4S6 HARVARD LAW REVIEW rights of the subject, and to protect the latter against any injury- arising from the acts of the former; but it is no part of its object to enlarge or alter those rights." A later definition is even more precise in its limitations. "The only cases," said Cockburn, C. J.,^ "in which the petition of right is open to the subject are, where the land or goods or money of a subject have found their way into the possession of the Crown, and the purpose of the petition is to obtain restitution; or, if restitution cannot be given, com- pensation in money; or where the claim arises out of contract as for goods supplied to the Crown, or to the pubHc service. It is only in such cases that instances of petitions of right having been entertained are to be found in our books." The remedy is thus the obvious expression of the needs of a commercial age. The Crown must do business, and it must obey the rules that business men have laid down for their governance if it desire effective dealings with them. So leasehold property,^ demur- rage under a charter-party,^ duties of all kinds paid by mistake,^ property extended by the Crown to answer a Crown debt,^ are all cases in which it is clear enough that the petition will lie; and, in various cognate directions, the privilege has been devel- oped by statute.'*^ In mixed cases of tort and contract the issue seems largely to depend upon the skill and subtlety of opposing counsel.'*^ Once the realm of contract is overpassed the remedy of petition ceases to be effective. Tort lies completely outside the region of responsibility. The negligence of Crown servants may destroy the Speaker's property ,^^ as the zeal of a naval captain may destroy Mr. Tobin's schooner; the Crown may, without authoriza- tion, infringe Mr. Feather's patent,^" or see its officers act wrong- «2 Feather v. Regina, 6 B. & S. 257, 293 (1865). « In re Gosman, 15 Ch. D. 67 (1880), confirmed in part 17 Ch. D. 771 (1881).
- Yeoman v. Rex, [1904] 2 K. B. 429.
« Percival v. Regina, 3 H. & C. 217 (1864) (probate) ; Dickson v. Regina, 11 H. L. C. 175 (1865) (excise); Winans v. Rex, 23 T. L. R. 705 (1907) (estate duties), are suflSdent instances of the kind. <» In re English Joint Stock Bank W. N. 199 (1866).
- E. g., under the Telegraph Acts. Great Western Railway v. Regina, 4 T.L. R.
383 (C. A.) (1889). ■*« E. g., Clarke v. Army and Navy Co-operative Society, [1903] i. K. B. 155-56. <» Canterbury v. Attorney-General, i Ph. 306 (1843). » Feather v. Regina, 6 B. & S. 257 (1865).
