As to the constitutional position of a queen consort, the Law Journal has this to say : "The status of a queen consort always differed from that of married women in general. She was considered in law as a femme sole. By an act of Henry VIII, passed in 1540, she was enabled to take grants from the king, and to sue or be sued in her own name, with the addition of ' Queen of England.' The power of acquiring and disposing of property conferred on her by that statute was confirmed by 39 and 40 George III, c. 88, ss. 8 and 9. The queen consort is a public person, and the courts take judicial notice of acts of parliament relating to her. She has a separate court, and ceremonial offices and offi cers distinct from the king. She appears in the courts by her own attorney and solicitor general. Although she is only a subject, the compassing or imagining her death is high treason. Pro vision was formerly made for her by certain reservations and rents out of the demesne lands of the crown, and out of what was known as ' queen gold '— the portion of any sum paid by a subject to the king for a grant of office or fran chise. But this matter is now regulated by statute." There seems tobe some difference of opinion on the question whether the " silks," who have had the letters Q. C. appended to their names, be come at once, on the accession of the king, king's counsel. " With the death of Queen Victoria the suffix Q. C. disappears," says the Law Times. But " whether in technical accuracy such an immediate change "— from Q. C. to K. ('.— is justifiable seems to the Law Journal to be somewhat doubtful. " The legal position seems to be strictly this. Certain members of the bar, in numbers not a few, were by letters patent under the great seal of the late sovereign appointed as her majesty's counsel learned in the law. The office of queen's counsel, being held at the pleasure of the Crown, would formerly have been vacated by the demise of the Crown. By virtue, however, of the statute of 6 Anne, c. 41, s. 8, every person in such office is continued in office for six months after the demise of the Crown, unless sooner removed by the new sovereign. The terms of his majesty's recent proclamation confirm this statutory renewal of office held under the Crown. But it is to be observed that the result of the statute and the
proclamation is merely to effect an extension of office for six months without in any way chang ing the title of functions of the holders of such offices. It would seem, therefore, that those who in the last reign attained the dignity of silk are still correctly described as Q. C.'s being in fact by virtue of their patents her late majesty's counsel. They will, it is submitted, only be came king's counsel after patents have been issued to them under the great seal appointing them as such. That this is so seems clear when it is recollected that it is competent to the king to refuse to sign the warrant for the issue of the patent to any particular individual, as indeed was demonstrated on the demise of Queen Caroline, when George IV, for personal reasons, refused to appoint Brougham and Denman as king's counsel, they having held the appoint ments of attorney-general and solicitor-general respectively, to Queen Caroline. The appoint ment of a queen's counsel is from the terms of the patent creating it purely a personal one. No mention is made therein of the successors of the Crown, and a queen's counsel on the demise of the queen, can no more become a king's counsel than one of her late majesty's physicians can become one of his majesty's physicians other wise than by express appointment." It is interesting to recall that the first " coun sel learned in the law " of a sovereign was a queen's counsel, — Sir Francis Bacon, on whom such an appointment was for the first time con ferred in 1604, by Queen Elizabeth. Until 1831 the office carried with it a yearly fee of £40; and until that time " a member of parliament who was a barrister vacated his seat in parliament, on being appointed king's counsel or queen's counsel, thus showing that the appointment was regarded as an office under the crown." Edward VII. is a bencher of an Inn of Court, but has never taken "silk." "The Middle Temple," to quote the Law Journal again, "now enjoys the distinction of having the king among its benchers. His majesty became a bencher in 1861, immediately upon joining the Inn." He is also senior honorary bencher of the King's Inn, Dublin. On Victoria's accession it was contended that the Court of King's Bench should retain its name, on the ground that a queen regnant was defacto king as exercising the kingly office.
