Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Third of a Century.] TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1913. THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE AND HOME RULE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXV, Issue 11785, 23 September 1913, Page 4

Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Third of a Century.] TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1913. THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE AND HOME RULE.

Judging from' recent cable messages, the possible action of tho King in relation to the Home Eule controversy is the subject of some speculation at the present time at Home. This, no doubt, is partly to be accounted for by the fact that the Unionist leaders have been summoned to Balmoral to confer with His Majesty, although, of course, no indication has been given of the questions which the King desired to discuss witn them. The question here raised is one which has to be handled with a great deal of discretion since it is most undesirable that the Crown should be associated even by inference with any party interests. Nevertheless, looking at the matter purely from the constitutional point of view, it must be recognised that the King can, if he sees fit, exercise very considerable influence in this connection. It has been suggested that His Majesty might summon a conference with a view to seeking, if possible, a solution by consent of the Home Eule question. This suggestion is probably based upon the analogy of the Constitutional Conference of 1911 in connection with the Parliament Bill, though that conference was not summoned by the King. Moreover, the result which attended that Conference is not of happy presage for the success of future conferences, and in the present instance there is little ground for supposing that a conference would succeed in finding a solution acceptable to all parties, especially in view of the uncompromising firmness of the Ulster Unionists. Nor do we think that the King would summon such a conference unless he were advised to do so by his Ministers. Indeed, unless his Ministers were consenting parties, such a course of action could not possibly prove efficacious.

Leaving on one side, then, the idea of a conference, let us consider in what other way the King can make his influence felt. On one or two occasions recently we Lave suggested j that Hie Majesty may see fit, when the Home Rule Bill is presented for the Royal Assent in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act next year,

to exercise the prerogative of disallowance, and veto the Bill. This alternative has been .discussed at Home, but the opinion has' tiedn expressed that this particular prerogative has become atrophied from disuse and cannot be revived. To say that it cannot be re- j vived is, of course, nonsense. It is also beside the point, in the present connection, to declare that by long established custom the Royal Prerogative is only exercised upon' the advice of responsible Ministbrs, because we are contemplating the possible situation in which the King may not be in agreement with the advice tendered by his Ministers. The fact remains, to quote the' words ofTaswell Langmead, that '' the legal prerogatives of the Crown were untouched by the Revolution settlement By the written Constitution tho King still retains tho supreme executive and co-ordinate legislative power. He

. . . may refuse the Eoyal Assent to any Bills." And this statement may bo fortified by quoting the statement of a very distinguished writer on Constitutional theory, Professor Orelli of Zurich, who thus defines the nature of veto:

"It is wrong," he says, "to apply the term veto to what is merely the negative side of the sanctioning of the laws, in other words, an act of sovereignty. It would not be in accordance with the nature of a constitutional monarchy to declare the monarch' 3 consent to a law unnecessary, or make it a compulsory duty; the legislative power is divided between him and the chambers. The sovereign must therefore be perfectly at liberty to say 'yes' or 'no' in each single case according to his opinion. If he says the latter, we speak of it as his veto, bat this, if he possesses an absolute and not merely a suspensory veto, is not uu intervention and not a preventive measure, but the negative side of the exercise of the legislative power, and therefore an act of sovereignty. That this right belongs fully and entirely to the holder of sovereign power —howevor he may be called —is self-evident."

If this definition of the inherent nature of the legislative veto is correct, it is evident that it cannot become atrophied by disuse, and that it can be revived at any time.

At the same time, it must be recognised that the King would probably feel that only the most extreme necessity would justify him in these days in exercising tho veto, which involves acting contrary to i-o advice of hia Ministers. It is now over two hundred years since an English monarch exercised tho veto, and to do so to-day would certainly cause a sensation. Nevertheless there are certain grounds upon which, as it seems to us, tho King might feel obliged to take such a step. In the first place, it may be pointed out that during the two hundred years for which the veto has not been exercised, all Bills submitted for the Eoyal Assent have been "sent up by Lords and Commons," as Sir William Anson puts it. In the case of all those Bills, therefore, the monarch had the assurance that they had received the approval of both Houses of Parliament. In tho case of the Home Kule Bill the position will be entirely different. The King will have the positive assurance that one House does not approve of the Bui. He will also know that the Bill passed the Commons owing to the mechanical operation of a party majority. He will also know that that majority was due to the temporary alliance between the Liberal Party and the Irish Nationalist faction. Now, just after tho revolution of 1688, William 111. made frequent use of the veto. According to Anson, this was probably due to tho recent limitations imposed by the Bill of Rights on the suspending and dispensing power. The King's position, says Anson, ''differed in some respects from xhat of his predecessors and successors." Is it not the fact that King George's position also differs in some respects from that of his predecessors? If legal responsibility for acts of the executive has been removed from the King to his Ministers, surely a moral responsibility remains. And it - that is so, would not the King be justified in disregarding the advice of his Ministers if he had good reason to suppose that such advice did not coincide with the real wishes of the electorate? Nay, would he not be acting in a strictly constitutional manner in doing so? Knowing the circumstances under which the Homo Kule Bill comes to him for the Koyal Assent; knowing that a grave crisis, possibly involving civil war, may be precipitated in Ireland if the Bill becomes law; knowing, too, that recent by-elections indicate a waning confidence in the present Government, is it not possible that he may doubt whether the Bill reflects the desires of the country? If so, would not the King be justified in saying, not "le roy le veult," but "le roy s'avisera," and in carrying out that decision by dissolving Parliament and sending the Government to the country with the assurance that if it is again returned to power the Royal Assent will be given to the Home Eule Bill? Of course, Mr Asquith can save the King the necessity of considering the exercise of the veto oy himself asking for a dissolution before presenting the Bill for the Royal Assent, and, as Lord Lansdowne has pointed out, L a general election again puts Mr Asquith in power, such a procedure would not delay the passage of the Home Bill for as much as a single minute.