Punch or The London charivari: Punch or The London charivari (5.1843)

266

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

THE COMIC BLACKSTONE-

chapter the sixth.—of the king's (or queen's) duties.

We now come to the duties of the sovereign, which will form a very
short chapter, though the prerogative which comes next will not be so
briefly disposed of. The principal duty of the sovereign is to govern
according to law, which is no such easy matter, when it is considered
how frightfully uncertain the law is, and how difficult it must be to govern
according to anything so horridly dubious. Bracton, who wrote in the
time of Henry the Third—and a nice time he had of it—declares that the
king is subject to nothing on earth ; but Henry the Eighth was subject
to the gout, and Queen Anne is thought to have been subject to chilblains.
Fortescue, who was the Archbold of his day, and was always bringing out
law books, tells us the important fact that " the king takes an oath at his
coronation, and is bound to keep it but semble, say we, that if he did
not choose to keep it he could not be had up at the Old Bailey for perjury.
Fortescue deserves " a pinch for stale news," which was the schoolboy
penalty, in our time, for very late intelligence.

To obviate all doubts and difficulties, a statute was passed in the reign
of William the Third, which rendered matters more doubtful and more
difficult. It was enacted that the " laws of England are the birthright of
the people but there is such a thun-
dering legacy duty, in the shape of
costs, that few people like to administer
and take possession of their precious
birthright. The statute further goes
on to say, that " all kings and queens
ought" to do so and so, and that "all
officers and ministers ought to" do
this, that, and the other : but, as Coke
quaintly says in hisdogFrench, "ought
est sur son pied pour reang " (ought
is upon lis feet, the canine Norman
or dog French for stands, pour reang
for nothing).

The duties of the sovereign are
briefly set forth in the Coronation oath,
which is arranged as a duet for the
archbishop or bishop and the sove-
reign. There is, however, something
evasive in the replies—for while the
archbishop's question commences with
the words " Will you promise and
swear ? " the answer merely says " I
promise,'' and leaves the swearing part
completely out of the question.

The coronation oath was formerly
written in Norman French, but hav-
ing been looked upon as a farce, it has
since been done into English, probably
by a member of the Dramatic A uthor's
Society. The duties of the sovereign
then are—-1st. To govern according
to the law, which binds him to nothing
—2d. To execute judgment in mercy
—which, as the sovereign can only be
merciful at the suggestion of the Home
Secretary, is not very practicable—

3d. To maintain the established reli-
gion—of which there are two, one for

England, Ireland, and Wales, and another for Scotland. How the
sovereign contrives to do both, is a problem we must leave to others to
afford a solution of.

those which guided the bull in his celebrated tour (de force) in the china-
shop. The Pope formerly claimed the power of controlling the King of
England, and thus our allegory of the bull was liable to be rendered
inapplicable by a Bull of his Holiness. " But," says Finch, " who shall
command the King ?" a question to which Finch is to this very day wait-
ing for an answer. But if the Sovereign can do as he pleases, it naturally
becomes a matter of anxiety what the people can do if the Sovereign don't
please to do as he ought to do. In this dilemma we rush to Puffendort
for advice and consolation. We find in his law of N. and R., 1. 8, c. 10,
that '' A subject, so long as he is a subject, hath no way to obliger
his prince to give him his due when he refuses it." Semble therefore,
that m law, the maxim does not hold good, that " Where there is a will
there is a way "—auu, ii.deed, many wills have been made away with—
i but this is a mere obiter dictum of our own, which we do not wish the
reader to take particular notice of. In matters of private injury, it is
usual for a subject to proceed against the Sovereign by what is called a
petition of right, when " the Chancellor will administer justice" (Hookey,
section 6,) " from the mere love of justice " ( Walker, passim).

In cases of public oppression , the remedy is against the ministers, who
may be punished for giving bad advice to the Sovereign. The advice, by
a constitutional fiction, is never thought bad—because it is generally good
for themselves ; and thus the ministers somehow or other never get
punished.

chapter the seventh.—of the king's (or queen's) prerogative.

It is one of the beauties of our Constitution, that our natural liberties
are only intrenched upon for the maintenance of our civil; and thus,
thoflgh it would be natural with many to take great liberties, civility is
ensured by the wholesome restrictions that all are subject to. There
cannot be a greater mark of freedom, than our being at liberty to discuss
the prerogative, and with our usual freedom we take the liberty of doing
so. Prerogative is a word derived from prce and rogo, which means to
ask before ; but this is a contradiction, for prerogative implies doing first
and not asking even afterwards.

Prerogatives are either direct or incidental ; for instance, it is a direct
prerogative for a street-keeper to warn off the boys, but it is an incidental
prerogative, to run after them with the cane when they decline going.

The direct prerogative concerns the royal dignity, which is kept up by
assigning to the Sovereign certain qualities in bad Latin, and applying to
htm the term Imperial—which is also given to tips of hair on the chin,
trunks belonging to travelling carriages, quart pots of full measure, and
ginger-beer of a respectable quality.

This word imperial applied to the Sovereign means, that he is para-
mount in his own country, and is not regulated by any other laws than

Throughout the whole of our Constitution there runs a. feeling like that
of the uncles, the nephews, the nieces, and the beef-eaters in Sheridan's
Critic. It is such a beautiful system of check and counter-check, that
nobody can do this for fear of somebody else doing that ; and therefore all
are compelled to do t'other. The theory is, that neither Lords, Com-
mons, nor King can do wrong ; but the practice very often is for none
of them to do right, and there being no remedy, we are assured there
can be no wrong—because it is a maxim that there is no wrong without
a remedy. This is such consolation as it might be to a creditor, who
could not get paid, to be told that he is not wronged because he is not
righted ; and that, in fact, as there can be no debt without the money, so
there being no money to be had, nothing enn be owing to him.

Whether a sovereign may be sent to the right about is a subject too
delicate for us to write about, and we can only refer to the popular soug
of Over the. Water to Charlie, or hint at the mode in which James the
Second, after playing his cards badly, was altogether cut with by the
people as the best way of dealing with him.

It seems that either House of Parliament may remonstrate with the
Sovereign ; but as one member was sent to the Tower for suggesting that
the answer to the address contained " high words to fright the members
out of their duty," this glorious privilege of remonstrance has been left
wholly unexercised.

It is a maxim that the King cannot be guilty of negligence or laches,
that, in fact, he can never be too late—a maxim that is very useful to