In case of the absence of the successor from the kingdom at the death of the King or Queen regnant, provision has been made by statute of Parliament for the placing of the Crown under the guardianship of certain high officials in the church and the government until the return of the new King or Queen regnant.1

If the King or Queen regnant should journey out of the kingdom, he or she may, in default of Parliamentary provision, appoint justices or lieutenants for the guardianship of the kingdom during his or her absence.2

V. The Character and Privileges of the Crown.

All the writers upon the English constitution agree in attributing to the Crown the character of irresponsibility, immaculateness and immortality. Upon this absolute perfection of the royal character rest the following privileges of the wearer of the crown:

The King or Queen regnant cannot be called to account for anything by any magistracy or any body. This privilege is frequently termed sovereignty, or, at least, it is said that it cannot be a consequence of anything but sovereignty. This seems to me, however, to be a loose conception of sovereignty. It is not, in the sense here employed, a power in the King to make his own will valid over any and every body, but simply a power to prevent anybody's will from being made valid over him. It is simply an absolute personal exemption from the powers of government. It is the royal immunity from any governmental control. This is not sovereignty, as I use the term in this treatise. I cannot call the King of England sovereign. Sovereignty is an attribute of the state; and the King is now but a part of the government. This absolute inviolability of the King and his exemption from accountability are not easily comprehended by the

2 Bowyer, Commentaries upon the Constitutional Law of England, p. 142 ff. 8 Blackstone, Commentaries upon the Laws of England, Bk. 1, c. 7, p. 242.

democratic mind. The democratic sense is continually posing the question: "But if the King should murder or steal, is it reason that he shall not be brought to justice?" It is not satisfied with the reply that from the standpoint of legal presumption the King cannot murder or steal. It can accept the principle that the state can do no wrong, because the consciousness of the state gives the last and most authoritative interpretation of right and wrong to which the world has yet attained, but the King is not now the state in the English constitution. It can also accept the principle that, for practical political reasons, the King should be exempt from the jurisdiction of any magistrate or body over his person; but it cannot comprehend why it is not sound public law that the King, if guilty of crimes, may be impeached and deposed from office, and after that tried and punished like any other person. It does not appreciate the objection that this would impair the absolute sacredness of the royal person and tend towards the substitution of an elective executive. It does not understand why the person of the King should be absolutely sacred. It considers that a reasonable limitation upon the formal sacredness of royalty may make it really more sacred, and that it is always a sound and conservative political science which admits frankly the possibility of change in the organization of the government when the consciousness of the state deliberately demands it. It is difficult, indeed, to meet these postulates of democratic philosophy, and it is easy to see that the supporters of the absolute sacredness of royalty are still standing upon the principle that the Crown is sovereignty instead of constitutional office.

As I have said, the inviolability of the royal person is simply an immunity, an exemption of the royal person from governmental jurisdiction. It is so far a negative conception. The doctrine of the royal perfection has, however, a positive side. While no magistrate or body can entertain a cause in which it is sought to make the royal person defend

ant, the royal person may, on the other hand, prosecute a subject, and in such a process the doctrine of the royal per fection would require that in the royal person there can be no negligence. Common law prescriptions and statutes of limitation cannot, therefore, be pleaded in bar of royal rights.1 I do not regard this, either, as being an absolutely necessary consequence of the principle of royal perfection. All royal rights to property at least must be made valid through the acts of the royal officials. It is no detraction from the King's perfection to impute negligence to his officials. The Parlia ment has taken this view of the subject in modern times, and has limited the time during which the royal rights to property can be asserted.2

Finally, the descent of the crown upon a person already attainted of treason or felony will, in consequence of the immaculate character of the crown, purge the corruption of the blood. Why conviction for treason or felony, or even the more grievous misdemeanors, should not disqualify from the succession and cause the descent upon the next heir unattainted, is difficult for a simple mind to comprehend. Of course, it would be legally possible if such a power were vested in the houses of Parliament or in the courts, to defeat hereditary succession altogether, by accusing and convicting all the heirs of the existing King or Queen regnant before his or her death; but such a thing would be a practical impossibility, unless all the heirs had in fact committed grievous crime, and it might be a practical impossibility even then. As I have already remarked, the fiction of the perfection of the royal character may be so exaggerated as to defeat its real object, and to diminish the dignity and influence of the Crown. Whether the regent enjoys the same privileges as the King or Queen regnant, is questionable. If we regard the royal

1 Blackstone, Commentaries upon the Laws of England, Bk. 1, c. 7, p. 247. 2 Bowyer, Commentaries on the Constitutional Law of England, p. 142 ff. 8 Blackstone, Commentaries upon the Laws of England, Bk. 1, c. 7, p. 247 ft.

privileges from the standpoint of the public interests solely, and interpret the same in the light of those interests, the regent should certainly stand, for the time, completely in the place of the King or Queen regnant. If, however, we view these privileges from the standpoint of the supposed requirements of sovereignty, they cannot be claimed by the regent. The English law cannot be said to have established any general principle upon this subject. In case of the constitution of the regency by a special statute of Parliament, this question might be solved for that particular instance by the provisions of the statute.

It would be sound public law to attribute to the justices or lieutenants guarding the state in the absence of the wearer of the crown the like privileges, for the time being, with the wearer of the crown. Here again, the English law cannot be

said to have established any general principle. The question

is one to be specially decided in each case.

CHAPTER II.

THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE CROWN.

I. The duties of the Crown, according to the commentators upon the constitution, are best understood by referring to the coronation oath. The statutes upon this subject require the King or Queen regnant to swear to govern the kingdom and the dominions belonging thereto according to the statutes, laws and customs of the same; to execute law and justice in mercy; to maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion established by law; to preserve the settlement of the Church of England within England, Ireland, Wales and Berwick and the territories belonging thereto; to preserve the Protestant religion and the Presbyterian church-government in Scotland; and to preserve to the bishops and clergy of the realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them. Of course, the disestablishment during the present reign of the Church of England in Ireland must modify the coronation oath when next administered.

It must not be understood that the King or Queen regnant has no right to govern until coronation shall have been performed and this oath shall have been sworn. Such a principle would produce an interregnum between the death of the predecessor and the coronation of the successor. Neither must it be understood that the duties expressed in the coronation oath do not rest upon the King or Queen regnant

11 William & Mary, St. 1, c. 6; 5 Anne, c. 8.