Page:History of Adelaide and vicinity.djvu/679

 r ^■r.-^°"fr.w ^ 1- ADELAIDE AND VICINITY iii Constitution of South Australia of the government, but each practically transacting that part of the business in which it was expert, subject to the power of the King to intervene. And not only did this happen, but as the Great Council of Parliament, which was mainly comprised of the "magnates" or "the great men" (the Lords), could not be continually in session, other Councils of the King gradually developed themselves, and amongst them a small ])erpetual Council arose, which contained the germ of what we now call the Privy Council, and which, like all the King's Councils in those days, exercised judicial, legislative, and executive functions. The Great Council of Parliament, however, still retained its position as adviser to the Crown in matters of legislation in England, and at a somewhat uncertain date (fixed by Sir William Charley at 1275) bifurcated into the Lords and Commons, who still in theory advise the Crown what new laws shall be made or old laws altered or repealed. The King's Councillors in matters of judicature became the judges ; his Councillors in the collection and management of the revenues of the Crown became the Exchequer Chamber, which, by gradually devoting its attention to functions of judicature and abandoning its function of executive, became the Court of Exchequer ; and his Continual Council, or conciliiiin ordinariiini, gradually became what we now call the Privy Council, a committee of which, " The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council," exercised, and still exercises, jurisdiction in matters of judicature ; and of which other committees, or substitutes for committees, such as the Ministry, the Board of Trade, etc., exercised, and still exercise, jurisdiction in executive matters. Our ancestors were not possessed of the idea which we now so strongly hold, that there should be a separation of legislative, executive, and judicial power — in fact, such an idea would have been altogether foreign to their minds, and has been the growth and result of centuries of experience. We had an illustration of the old idea that all Councils should exercise both legislative, judicial, and executive jurisdiction in our first South Australian Council, which was both legislative, executive, and judicial ; which made laws, acted as adviser to the Governor in all executive matters, and, presided over by the Governor, sat as a Court of Local Appeal. The two Houses of Parliament constituted under our Constitution Act have taken away from this Council all power over matters of legislation, but it still retains its executive and judicial functions. Our courts of law are a further illustration of the survival of the theory that the King in Council is the sovereign power and administrator in all matters both legislative, executive, and judicial. Her Majesty the Queen is still (in theory) supposed to preside in all the superior courts of law in all her ^lominions ; the writs are still issued summoning the person mentioned therein to appear in the name of "Victoria, by the grace of God," etc.; and the words "court" and "suitor" still remain as historical evidences of the time when the King, surrounded by his courtiers, administered justice to his suitors. (Suitors or foHowers originally meant and included all the followers who composed the court of the King- plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, jurors, etc.) The original tide of the Court of King's Bench was " Curia Regis coram Rcgc ipse"—'"ivit court of the King before the very King himself." At one time the King actually presided in the court and administered justice by the advice of his advisers in matters of judicature— the judges ; and even as late as 1876, when the Appellate Jurisdiction Act was passed regulating the appeals from all the courts of the United Kingdom to the House of Lords (practically to a committee of that House consisting of the Law Lords) this appeal was described as an appeal to " Her Majesty the Queen in her Court of Parliament."