and rules of the epic art were to be drawn, and by which all similar works were to be judged: so this great political critic appears to have viewed the Constitution of England as the standard, or to use his own expression, as the mirror of political liberty; and to have delivered in the form of elementary truths the several characteristic principles of that particular system. That we may be sure, then, not to mistake his meaning in this case, let us recur to the source from which the maxim was drawn.
On the slightest view of the British Constitution we must perceive that the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary departments are by no means totally separate and distinct from each other. The Executive magistrate forms an integral part of the Legislative authority. He alone has the prerogative of making treaties with foreign sovereigns, which, when made, have, under certain limitations, the force of Legislative acts. All the members of the Judiciary department are appointed by him; can be removed by him on the address of the two Houses of Parliament; and form, when he pleases to consult them, one of his constitutional Councils. One branch of the Legislative department forms also a great constitutional Council to the Executive chief; as, on another hand, it is the sole depositary of judicial power in cases of impeachment, and is invested with the supreme appellate jurisdiction in all other cases. The judges, again, are so far connected with the Legislative department as often to attend and participate in its deliberations, though not admitted to a Legislative vote.
From these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred, that in saying, "There can be no liberty, where the Legislative and Executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the Legislative and Executive powers,"
