144 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [pARrrT II 
and it would be strange if any system of law denied the 
Sovereign that privilege. Moreover, the royal prerogative is 
certainly the same everywhere, except where it has been 
lessened by appropriate legislation—the immunity is not by 
legislation—and therefore the prerogative to waive immunity 
from suit seems to be one which would everywhere be in 
force. Moreover, there is no case reported where the view 
that the prerogative does not exist in these Colonies has 
been established. In point of fact, in the case of Ceylon and 
the Mauritius cases are brought by usage, which the Privy 
Council has approved in the case of Ceylon, against the 
Colonial Government direct without a fiat of any kind, while 
in the case of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony 
Acts were passed very soon after the organization of civil 
government to confer a right of suit much larger than the 
common-law right, as is usual in the Colonies, which mostly 
accept within limits responsibility for torts in connexion with 
railway and other such undertakings. An Act was passed in 
the Cape (No. 37 of 1888), and also in Natal (No. 14 of 1894) 
as soon as there was any demand, and those Acts deal also 
with torts, so that no argument can be drawn from the 
passing of Acts to the denial of a common-law right before 
the Acts were passed. The Transvaal and the Orange River 
Colony legislation, and the other Acts are consolidated as 
Act No. 1 of 1910 of the Union. In the case of Canada 
and the Commonwealth similar Acts have been passed, and 
that of Canada applies to cases arising in Quebec also. 
It appears clear that the Acts which are passed refer only 
to the Crown in its capacity as the Crown in the Colony.2 
If the Crown is to be sued in its capacity as the Imperial 
drown then a fiat would in every case be necessary, and 
* Whether the prerogative would have applied to claims against these 
Governments without these Acts has not been determined in any case, 
but prima facie it would. There is also a Quebec Act regarding local 
petitions of right ; of. Reg. v. Demers, [1900] A. C. 103. 
®t But in theory the King could grant a fiat for a trial in a Colonial court 
of such a case; cf. Robertson, op. cit., p. 381. The Cape and Natal rules of 
court forbade suing an Imperial officer without the sanction of the court 
for any debt due on public account. Cf. 3-8. C. 55; 21 S. C. 393.