the King, because all his official acts are done in accordance with law, and because no unlawful act can be recognized as an act of the Crown. "Nihil enim aliud potest rex nisi id solum quod de jure potest." *

There is another sense in which this maxim is usually taken. It is construed to mean that there is no remedy for any personal delinquency of the King. But this proposition, although it is true, seems to be distinct from the one now under our consideration. It is one thing to say that no act of a certain person is illegal; it is another thing to say that no illegal act of that person shall bring with it the consequences usually attached to similar acts. This immunity of the King is not peculiar to him. If the law will not provide any remedy for any wrongful act of the King, it is equally true that the ambassador of a foreign prince can in this sense do no wrong. From all

Bracton, cited in 2 Steph. Comm., 485.

proceedings both civil and criminal an ambassador is in our country absolutely exempt. Although Cromwell hanged a Portuguese envoy for a murder committed during his official residence in England, it is now generally acknowledged that this mode of redress is indefensible. So, too, it has been recently decided that not only is no execution issuable against the goods, and much less the person, of an ambassador, but that no suit whatever can be brought against him.* The same principles apply to any sovereign prince who happens to be personally resident within the jurisdiction of our courts. Even if he be at the same time a subject of the Queen, it is only for acts done by him evidently as a subject that he is liable; and the presumption is always in favour of his regal character. Immunities similar in kind, although not equally extensive, are in several other cases recognized by the law. A member of Parliament during the session of Parliament, and for some time before and after it, is in all civil cases-and perhaps in some criminal cases-exempt from arrest. The person

of a peer is in civil cases at all times sacred and inviolable. No proceedings can be taken in any court other than the High Court of Parliament against any judge for his judicial words or actions. Nor can any words, however slanderous, be called in question which are spoken in his place in Parliament by any member, or in the course of his duty in court by any barrister in pursuance of his instructions.

From these considerations another consequence of great practical importance may be deduced. Since no unlawful act is the act of the Crown, no command to do any such act can be a command of the Crown. No person, therefore, doing any unlawful act under colour of the Royal authority, can shelter himself from the penal or other consequences of

The Magdalena Steam Navigation Company v. Martin, 28 L. J. Q. B. 310.