The sun., 1908-06-21

able TO rass in review first the legal orgnnt-
ration OF each institution, before proceed
ing to depict its actual function. To escape
tediousness. however. no has tried in the
work before us to separate as far as pos
sible the dry legal details from discussion
OF the working forces. 30 that the exposi-
tion Of the former may be skipped by the
reader already familiar with the subject.
In tho A2s pages Of the frst volume which
arc allotted to the structure Of the English
polity We shall confine ourselves to outlin-
ing what the author has to say about the
relation OF the Grown to the Cabinet; about
tho relation Of the Commons to the Cabinet.
and about tho Cabinets relation TO the
House OF Lords.
III.
Az In the United Kingdom to-day the
Cabinet is the handspring Of the whole
political system, Prof. Lowell thinks that
the clearest method Of explaining the rela-
tions OF the different branches Of the Gov
ernment to each other is to describe In
succession their relations with tho Cabinet.
Before following his description. however,
It may be we'll to note how certain powers
once vested In the Grown have been lost
either by statute or by non-user. Thus the
Star Chamber, which was used as political
engine In criminal ma atters under tho Stuarts
was abolished by statute carly In tho strlg-
gle with Charles I. With tho final fall OF
tho Stuarts the power Of the Crown to
create new courts came altogether to an
end. In 1889 the Bill OF Rights declared the
Court Of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical
Causes and all other commissions and
courts Of q like nature" illegal, and since
that time an act Of Parliament has been
necessary to create any now court Of JUS
tice in England In the same way, namely
by statute. the Crown has been deprived OF
other powers once possessed or claimed
under the prerogative. The Bill OF Rights,
for example, declared illegal the suspend
ing or dispensing with laws and the main
tenanoe OF a standing army In time OF peace
without the consent Of Parliament. Some
powers again have from long disuse become
obsolete. and thus have perished. such as
the right to confer on boroughs the privi-
lege OF electing members to the House Of
Commons, and the power to create life
peers with votes in the House Of Lords.
Still other powers, though legally unim-
paired, have become 90 obsolete that the
right to exercise them is denied. For in
stance, the right OF veto. not having been
exercised since the days OF Anne, is gener-
ally supposed TO be unrevivable.
Prof. Lowell. however. suggests a case
where after bill has passed the Commons
the Cabinet should resign. but the House
Of Lords should nevertheless insist on pass
ing the same bill in spite OF ths opposition
Of the new Ministry. Our author deems it
rash to assert that In such case the royal
assent might not, and would not. be with
held. He recalls that something OF the
kind nearly occurred in 1888. when the
Ministry threatened to advise the Queen to
withhold her assent to private bill passed
by the Commons unless the Lords gave per-
mission to the Board Of Works to appear
before the Private Bill Committee Of their
chamber and oppose the plan. On the
whole since the accession OF the House Of
Hanover the new powers conferred upon
the Crown by statute have In our author Q
opinion moro than made up for the loss to
the prerogative of powers which have
either been restricted by the same process
or become obsolete by disuse. By far the
greater part Of the prerogative as it ex-
isted at the date named has remained. le-
gally vested IN tho Crown, and can be ex-
ercised to-day. II is no longer used however.
in accordanoewith the personal wishes Of the
sovereign. By a gradual process his au-
thority has fallen more and more under
the control OF his Ministers. until it is now
almost entirely in the hands Of the Cabinet,
which is responsible to Parliament and
through Parliament to the nation.
While the space at his disposal will not
permit the author to trace. step by step,
the process whereby the King became ire
sponsible, both at law and before the nation.
while the responsibility Tor his acts became
transferred to his Ministers. he does note
that the doctrine that "the King can do no
wrong had Its beginning as far back as
the infancy Of Henry ILL.,, and grew by
degrees until it became a cardinal principle
Of the Constitution. Legally. II means that
he cannot be adjudged guilty OF wrong
doing and hence that no proceedings can
be brought against him. He cannot be
prosecuted criminally. or without his own
consent sued civilly in tort or in contract
in any court in the land. II. however. a
person has a claim against the Crown for
breach OF contract, or because his property
is in its possession, he may bring petition
OF right, and the Crown on the advice OF the
Home Secretary will order the petition
indorsed Let right be done. whereupon
the case proceeds like an ordinary suit.
Clearly, however. II the people are to be
protected from arbitrary power. the servant
who acts on behalf Of the Crown must be
held responsible for illegal conduct. from
the consequences Of which the King him.
self is free. Hence arose tho principle that
the Kings command is no excuse for Q
wrongful act. and this is q firmly estab-
lished maxim OF the common law in both
civil and criminal proceedings. Neverthe-
less. servant Of the Grown Is not liable on
contracts, for he has made no contract per-
sonally. and ne cannot be compelled to carry
out the contracts Of the Crown. To prevent
royal violations OF the law 1t obviously is
not enough to hold liable q servant who
executes unlawful orders. The master
still has power to commit offences directly.
A further step must be taken by restraining
the Crown from acting without the media
ton OF servant who can be made account
able For this reason Edward I. was in
formed that he could not make an arrest
In person.
Aa eariv m the fourteenth and fifteenth