his advisers or servants.  In England, to-day, the real sovereign is the Parliament; the merest shadow of sovereignty is left to the executive, the king, and none whatever given the judicial branch.  In this country we preserve the three branches distinct, though none, not all three together, are sovereign; it is the people who are that.  And each department is of equal dignity; although at one period there was a certain amount of public complaint that Congress was usurping more power than belongs to it, and recently that power was being usurped by the president, there has hardly been (except from Mr. Gompers and Mr. Hearst) any complaint that power is usurped by the judicial branch, however unpopular its decisions.  But in England there is no pretence of maintaining the three branches uniform either in importance or in power.  Starting with the Great Council, which had originally only a certain amount of executive power and a great deal of judicial power, they have retained and added to the former, while practically giving up the latter; and, moreover, they have divided into the two houses, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, with a division of sovereignty between them, the Commons, of course, getting the lion’s share.  The only judicial power substantially now remaining in the English Parliament is the power of impeachment, which is rarely exercised in England, and the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, of the “law” lords, that is, those peers who held legal offices.  On the other hand the legislative function of Parliament, which began merely in the way of saying what the law was, has enormously developed, and still more so the executive.  Thus the legislative branch of the three divisions in the English government has increased out of all proportion to both the others, having now all the legislative power and most of the executive.  And legislatively it is omnipotent; it is confined by no constitution; even the king cannot withhold his consent.  Parliament can make any law, although against what was the Constitution; the Constitution may be modified by a simple statute.  So their legislative function is infinite; and their executive function has, in substance, grown very large, because the British government is carried on by the cabinet, which is practically a committee of the House of Commons.  But of the judicial function, which was the principal function of the Great Council at the time of the Conquest, hardly a shred remains.  It is the history of all countries that people are not jealous of the judicial power, while they are extremely anxious to seize the legislative and executive.  With us, however, we are supposed to have all three functions co-ordinate and in good working activity.  But in both countries, money bills, bills imposing taxes, are the function of the lower house.  That principle grew historically from the principle that all taxation must be voted by the people, directly or indirectly; must be with the common consent and for the common benefit.  That principle was established by the House of Commons, and consequently they arrogated to themselves that part of the legislative power.  That principle we have retained in our Federal Constitution, and in most of our State constitutions; all of which have the double house.