public peace. In spite of this notice, however, the Salvationists continued to parade the streets, with the result that Beatty and two of his companions were arrested and convicted at petty sessions of having taken part in an unlawful assembly. On a case being stated, however, by the magistrates, the Court of King's Bench held that the conviction was wrong on the ground that a man cannot be convicted for doing a lawful act even though he knows that his doing it may cause another to commit an unlawful act. The recent case of Wise v. Dunning (q) must now be read in connection with this, which shows that if persons meet to carry out an otherwise lawful purpose in an unlawful manner, such as holding meetings and using language slanderous of Roman Catholics in Liverpool, being a district largely inhabited by persons of that religion, they would be guilty of an unlawful assembly, or at least a magistrate would be justified in binding them over to keep the peace if there is evidence to warrant the apprehension that a breach of the peace would be committed. (r) In an older case (s) a constable was held to be justified in taking an orange lily from a lady who was wearing it under such circumstances as to cause tumult and excitement, and to lead to the fear of a breach of the peace being committed. But, as was said by O'Brien, J., in that case, such an extreme case of interference with the private rights of individuals can only be justified by the strongest necessity.

A proclamation by a Secretary of State or by a magistrate cannot make an otherwise lawful assembly unlawful; the only effect of such a proclamation can be to make people thoroughly cognizant of what is likely to occur, and therefore to militate against their chance of escaping liability on the ground of non-participation in the event of an unlawful assembly actually taking place and their being charged with the offence. (t)

(q) [1902] 1 K. B. 167.

(r) A local Act in force in Liverpool prohibits the use of threatening, abusive, and insulting words or behaviour in the street; but this fact does not appear to have influenced the decision (see the judgment of Darling, J., at p. 177).

(s) Humphries v. Connor (1864), Ir. C. L. R. 1. (t) Rex v. Fursey (1833), 6 Car. & P. 81.

Where, however, a breach of the peace has actually occurred through the attacks of wrongdoers, a meeting perfectly lawful in its inception and in the manner of its carrying out, may be called upon by magistrates and constables to disperse. But this is only justifiable by necessity, and the constables ought first to arrest the wrongdoers. (u)

How far persons who are taking part in a lawful assembly are justified in resisting the efforts of the police or other persons to disperse them seems open to doubt. But, as was pointed out by Wilde, C.J., in Reg. v. Ernest Jones, (x) it is obvious that in all cases they are not justified in using extreme measures and must only act in self-defence; their duty is evidently to retreat where possible rather than by standing their ground to cause a breach of the peace, and their proper remedy is an action for damages for assault or false imprison

ment.

(5) The Adoption and Observance of Conventions in Addition to Laws Proper.

This is one of the most important of the characteristics of the English Constitution, but as this topic has already been discussed, (y) nothing further need be said here.

(6) The Non-taxation of British-born Subjects without Adequate Representation in Parliament.

This feature of the English constitution is founded upon the provision of Magna Carta, by which King John promised not to levy any aids or scutages, except the three recognized feudal aids, without the consent of Parliament. It forms the great keynote of English liberty, the grand foundation-stone of the constitution, the struggle to establish which has in bygone days occasioned so much bitter strife between the Crown and Parliament; and to the violation of this principle is due the one great blot upon the history of our colonial

(u) See O'Kelley v. Harvey (1882), 14 L. R. Ir. 105.

(x) (1848) 6 St. Tri. (N. S.) 783; and see Rex v. Fursey cited above. (y) See ante, p. 3.

C.L.E.

4

empire-the loss of the American colonies. The thorough recognition of this principle by English statesmen of the present day, forms the secret of England's success in governing her colonies. For it may be said to be a constitutional maxim, that representative institutions are granted to every colony and dependency as soon as they have reached the necessary stage of advancement. In India and in Crown colonies and protectorates, where the population is mostly native, the principle cannot be said to be non-existent, but rather in abeyance; and when the native mind and character have become, through contact and intercourse with Englishmen, so thoroughly imbued with English sentiment and ideas as to be capable of self-government, it is safe to say that representative institutions will not be withheld.

Part II.-The Legislature and the Public

Revenue.

CHAPTER I.

THE MEETING AND TERMINATION OF PARLIAMENT.

THE Sovereign Power or Government of England consists of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, and these will now be considered in their order.

Composition of the Legislature. The legislature consists of the king in council in Parliament: the three parties necessary to legislation being, (1) the Crown, (2) the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and (3) the Commons. So the enacting clause at the commencement of each Act of Parliament runs : "Be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows." The composition of Parliament was first marked out by King John in Magna Carta (1215), when he promised not to levy scutages or aids other than the three recognized feudal aids, except with the consent of the Commune Consilium, which was to consist of archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons, who were to be summoned individually by writ, and the tenants in chief, who were to be summoned by general writs addressed to the sheriffs.

Shire representation occurred first in 1254, (a) when four knights were summoned from each shire, and in Simon de Montfort's Parliament of 1265 we find the first example of distinct representation for shires, cities, and boroughs. This

(a) See Stubbs' Const. Hist., p. 221.

method of representation was established by Edward I. in 1295, when the sheriffs were directed to cause to be elected two knights of each shire, two citizens of each city, and two burgesses of each borough. (b) To this Parliament seven earls and forty-one barons were summoned by special writ, whilst the writ to the archbishops and bishops contained the præmunientes clause, directing the attendance of the representatives of the chapters and of the parochial clergy. Thus we have the three estates of the realm, the clergy, the baronage, and the commons.

The præmunientes clause is still inserted in the writs addressed to the archbishops and bishops, but the clergy ceased to attend since the end of the fourteenth century, preferring to meet in their own convocation, where they taxed themselves. In 1664 by a tacit understanding the clergy gave up the right to tax themselves and were included in the general scheme of taxation; in return for this they assumed the right to vote for the return of knights of the shire as freeholders of their glebes, and this right they have continued to exercise ever since, though without any direct statutory authority. (c)

The Meeting of Parliament.

66

The Summons. Upon the dissolution of an existing Parliament, which can take place either by direct exercise of the Crown's prerogative, or by effluxion of time, the Crown by virtue of the prerogative summons a new Parliament by proclamation. With regard to statutory authorities ensuring the regular summons and session of Parliament, an old statute of the reign of Edward III. (d) enacts that a Parliament shall be holden every year once, and more if need be; enactment, however, was more often disregarded than observed, and many years frequently elapsed between the meetings of Parliament. More recent enactments are the 16 Car. II. c. 1, which provides that "the sitting and holding of Parliament shall not be intermitted or discontinued above three years at the most," and the Triennial Act, 1694 (6 Will. &

(b) Stubbs' Const. Hist., p. 223. (c) The right of the clergy to vote statute to exist; see 10 Anne, c. 23; Eccl. Law, p. 1538.

"this

has, however, been assumed by 18 Geo. II. c. 18; and see Phil. (d) 4 Ed. III. c. 14.