suit is the desertion of a suit, or non-appearance of the plaintiff, which can never occur in the case of the king, since he is always onsidered as being present in the court. A "non vult prosequi," however, or refusal to proceed, on the part of the AttorneyGeneral, works the same effect.*

The

22. The king has the right of release and pardon. former is, however, excluded in case of the impeachment of a minister: On the impeachment of Danby, Charles II. pardoned his minister before the termination of the proceedings, that is, he availed himself of his right of release. The parliament declared, however, that the royal grace could not interfere with the proceedings against a minister. The Act of Settlement, accordingly, expressly declares that no pardon under the great seal shall be made available against an impeachment. When a sentence condemnatory has been passed, the king may pardon the impeached minister or other high official who has been tried by the Lords. Every act of grace or release is granted on the recommendation of the Home Secretary. It is a modern usage for the Secretary of the Home Office to free culprits condemned by local magistrates. On the 14th of June, 1861, by order of the Secretary of State, a man was released from prison who had been condemned on the 12th by a London magistrate to ten days' imprisonment. The like favour was accorded on the 3rd of August, 1861, to a man condemned to three weeks' imprisonment in the house of correction, by a magistrate at Rye.†

23. The proclamations of the sovereign, so far as they are borne out by the laws, have binding force when, conformably with law, an embargo has been laid on foreign vessels. By such proclamations the laws cannot, as a matter of course, be changed, nor can new ones be introduced.‡

24. The crown grants privileges, patents for inventions, rights to corporations, dignities and orders; for new offices the crown cannot, however, establish new fees.

25. The king grants the right to hold markets and fairs.

26. He exercises the right of coining, but cannot debase the

currency.

27. He is at the head of the Church. Since Charles I. he may, in such character, but only with consent of parliament,

* Bl. i. 270.

† Parl. Rem., ii. 131-184.

+ Bowyer, 1731.

make binding regulations having force of law. On the other hand, the king may, by proclamation, appoint days for fasting and prayer, and forbid all swearing, profanation of the Sabbath, cardplaying on that day, as well as all outward manifestations of immorality.

28. The king cannot possess property in common with another; when, therefore, a horse is given by way of legacy to the king and any third person, the king takes the whole property.

Stringent statutes of treason protect these privileges of the sovereign; the penalties, in cases of high treason, being, moreover, of a revolting nature. Down to 30 Geo. III. cap. 48, women were, for high treason, burnt alive; in future they are for any such crime to be hanged. Males guilty of high treason were, till the 18th century, tortured to death in the most abominable fashion. Since that period they are to be decapitated under an order from the king.*

As the relation between the king and the subject is based, theoretically, upon the relation of the lord to his vassal, and as the conception of King and State is one and the same thing, the conception of high treason involves that of forfeiture of land.†

CHAPTER IV.

THE REGENCY.

No General Regency Law.-Minority of Henry VI.-Commission for the Minority of Edward VI.-Philip of Spain eventual Regent.-Regency Law under George II. -Regency Law of 1765 not carried out.-First Illness of George III.-No one has any Right to the Regency.-Regency Law of 1811.-Regency Law under William IV.-Under Queen Victoria.

As we have seen, precautionary measures have to be resorted to, through the channel of the law, in every special case where the sovereign, by reason of youth or illness, is incapacitated from discharging the duties of his offices.

Henry V. had by will appointed the Duke of Gloucester as protector during the minority of his son. On the death of the king several spiritual and temporal peers convened parliament, which was opened by Gloucester, by virtue of a royal commission under the great seal. Parliament declared, however, the will of Henry V. not binding. His (Gloucester's) claim "was nought caused nor grounded on precedent, nor in the law of the land, the which the king, that dead is, in his life he might by his last will, ne otherwise alter, change, nor abroge, without the assent of the Three Estates; nor commit or grant to any person governance or rule of this land longer than he lived; but, on that other behalf, the said lords found your said desire not according with the laws of this land, and against the right and freedom of the Estates of the same land."* In consequence whereof, on the formal motion of the boy-king, Henry VI., an act was passed whereby, during his minority, the Dukes of Bedford and Gloucester, with a council of sixteen peers, were appointed as protectors of the kingdom.

Henry VIII. and his parliament had fixed the majority of Edward VI. at the age of eighteen.

In the reign of Mary, Philip of Spain was declared regent in the event of the birth of an heir to the throne.

*Rot. Parl. and 6 Hen.'s VI., Vol. iv. p. 326.

The Regency Bill of 1751 enacted that, in the event of George II. dying during the minority of the Prince of Wales, the Princess Dowager (the widowed Princess of Wales) should govern the realm as regent and guardian of the king, assisted by a council, to be nominated by the king. The Regency Bill of 1765 allowed George III., in the event of his becoming incapable of governing, to summon to the regency one of the royal personages named therein; George III. did not, however, avail himself of this act. When he fell ill in 1788, the Parliament found itself in the greatest embarrassment, as there was no person at hand to whom the king had previously transferred his authority. The matter was discussed from a party point of view. Fox and Sheridan, the personal supporters of the Prince of Wales, asserted that George III. was, in consequence of his malady, civilly dead. Pitt placed himself, on the other hand, on the broad ground of the sovereignty of the people, contending that no hereditary prince had any right to the regency; that the Parliament, as representative of the nation, should determine who was to be regent, and should likewise "limit" his powers. The recovery of the king put an end to the controversy.

English jurists at a later period declared for the view advocated by Pitt.* No person, therefore, is qualified ipso jure to be either regent or guardian; an act of parliament alone can create a regent or guardian; the official powers to be regulated according to law by the king and parliament to suit the particular case.

When George III., in 1811, fell into his last sad malady, a bill passed (57 George III. c. 1) whereby the Prince of Wales was to become regent conditionally upon signing the declaration against Popery; the regency to be forfeited in the event of the regent's residing abroad or marrying a catholic. The invalid king, agreeably with the same law, was to be consigned to the guardianship of the queen and a committee consisting of eight persons. In the event of the king's recovery, such committee were to communicate the proofs thereof to the privy council; the regency was to determine as soon as the king, with the concurrence of six privy councillors, was deemed fit to resume his authority. By this bill the Prince Regent was empowered to exercise all kingly functions, but was neither to create new peers, change the line of

* Bowyer, 150.

succession to the throne, the Act of Uniformity, nor the act assuring to Scotland the Presbyterian Church.

By 1 Will. IV. c. 2, the Duchess of Kent was named guardian of the Princess Victoria, and, in the event of Queen Victoria's not having attained the age of eighteen on her succession to the throne, the duchess was to be regent. By 3-4 Vic. c. 52, the late lamented Prince Albert was not only appointed guardian of the royal children, but regent also, in the event of the future heir not being eighteen years old on her Majesty's demise. By the said act, Prince Albert was to lose all rights as regent and guardian in case he became a Catholic or married a Catholic. marriage with a foreigner would not have affected his rights.

Re