AN ABDICATION

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22596, 8 December 1936, Page 10

AN ABDICATION

EARLIER PRECEDENTS NO VOLUNTARY CASE ELECTION OF SUCCESSOR HY Tj. K. MUNRO, Lectnror in Constitutional History at Auckland University College. Questions of abdication are ones of difficulty. Tliov arise, fortunately, but rarely, and it is a fact that there has been no voluntary abdication in our history.

IJiehard 11., in 1399, was in fact deposed, although he did release his subjects from their allegiance. While a prisoner in the Tower the monarch executed a formal deed of resignation, which was accepted by Parliament. The King was deposed and the Throne declared vacant. Parliament proceeded to elect his successor and tho 'lhrone was granted to Henry IV. In 1088 James 11. fled the kingdom. Both Houses of Parliament resolved: "That King James 11., having endeavoured to subvert tho Constitution of this Kingdom, by breaking tho original contract between Crown and people, and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn himself out of tho Kingdom, has abdicated tho government and that tho Throno is hereby vacant." Obviously this was not a voluntary abdication —it was a revolution. Throne and Parliament At any rate, until 1931 tho forms observed in tho case of Richard 11. made it clear that tho sovereign can abdicate and that a convention Parliament can elect a successor. Such an election, confirmed by Parliamentary Statute, creates a Parliamentary title, which none of our Courts can question. By tho preamble to the Statute of Westminster it is stated that it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all tho members of tho Commonwealth that any alteration in the law touching the succession to the Throno of tho Royal style and titles should require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Although New Zealand and Australia have not adopted tho Statute of Westminster, it may be assumed that tho foregoing words in the recital to tho Statute aro applicable to both Dominions.

An abdication now would have to bo read in the light of these words. They are not enacted as operative words of the Statute, but they represent present constitutional usage. Their clear effect is that after abdication the appointment of a successor to the Throne would be a matter for unanimous action on the part of the Imperial Parliament and of all the Parliaments of the Dominions. This, no doubt, presupposes tho acceptance of the abdication oy nil tho Parliaments of the Commonwealth. Legality or Propriety In considering the events which might lead to abdication by the King tho difference between the legality of his proposed marriage against the advice of his Ministers and the constitutional propriety of such an action must always be remembered. There are many things in our constitution which the King may legally do without reference to his Ministers or even contrary to their advice. It is constitutional usage, however, that in the vast majority of cases every act of the King is carried out on tho advice of his Ministry. The effect of this in connection with his proposed marriage is obvious. To carry out his intention of marrying against the wishes of the Cabinet in all probability would lead to the Cabinet's resignation. The King would apparently find it impossible to obtain another Ministry. The Government of the country would, therefore, come to a standstill. Creating an Impasse

Continued persistence by the King in his action would result in a constitutional impasse. There could, therefore, be but one result of such a state of atfaim and that would be an abdication in order that the Throne might be occupied by a person who could secure the confidence of the Ministry for the purpose of carrying on the government of the country. Having abdicated, the King would become a private citizen. Some of his titles he holds only by virtue of his position as King. There is some ground for saying, however, that he would retain the title of Duke of Lancaster, the succession to which is vested in the sovereign, in his body natural and not in liiis body politic in right of the Crown.