Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/485

449 RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE IN ENGLAND 449 freedom from unpleasant proximity to arrest declared the sacred character with which he was invested.^ "The most high and ab- solute power of the realme of England," says Sir Thomas Smith, not less learned, be it remembered, in the mysteries of law than of politics,^" "consisteth in the Parhament;" but even so note- worthy an assembly cannot bind the Crown by its statutes.^^ Indeed, its position is even more privileged since the Crown, by prerogative, takes advantage of statute.^^ Fictions ^^ and estop- pel " pale into insignificance before the overmastering power of its presence. Laches ^^ and prescription ^^ lose their meaning when the Crown has become desirous of action. It chooses its own court; ^^ it may, save where, of its own grace, it has other- wise determined,^^ avoid the payment of costs.^^ Here, assuredly, is a power that does not need the sanction of collective termi- nology that men may recognize its strength. Prerogative such as this would be intolerable did the Crown act as in theory it has warrant. But the English have a genius for illogical mitigation; and the history of ministerial responsibiUty enshrines not the least splendid contribution we have made to the theory of representative government. The seventeenth century in England makes definite a practice which, if irregular in its ope- ration, can yet trace its pedigree back to the dismissal of Long- champ in 1190; ^^ the execution of Strafford and the impeachment of Danby are only the two culminating peaks of its development. What ministerial responsibility has come to mean is that the King's ministers shall make answer for the advice they proffer and the acts which flow therefrom; and in the period in which the royal power is delegated, for practical purposes, to the Cabinet we have herein a valuable safeguard against its arbitrary abuse. 9 3 Bl. Com. 289. 1° De Republica Anglorum, ed. Alston, 48. " Magdalen College Case, 11 Co. Rep. 66; She£Eeild v. Ratcliffe, Hob. 334. " Rex V. Cruise, 21 Ch. 65 (1852). " Anon., Jenk. 287 (1613). " Coke's Case, Godb. 289. " Cd. Litt., 57 6. " Wheaton v. Maple, [1893] 3 Ch. 48. " 4 Co. Inst. 17; i Bl. Com. 257. 18 23 & 24 Vict. c. 34. " Johnson v. Rex, [1904] A. C. 817.
 * " Stubbs, Constit. Hist., 6 ed., I, 539.