judge of the High Court and Indian and Colonial judgeships, king’s counsel, crown livings; the offices of attorney- and solicitor-general, commander-in-chief, master of the horse, keeper of the privy seal, postmaster-general, king’s printer; grants of separate courts of quarter-sessions. The fees payable in respect of the grant of various forms of letters patent are fixed by orders of the lord chancellor, dated 20th of June 1871, 18th of July 1871 and 11th of Aug. 1881. (These orders are set out at length in the Statutory Rules and Orders Revised (ed. 1904), vol. ii. tit. “Clerk of the Crown in Chancery,” pp. i. et seq.) Formerly each colonial governor was appointed and commissioned by letters patent under the great seal of the United Kingdom. But since 1875, the practice has been to create the office of governor in each colony by letters patent, and then to make each appointment to the office by commission under the Royal Sign Manual and to give to the governor so appointed instructions in a uniform shape under the Royal Sign Manual. The letters patent, commission and instructions, are commonly described as the Governor’s Commission (see Jenkyns, British Rule and Jurisdiction beyond the Seas, p. 100; the forms now in use are printed in Appx. iv. Also the Statutory Rules and Codes Revised, ed. 1904, under the title of the colony to which they relate). The Colonial Letters Patent Act 1863 provides that letters patent shall not take effect in the colonies or possessions beyond the seas until their publication there by proclamation or otherwise (s. 2), and shall be void unless so published within nine months in the case of colonies east of Bengal or west of Cape Horn, and within six months in any other case. Colonial officers and judges holding offices by patent for life or for a term certain, are removable by a special procedure—“amotion”—by the Governor and Council, subject to a right of appeal to the king in Council (Leave of Absence Act, formerly cited as “Burke’s Act” 1782; see Montagu v. Governor of Van Diemen’s Land, 1849, 6 Moo. P.C. 491; Willis v. Gipps, 1846, 6 St. Trials [N.S., 311]). The law of conquered or ceded colonies may be altered by the crown by letters patent under the Great Seal as well as by Proclamation or Order in Council (Jephson v. Riera, 1835, 3 Knapp, 130; 3 St. Trials [N.S.] 591).

Procedure.—Formerly letters patent were always granted under the Great Seal. But now, under the Crown Office Act 1877, and the Orders in Council made under it, many letters patent are sealed with the wafer great seal. Letters patent for inventions are issued under the seal of the Patent Office. The procedure by which letters patent are obtained is as follows: A warrant for the issue of letters patent is drawn up; and is signed by the lord chancellor; this is submitted to the law officers of the crown, who countersign it; finally, the warrant thus signed and countersigned is submitted to His Majesty, who affixes his signature. The warrant is then sent to the Crown Office and is filed, after it has been acted upon by the issue of letters patent under the great or under the wafer seal as the case may be. The letters patent are then delivered into the custody of those in whose favour they are granted.

Construction.—The construction of letters patent differs from that of other grants in certain particulars: (i.) Letters patent, contrary to the ordinary rule, are construed in a sense favourable to the grantor (viz. the crown) rather than to the grantee; although this rule is said not to apply so strictly where the grant is made for consideration, or where it purports to be made ex certâ scientiâ et mero motu. (ii.) When it appears from the face of the grant that the sovereign has been mistaken or deceived, either in matter of fact or in matter of law, as, e.g. by false suggestion on the part of the patentee, or by misrecital of former grants, or if the grant is contrary to law or uncertain, the letters patent are absolutely void, and may still, it would seem, be cancelled (except as regards letters patent for inventions, which are revoked by a special procedure, regulated by § 26 of the Patents Act 1883), by the procedure known as scire facias, an action brought against the patentee in the name of the crown with the fiat of the attorney-general.

LETTRES DE CACHET. Considered solely as French documents, lettres de cachet may be defined as letters signed by the king of France, countersigned by one of his ministers, and closed with the royal seal (cachet). They contained an order—in principle, any order whatsoever—emanating directly from the king, and executory by himself. In the case of organized bodies lettres de cachet were issued for the purpose of enjoining members to assemble or to accomplish some definite act; the provincial estates were convoked in this manner, and it was by a lettre de cachet (called lettre de jussion) that the king ordered a parlement to register a law in the teeth of its own remonstrances. The best-known lettres de cachet, however, were those which may be called penal, by which the king sentenced a subject without trial and without an opportunity of defence to imprisonment in a state prison or an ordinary gaol, confinement in a convent or a hospital, transportation to the colonies, or relegation to a given place within the realm.

The power which the king exercised on these various occasions was a royal privilege recognized by old French law, and can be traced to a maxim which furnished a text of the Digest of Justinian: “Rex solutus est a legibus.” This signified particularly that when the king intervened directly in the administration proper, or in the administration of justice, by a special act of his will, he could decide without heeding the laws, and even in a sense contrary to the laws. This was an early conception, and in early times the order in question was simply verbal; thus some letters patent of Henry III. of France in 1576 (Isambert, Anciennes lois françaises, xiv. 278) state that François de Montmorency was “prisoner in our castle of the Bastille in Paris by verbal command” of the late king Charles IX. But in the 14th century the principle was introduced that the order should be written, and hence arose the lettre de cachet. The lettre de cachet belonged to the class of lettres closes, as opposed to lettres patentes, which contained the expression of the legal and permanent will of the king, and had to be furnished with the seal of state affixed by the chancellor. The lettres de cachet, on the contrary, were signed simply by a secretary of state (formerly known as secrétaire des commandements) for the king; they bore merely the imprint of the king’s privy seal, from which circumstance they were often called, in the 14th and 15th centuries, lettres de petit signet or lettres de petit cachet, and were entirely exempt from the control of the chancellor.

While serving the government as a silent weapon against political adversaries or dangerous writers and as a means of punishing culprits of high birth without the scandal of a suit at law, the lettres de cachet had many other uses. They were employed by the police in dealing with prostitutes, and on their authority lunatics were shut up in hospitals and sometimes in prisons. They were