THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXV, Issue 11787, 25 September 1913, Page 5

THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Your article on this is so valuable and suggestive that the few criticisms which I venture to make are offered with some -diffidence. You appear to place too much reliance on what I may call the <'legality ,, of the King's right of veto. No doubt, from a strictly legal point of view it would be, as you say, "nonsense" to assert that a disused branch of the prerogative cannot be revived, or to deny that- (in the words of Taswell-Laugmcad) "by the written constitution the King still retains the supreme executive and co-or-dinate legislative power. '' To-day that is the'theory, of our constitution just as it was in the years following the .Revolution. And" Professor Orclli's pronthat "the legislative power is divided between the King and the Chambers' ' may be supported by a wellknown passage of Blaekstone. The doctrine of the ISth century was that the constitution was an ingenious and equal mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy; that each element acted as a check on the aggressive tendencies of the others; and that the independent concurrence of the three estates of the realm was necessary to the enactment of every law. That doctrine still survives in the . books; but even yon, I think, will admit that it has now sunk to the level of a legal fiction. "In outer seeming,'' writes J. ft. Green, "the Involution of ICSS had only transferred the soveroitrntv over England from James to William and Mary. In actual fact it was transferring the sovereignty from the King to the House of Commons. ."From the moment when its sole right to tax the nation was established by the Bill of Eights, and when its own resolve settled the practice of granting none but annual supplies to the Crown, the House of Commons became the suilflLic power in the State." And fur- ■ th&: "The defeat of the peers (in 1712) and the fall of Marlborough which followed it announced that the transfer of political power to the House of Commons was complete." . Therefore, whatever the. theory may have been, the fact was that there was henceforth only one effective estate of the realm. The King's share in legislation lapsed into oblivion; the influence of the peers survived chiefly in their control over elections; and the great conflict over the Reform Bill revealed their utter want of power to prevent the majority of the Commons from having its way.

But, you say, it is evident that the so-called legislative veto "cannot become atrophied by disuse, and that it can be revived at any time. " So Charles the First and lib advisers argued with respect to ship-money: the .Judges, whose function was merely to declare the law, held (quite rightly. I believe) that the tax was legal: and their ultimately co. t the King his So Parliament argued on the rigiit to tax the plantations; precedents ■were in its favour; the nation supported it; but the Stamp Act and the Act for imposing duties lost us the American colonies. Law is a good servant, but a most oppressive master. Even admitting the abstract soundness of your contention, I respectfully suggest that, if the King were to veto the Home Eule Bill, lie would be sett-ing'-at nought the Parliament piece of legislation which has already been approved by the three estates. As you know, and I know, and everyone "knows, that Act was a political expedient intended mainly, and perhaps solely, to secure the passage of the Home Eule Bill and the Welsh Church Bill without the necessity of appealing to the nation at any time between their introduction and their enactment. If the King, therefore, requires that the nation shall be afforded the opportunity of expressing its opinion, he will be insisting on the very thing which the Parliament Act was intended to dispense with. The effect of that AcJjjte, in short, to secure and consolidate that supremacy of the House of Commons which was begun by the Bill of Eights, and to enable the executive to force its measures into law, without consulting, or even in defiance of, the popular will. And the King and the peers, by assenting to the Act, have acepted that position. How can the King now disclaim it? —I am, etc., CUEIO. Masterton, September 24th, 1913. We quite recognise the force of what our correspondent says. The point is admittedly a difficult one.. But if our correspondent is right in contend, ing that we insist too much upon the theory of the prerogative, can we not equally urge that he also insists too much upon the theory that the House of Commons necessarily and inevitably reflects the opinion of the country? As a matter of fact, we know that frequently it does not, especially after some years have elapsed since a general election. We towed, by reference to Orelli, that fc prerogative of the legislative is inherent in the very nature of monarchy, and also that, owing to the Parliament Act, the King is confronted with a new set of conditions in relation to which his alternative courses of action can obviously • not be altogether settled by reference to precedents based on other conditions. If, then, the King has sufficient reason for doubting whether the advice of his Ministers coincides with the desire of the country, is it not at least arguable that a moral obligation rests.upon him to make sure'-of the opinion of the people by means of a general election, especially as such a course, if the country ' " desires Home Enle for Ireland, need ' not delay the passage of the Bill to the Statute Book for as much as a minute. After all, the King is the people's' King, and not merely the ' creature of his Ministers. Our cor- * ' <J&m on dent's reference to the cireumstlmces attending the loss of the American colonies shows that even Parliament can make disastrous mistakes.—Ed. W.D.T. . •