reply to foreign governments without the advice of the Foreign Secretary, who is the minister responsible for such acts. The King of Prussia addressed a letter to Queen Victoria personally in 1847 and instructed his Ambassador to deliver it directly to her. Prince Albert, the husband of the Queen, detected the irregularity of the proceeding and caused the communication to be read in the presence of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, by whom it was discussed and by whom the reply was practically dictated. This same rule applied to letters received by the Prince Consort from foreign powers relating to public affairs. All such letters were turned over to the Foreign Secretary or to the Prime Minister. In theory the Crown participates in judicial, as well as in executive and legislative acts. The Crown

The Crown as the "Fountain of Justice."

The

is the "fountain of justice." This familiar statement means that it is the prerogative of the Crown to dispense justice to the subjects. The Sovereign is presumed to be present in every British court and to decide cases. King is not the "author," but the "distributor" of justice. "He is not the spring, but the reservoir, from whence right and equity are conducted by a thousand channels to every individual." This is, of course, a legal fiction; and it is probably not necessary to say that the Crown exercises the prerogative of justice through the instrumentality of the courts. The King personally cannot decide any case whatever. Such decision must be made by the judges of the various courts, and the personal opinion of the Crown has no influence whatever upon the result.

Neither has the King any personal authority with regard to the organisation of the judiciary. Mr. Todd remarks in this connection that "the Crown cannot of itself establish any new court, or change the jurisdiction or procedure of an existing court, or alter the number of the judges, the mode of their appointment, or the tenure of their office. For all such purposes the co-operation of Parliament is necessary."

The independence of the English judiciary has always been carefully guarded. Royal interference. in this respect has been considered illegal for more than five hundred years. There has been such interference, particularly during the Stuart period, but never with the sanction of law. It was the result of usurpation. In order to fortify the independence of the judiciary, the Act of Settlement of 1700-1701 provided that judges of the higher courts should be commissioned to act for life or during good behaviour. Before this time the judges as a rule held office during the pleasure of the King, and were, in a measure, subject to his dictation. As a result, then, of law and custom the power of the Crown at the present time in judicial matters is rather nominal than real.

The English people would not tolerate royal interference with the courts of law, and certainly the present King would think of none.

Since the Crown is the fountain of justice, the same power becomes logically the dispenser of pardons. A crime under English law is looked upon The Pardonas an offence against the King, as in the ing Power. United States it is considered an offence against the

State. It follows, then, that the pardoning power should be vested in the Crown. Such is the theory, but in practice the prerogative of mercy is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Home Department reviews the case on petition, but almost never retries the prisoner. The facts are usually settled, but mercy is sought. The Secretary may be influenced somewhat by public opinion in regard to the case, and may consider its moral rather than its legal aspects. He sometimes confers with the judge who sentenced the prisoner, but is not obliged to accept his advice. The Secretary has no authority over civil cases, and has no power to increase a sentence considered too lenient. In the latter case Parliament only is competent to review the conduct of the trial judge. The Secretary would not tolerate royal interference. No such interference is now attempted, but was in the early part of the last century. In 1830 a Mr. Comyn was sentenced to death in Ireland. King George IV. wrote to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland asking to have the sentence commuted. The Home Secretary, Mr. Peel, remonstrated against this as an unwarranted royal interference, and his course was approved by the Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington. The King withdrew his request and the death penalty was inflicted in the case as originally intended.

Neither should the Secretary allow himself to be biased by personal or political considerations. Lord Brougham, in his work on the "British Constitution," remarks in this connection: "It seems hardly necessary to add that no interference of parties interested,

politically or personally, should ever be permitted with the exercising of this eminent function of the executive government. Absolute monarchies offer to our view no more hideous features than this gross perversion of justice. Nor do popular governments present a less hateful aspect when they suffer the interference of the multitude, either by violence, or through the press, or the debate, or any other channel in which clamour can operate, to defeat the provisions of the law." 1

The Home Secretary is a very busy man. He reviews more than a thousand cases each year in which his mercy is invoked, and each case must have personal and independent consideration.

According to the theory of the English Constitution, the Crown, as the supreme executive authority, has the power to appoint and to dismiss Appointing officers of the government. In practice, Power. however, the appointing power can be exercised only upon the advice and with the consent of the Cabinet. In theory, then, the appointing power is in the hands of the Crown; in practice, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet have complete control. In theory, the Crown has the power to appoint the ministers composing the Cabinet and to dismiss them at will. There are, however, some practical restraints upon the exercise of this prerogative. In the selection of a Prime Minister the Crown is practically compelled to appoint the natural leader of the party having a majority in the House of Commons. Should the appointment fall to any one else, he would not be 1 Quoted in Todd's "Parliamentary Government," vol. i. p. 209.

able to form a Ministry and go on with the government. No one but the acknowledged leader of the dominant party would be able to do so. In short, the Prime Minister must possess the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons; so that, while in theory the Crown exercises its discretion in the appointment, practically the selection is dictated by the Commons and ultimately by the people. The late Queen acknowledged the force of this principle. Sir William R. Anson, in his "Law and Custom of the Constitution," remarks in this connection: "Queen Victoria has invariably accepted the decision of the country as shown by a general election or a vote in the House of Commons. Ministers are the Queen's servants, but they are chosen for her by the unmistakable indication of the popular wishes given at the polling booth or in the division lobby. Legal theory and actual practice here, as elsewhere in our constitution, are divergent." It is the duty of the Prime Minister, immediately after his appointment, to choose the remaining members of the Cabinet. The Ministry could hardly be expected to work in harmony if this were not the case. The list is submitted to the Crown for approval as a matter of form. The Prime Minister is thus the acknowledged head of the administration, and through him the Cabinet communicates with the Crown.1

1 The method of address is rather peculiar. Official etiquette prescribes that the Prime Minister shall refer to himself in the third person and address the Sovereign in the second, as follows: “Mr. Fox has the honour of transmitting to your Majesty the minutes of the Cabinet Council assembled at Lord Rockingham's, 18th May, 1782." Affairs relating to the special departments may be discussed