[bourinot] CANADIAN CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 169 



and sign manual. The instructions, in whicli the clauses respecting the 

 tenure of councillors generally appeared, were never more then royal 

 directions as to the 7iianncr in which the powers of the government were 

 to be performed. They could not confer powers of themselves but were, 

 as they were styled, "instructions" how to carry out the legal powers of 

 governors.' A despatch giving the commands of the Sovereign, signed 

 by a responsible minister, would have just as much weight with a gov-^ 

 ernor and he would be just as much constitutionally bound to obey 

 them as if they were ''instructions" accompanying the commission. 

 I draw special attention to the fact that it was correctly laid down 

 by Lord Stanley in 1843,^ that any rule " in restraint of the royal pre- 

 rogative, and obligatory on the Crown itself, is as fully established and is 

 as binding when laid down in her majesty's name, in pursuaiu-e of the com- 

 mands which the Queen has been pleased to lay on me for that purpose, as if 

 it vjere incorporated in the royal instructions." The constitution of Nova 

 Scotia and the provinces has been largely moulded by despatches. The 

 whole system of responsible government which i-egulates the relations of 

 the Crown and the ministry with parliament, and, in foct, has placed the 

 prerogative in abeyance in important particulars, originated in such 

 despatches as that of Lord Stanley on the 20th August, 1845. In no 

 statute, passed with the consent of the Crown, is there an enactment that 

 the royal prerogative to choose its ministers is to be guided by the fact 

 that ministers can only be chosen when they have the confidence of the 

 po])ular house, and that they must resign when they do not possess it.' 

 Where is there legal authority for limiting the royal prerogative with 

 respect to public officers who hold office during pleasure ? On this point 

 it is well observed bv a high authority :^ "It would be perfectly legal, 

 though neither just or politic, for an incoming minister to obtain from the 

 ( 'rown as a proof of confidence the dismissal of every civil servant who 

 holds his office during pleasure.'' 



Another high authority ' has truly said with respect to " what the 

 Queen might do without consulting parliament," simply by the exercise 

 of prerogative lights which have never been expressly legislated away : 

 " Not to mention other things she could disband the army (by law she 

 cannot engage more than a certain number of men, but she is not obliged 

 to engage any men) ; she could dismiss all the officers, from the general 

 commander-in-chief downwards ; she could dismii?s all the sailors, too ; 

 she could sell off all our ships of war and all our naval stores ; she could 



' See Baron Maseres's "Can. Freeholder," vol. ii., p. 22.5. He was Attorney - 

 General of Canada. 



■' See above, paragraph, xxvii., p. 155. 



•* See Todd's " Pari. Govt, in the Colonies," 2nd éd., p. 74 ; Bourinofs " Cons. 

 Hist.," p. 39. 



^ Anson's " Law of the Constitution," ii., p. 203. 



' See Dieey's " Law of the Constitution " p. 390, citing Bagehot. 



