Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/479

BOOK REVIEWS 443 Royal Family in matters of religion, morality, benevolence, fashion, and even in art and literature." Passages in "Joan and Peter " spring to mind, and Max Beerbohm's cartoon of "Mr. Tennyson reading ' In Memoriam ' to his Queen." And besides, says Mr. Jenks, "it is possible that the majority of the people, even of the tjnited Kingdom, . . . believe that the government of the "Empire is carried on by the King personally." In other words, if he did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. It is suggested that the King-Emperor has three true political rights. The first is, to be informed by a daily letter from the Prime Minister of the pubUc proceedings of Parhament and the secret discussions in the Cabinet. It is clear that this right has no effect in making the sovereign indispensable; if he were abolished, nobody would need the information and the Prime Minister's time would be freer. The second right is, to warn his minister privately out of the lessons of his political experience, which is continuous unlike theirs. The value of this right depends upon the certainty that the King-Emperor , will be a man of poUtical sagacity; is inheritance the best method to secure that result? The third right is, to refuse to act on the advice of his ministers • in certain rare cases. Thus he can refuse to appoint an unworthy man to office or to swamp the House of Lords with newly created peers. Mr. Jenks also thinks that he can refuse to dissolve Parliament under certain circum- stances, but the citation of precedents is needed on this point. A possible fourth right is not mentioned, that of deciding between two candidates from the majority party for the office of Prime Minister. On the whole, the case for continuing the monarchy in England, as presented in this book, does not appear strong. The book is as full of survivals and exceptions as a Latin grammar. Crown colonies are under the Colonial office, but Ascension Island is under the Ad- miralty. The inferior clergy are still summoned to Parliament, but they never come. Indeed, an AngUcan or Roman Catholic clergyman cannot sit in the House of Commons, but he can sit in the House of Lords if he happens to be a peer, while the more fortunate Methodist minister can sit anywhere. English peers belong to the House of Lords as a matter of course. Scotch and Irish peers elect some of their number to represent them there. The unlucky Scotch lord who loses the election can not even run for the House of Commons, but an Irish peer can. Every exercise of the royal authority until recently was required by statute to have three seals before the Great Seal, each imposed by a separate official, who should be entitled to charge a fee for his share in the process. "A cynical observer might say that the last provision afforded the most powerful guarantee that the statute would be obeyed." A member of Parhament can not resign, but gets appointed Bailiff of the Three Hundreds of Chiltem, and automatically ceases to be a member; then he resigns as Bailiff. County courts have nothing to do with counties. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a member of the Board of Trade. He is Primate of All England, while his brother of York is only Primate of England. When a bishop dies, the cathedral chapter receives a letter from the Crown giving them leave to elect his successor. Unfortunately for the chapter a second letter follows close, containing the name of A, the Crown candidate. It is true that B's name is also added in this letter, to keep up the appearance of a free choice. But if the chapter elected B, they would be punished with all the terrors of a prasmunire. All these provisions of the British Constitution seem like papers stuck into pigeonholes at random, withfthe hope of systematic fiHng, on a day that never comes. But let us be humble, and think of the electoral college. What should we do if Democratic electors voted for the Republican candidate? We may mention some discussions of minor details which interest an Ameri- can reader: (i) The Canadian government pays the Leader of the Opposition a salary