That, whether his testimony be given _viva voce_ or otherwise, no question in chief or on cross-examination could be proposed to him, was admitted by Colonel Berkeley's counsel.

And that his testimony must be conclusive as to the facts stated by him, appeared necessarily to follow from the perfection ascribed by law to his royal character.

For such remarkable exceptions, therefore, to the case of all other witnesses they could not but think that strong and decisive authority ought to be produced; while the silence of text-writers on the subject, so far from being favorable to the notion that the King can give evidence, appeared to afford a directly contrary inference." And they summed up their opinion in a few words: "that his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, while in the personal exercise of the royal authority, was in the situation of the King in this respect, and that the King could not by any mode give evidence as a witness in a civil suit." It is very improbable that Colonel Berkeley should have made the application without previously ascertaining the willingness of the Prince to give evidence, could such a course be permitted.

And as his Royal Highness, on receiving this opinion of the law-officers of the crown, did not come forward as a witness, that opinion may be held to have settled the question.

And, apart from the constitutional objections relied on by those able lawyers, it is evident that there would be serious practical objections to the sovereign being made a witness.