The 1851 (2nd) edition of Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice stated that the practice was "founded upon parliamentary usage, which both houses have agreed to observe", and that as a result it "it cannot be misconstrued into any interference with the proceedings of parliament". He defended the practice of prior communication between parliament and the crown on the basis that, without Queen’s Consent, if parliament were to dispose of the interests or affect the prerogative of the crown against its wishes, the crown would in any event be able to protect itself by refusing royal assent. Queen’s Consent, then, he considered advantageous, as it prevented the crown from having to exert its prerogative in such a way.[10] Recent editions of Erskine May drop discussion of the advantages of the practice, and simply state that under certain conditions consent is "required",[11] leaving unsaid the implications of it not being given.[5]