The Dominion. MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1914. THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2002, 9 March 1914, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1914. THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE.

The rumour -thai the KKfa bas, intervened in thc-.gi'c-at struggle over the Home Rule Bill lias caused a sensation in British political circles. A similar report gaillsd currency somo months ago, but it was not supported by anything in the- form of tangible evidence, and it was generally discredited. . Ses-pohsible authorities on both sides have felt that Royal inter{evcn,ee in the cfssis would ; bo an cxtrentely ssrioirs step, and might create a, niost dangefons Vircccdcnt. There seems to have been' a general understanding that the King should twti be drawn into the controversy, though individuals here and there have contended that the- Eoyal prercigative ought to I)C exercised. Tho people; who have favoured the intervention of- the Crown have so Jar -kec-a a- cmnpntatively small minority, and the (oresent revival of the ru.moar was at first with i-norediil.ityv. but it is now said to be generally cepted as true that* Bis' MiUSstir has insisted that a ge.n,e.j-al election shall immediately follow the passing of the Homo Rule Bill.. It would certainly be more satisfactory that the appeal to the cou-rttTy should take place before the final passing af the Bill,.but the Government is no doubt arxious to getthe measure through fii'.st. and do its , , titmost afterwards to induce the iieople to confirm its nction at the ballot-box. A eertain time will have to elapse between the pacing of 'the Bill a#d its actual enforcement, and it may to assumod that if the GovenvmX'fit.s'hottld bri do-

feated at the polls tkc present Homo Rule scheme would not be put into operation. If, on the oilier Imni, the Libcral-Laboiif-Jfationftlist coalition .remained in a niajesi'itj- after the election it \v6uld , probably ciiMfti that -its- proposaU had clearly received the approval of the- coutltry, iipd ought, tlierefere, to bs put into force, though tlio Actual itiattgui'ation of tfie fiehwno cftuid 'not well commence before .February, 19! ft. Thp Royal prerogative * might, of course, be exercised in raore tnas one way. The KtM might, for, instance, decline to give his assent to the Bill, or he could insist upon ;i geneva 1 election before tha ehuages authorised inMt mm actunlly mafje. It niiffht be contentket with consideraSlfi force that I ho first method would at lca*t bSitr the a ppti. ranct of a direct- conflir!.. between tlw ■frilt of the Sovereion titid tlw will of tho people as expressed through a ma-

jority of their Mijrcscntath'cs in Parliamentj but tho same o-b.iect.ion «mld hardly bo urged against the Kise's action if he merely insisted upon a general election. This would not involve any conflict botwecn the Crown and the people, but would be equivalent to an ap peal from a Parliament, which has no special mandate behind, its Home iiulc policy, to the electors thorn* solves in order to make suro that a fai'-reacliivig alteration in the Constitution is not nia.de without the consent of the people, or maybe in defiance of their wishes. In atty case, the appearance of the KiUa in the arena of party politics is a very serious matter, which earinot fail to give rise to misgivings in tins minds of thoughtful men of all shades of political opinion, From the kgp.l point' of view, 'it is impossible to qitcsti-on the validity of the prerogative of dissolution. That this power undoubtedly exists is expressly asserted by two sticii eminent authorities in constitutional law as Sir Willum Aks-on and Professor Dicey; but the former points put that if this prerogative is used it must; be under certain conditions, of which many people do not $eem to be aware, tf the King should desii'e to dissolve Parliament against the wishes of the Government it would bo necessary to ascertiiift beforehand whether an alternative Ministry was prepared to accept the responsibility, for His MAJfisTt's Ministers must take the. ycspoTisibiHty his acts. "It really cemes to this," writes Sm Wiuiam Anson, "that if the KiSq should determine, in the. iiiteycsts of his people, to take a course of wliiefc his Ministers disapprove, he must either convert his Ministers to Ms point of view, te> before taking action, wist Ministers who agree with hira. ! ■ This explanation of the difficulties of the position shows that a very serious situation might develop wt of any attempt to "tafei sanctuary in the Royil name," As The Times points out iinany tilings have happened sines the leadittg cases of 1784 and 1834-*-the precodoats of Put and Peel; ami the wlwlo trend of public opinkfl sifl-CS then liiTisfc be taken into aeeeant ifi forming a judgment on this matter. The question must be approached in the light of the political conditions csf this present day, and this aiedeni interpretation of the spiff* of Hie British Constitution. The indirect 85 tveU as tho direct consequences ui Royal ifttaferdfiee should also be taken into consideration- Peofessgii Morsas,., contends that tie powef of dissolution onee exorcised by the Sovereign, howeyei' or imperative the ctteamstiincos might seem to be* *D\ild seriously. compromise any futtire exercise of this rightby a Ministry uhd'e-r quite lUH'mal ch'Otinjstaitecs. "No dissolution in future would he free . from am* biguHy, and speeiilatitm as to the .degree of responsibility of the Sovereign would be t a feature of every election." This may be a Stttticwhat extreme stateriient of the ■positioii, but in an*.ease the.ojaordse of the prerogative of dissolution. should only bo resorted to in a. national crisis of the gravest, character, and when all other possible means have- been teicrf anft failed, BflftKE lifts piated on repord the ■opinion, that. the "repose" of this po'sver "may be the preservation of il.s existence, a.n.d its existence may be the means,of saving the Constitution itself on an occasion worthy of briafcr ing it forth, , ' . 3?h&t the .{■■itmoiU'ed Royal intervention may prove ift* ftorrect is supported by the fact that it was stated some time ago that Mji. AsQTHTH intended to advise a rßsStihiikn in Juno ftftor the passing ■. ■of the Bill, and before Hs lororisioris ■would*ome into full operatHM. .He no doubt feels that it is ifflpossibje to avoid an .ippenl h} tliu people before the, final Step is tikeh, foi* he fflHsii recognise that, in the Words of P-JiorEssoK PiCEV, ">he whole ettrrehfc of modern 60115111111101141 ciis- : torn invdves the admissiott t-.hatti.ie fiftai fensien of every grave political question now belongs, not to the Housed Commons, but to the electors as tho representatives of ttsc nation."