Asquith (95 page)

J. A. Bright, Esq.

Hugh E. Hoare, Esq.

Sir Edward T. Holden.

Emslie J. Horniman, Esq.

Oswald Partington, Esq.

Sir T. T. Scarisbrick, Bart.

F. Verney, Esq.

Capt. The Hon. Clive Bigham. The Hon. A. J. Davey.

Sir Murland de Grasse Evans, Bart.

The Lord Haddo.

The Hon. W. J. James.

Sir Harry H. Johnston, G.C.M.G.,

K.C.B.

Commander the Hon. FI. A.

Scudamore Stanhope, R.N.

R. C. Phillimore, Esq.

Sir Robert H. Hobart, K.C.V.O., C.B.

The Hon. John Wallop.

Sir Albert E. H. Naylor-Leyland, Bart.

The Hon. H. W. Blyth.

Sir Kenelm E. Digby, G.C.B.

Sir Philip Burne-Jones, Bart. The Hon. L. U. K. Shuttleworth. Major A. L. Langman.

The Hon. Sir Edward Chandos Leigh, K.C., K.C.B.

The Hon. Bertrand Russell.

Sir Edgar Vincent, K.C.M.G. Major Gen. Sir Alfred E. Turner, K.C.B.

Sir T. D. Gibson-Carmichael, Bart., K.C.M.G.

Principal Roberts.

R. Collins, Esq.

G. Freeman Barbour, Esq. Admiral Sir Cyprian A. G.

Bridge, G.C.B.

Sir Fowell Buxton.

The Hon. Geoffrey Coleridge.

Sir W. Dunbar, Bart.

Principal Donaldson.

W. S. Haldane, Esq.

Victor Horsley, Esq.

Sir John F. F. Horner, K.C.V.O. Gwynne Hughes, Esq.

Sir T. W. Nussey, Bart.

General Sir R. S. S. Baden-Powell, K.C.B., K.C.V.O. Frank Lloyd, Esq.

Joseph Rowntree, Esq.

F. Thomasson, Esq.

Sir Ernest Soares, LL.D.

Sir Charles E. Tritton, Bart.

Sir James Woodhouse.

Donald Crawford, Esq., K.C.

-Tangye, Esq.

-Bowring.

T. H. Amory, Esq.

Lord Ernest St. Maur.

Sir T. Barlow, Bart.

Lord R. Cavendish.

John Cowan, Esq.

A. H. Crosfield, Esq.

Laurence Currie, Esq.

Sir Andrew Fraser, K.C.S.I.

Sir Walter Gilbey, Bart.

G. P. Gooch, Esq.

The Rt. Hon. Sir J. Gorst, LL.D.,

F. R.S., K.C.

Cecil Grenfell, Esq.

General Sir Ian S. M. Hamilton,

G. C.B., D.S.O.

F. Harrison, Esq., or J R. H. Harrison, Esq. j Norman Lamont, Esq.

R. C. Lehmann, Esq.

Sir H. S. Leon.

-McKenna.

T. P. Maclay, Esq.

John Massie, Esq.

Gilbert Murray, Esq.

Sir William Robertson Nicol.

Sir Owen Philipps, K.C.M.G. The Hon. Rollo Russell.

Arthur Sedgwick, Esq.

Captain C. W. Norton, M.P.

Sir David Brynmor Jones, K.C., M.P.

T. R. Ferens, Esq., M.P.

Sir Edwin Cornwall, M.P.

Sir Leonard Lyell, Bart.

Austin Taylor, Esq.

Sir William L. Younger, Bart.

Sir William J. Crossley, Bart.

Sir William J. Collins.

Sir E. Evans.

J. A. Spender, Esq.

Sir William E. Garstin, G.C.M.G. Sir Francis A. Charming, Bart. Major Edward M. Dunne.

The Hon. M. Napier.

Ernest A. Villiers, Esq.

Sir William Wedderburn, Bart. Sir Henry Ballantyne.

Sir Samuel Chisholm, Bart.

Sir Jeremiah Colman, Bart.

Sir Frank Crisp.

Robert Wallace, Esq., K.C.

Sir T. Roberts.

Sir Abe Bailey.

Sir Alexander D. Klein wort, Bart. Alexander Cross, Esq.

Harold Ellis, Esq.

Thomas Hardy, Esq., O.M.

Sir Hubert H. Longman, Bart. W. H. Dickinson, Esq., M.P. James Brain, Esq.

John Churchill, Esq.

C. H. Corbett, Esq.

Sir George J. E. Dashwood, Bart. Alfred Edison Hutton, Esq.

Sir Clarendon Golding Hyde.

Sir Benjamin Sands Johnson. Algernon Marshall S. Methuen, Esq.

Sir Swire Smith.

Sir William James Ingram, Bart. Harry Sturgis, Esq.

-Leedam.

Sir Robert Buckle.

The Hon. Charles Lawrence.

Sir Francis Flint Belsey.

Charles Edward Mallet, Esq.

The Hon. Geoffrey R. C. Fiennes. David Davies, Esq., M.P.

Sir Robert A. Hadfield. \

Sir William E. Clegg. /

Sir William Angus.

J. M. Barrie, Esq.

Sir Robert Andrew Allison. Charles R. Buxton, Esq.

Sir Joseph F. Leese, Bart. William Fuller-Maitland, Esq.

Sir Frank Hillyard Newnes, Bart.

H. J. Glanville, Esq., M.P.

Sir E. J. Boyle, Bart.

J. H. Brodie, Esq.

Col. Henry Platt, C.B.

Percy Barlow, Esq.

Stanley George Barwick, Esq.

-Nelson.

-Neumann.

Sir J. Briscoe, Bart.

Sir Charles Cameron, Bart. Chatfield Clarke, Esq.

Frank Debenham, Esq.

E. O. Fordham, Esq.

Sir John Fleming.

St. George Lane Fox Pitt, Esq. Capt. The Hon. Fitzroy Hemphill.

A. Holland, Esq.

Sir Jonathan Hutchinson.

Sir Thomas J. Lipton, Bart. Wilson Marriage, Esq.

Sir H. Marshall.

Sir Edward L. O’Malley.

Sir C. Parry, Bart.

Sir David Paulin.

Sir George Riddell.

-Dunean.

Sir William Robertson.

Sir C. Shaw.

J. Seligman, Esq.

Sir George H. Sutherland. David S. Waterlow, Esq.

Sir Frederick W. Wilson.

Lord Wodehouse.

-Muspratt.

R. Hunter Craig, Esq.

Sir Charles Gold.

Sir A. P. Gould.

B. F. Hawksley, Esq.

Sir Frank Hollins, Bart.

Sir Alexander Waldemar Lawrence, Bart.

Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Bart, M.P. Sir H. Munro.

Henry Oppenheim, Esq.

F. St. Quintin, Esq.

F. H. Smith, Esq.

J. Weston Stevens, Esq.

Halley Stewart, Esq.

James Thornton, Esq.

I propose to deal in this memorandum with the position of a Constitutional Sovereign in relation to the controversies which are likely to arise with regard to the Government of Ireland Bill. In a subsequent paper I will deal (i) with the actual and prospective situation in Ireland in the event of
(a)
the passing,
(b)
the rejection of that Bill; and (2) with the possibility and expediency of some middle course.

In the old days, before our present Constitution was completely evolved, the Crown was a real and effective, and often a dominating factor in legislation. Its powers were developed to considerable lengths by such kings as Henry VIII, and enforced with much suppleness and reserve by Queen Elizabeth; but the Tudor Sovereigns had a keen eye and a responsive pulse to the general opinion of the nation. The Stuarts, who followed, pushed matters to extremes, with the result that Charles I lost his head, and James II his throne. The Revolution put the title to the Throne and its prerogative on a Parliamentary basis, and since a comparatively early date in the reign of Queen Anne, the Sovereign has never attempted to withhold his assent from a Bill which had received Parliamentary sanction.

We have had, since that date, Soverigns of marked individuality, of great authority, and of strong ideas (often from time to time, opposed to the policy of the Ministry of the day) but none of them—not even George III, Queen Victoria or King Edward VII—have ever dreamt of reviving the ancient veto of the Crown. We have now a well-established tradition of 200 years, that, in the last resort, the occupant of the Throne accepts and acts upon the advice of his Ministers. The Sovereign may have lost something of his personal power and authority, but the Crown has been thereby removed from the storms and vicissitudes of party politics, and the monarchy rests upon a solid foundation which is buttressed both by long tradition and by the general conviction that its personal status is an invaluable safeguard for the continuity of our national life.

It follows that the rights and duties of a constitutional monarch in 
this country in regard to legislation are confined within determined and strictly circumscribed limits. He is entitled and bound to give his Ministers all relevant information which comes to him; to point out objections which seem to him valid against the course which they advise; to suggest (if he thinks fit) an alternative policy. Such intimations are always received by Ministers with the utmost respect, and considered with more care and deference than if they proceeded from any other quarter. But in the end, the Sovereign always acts upon the advice which Ministers, after full deliberation and (if need be) reconsideration, feel it their duty to offer. They give that advice well knowing that they can, and probably will, be called to account for it by Parliament.

The Sovereign undoubtedly has the power of changing his advisers, but it is relevant to point out that there has been, during the last 130 years, one occasion only on which the King has dismissed the Ministry which still possessed the confidence of the House of Commons. This was in 1834, when William IV (one of the least wise of British monarchs) called upon Lord Melbourne to resign. He took advantage (as we now know) of a hint improvidently given by Lord Melbourne himself, but the proceedings were neither well advised nor fortunate. The dissolution which followed left Sir R. Peel in a minority, and Lord Melbourne and his friends in a few months returned to power, which they held for the next six years. The authority of the Crown was disparaged, and Queen Victoria, during her long reign, was careful never to repeat the mistake of her predecessor.

The Parliament Act was not intended in any way to affect, and it is submitted has not affected, the Constitutional position of the Sovereign. It deals only with differences between the two Houses. When the two Houses are in agreement (as is always the case when there is a Conservative majority in the House of Commons), the Act is a dead letter. When they differ, it provides that, after a considerable interval, the thrice repeated decision of the Commons shall prevail, without the necessity for a dissolution of Parliament. The possibility of abuse is guarded against by the curtailment of the maximum life of any given House of Commons to five years.

Nothing can be more important, in the best interests of the Crown and of the country, than that a practice, so long established and so well justified by experience, should remain unimpaired. It frees the occupant of the Throne from all personal responsibility for the Acts of the
 
Executive and the legislature. It gives force and meaning to the old maxim that ‘the King can do no wrong.’ So long as it prevails, however objectionable particular Acts may be to a large section of his subjects, they cannot hold him in any way accountable, and their loyalty is (or ought to be) wholly unaffected. If, on the other hand, the King were to intervene on one side, or in one case—which he could only do by dismissing Ministers in
de facto
possession of a Parliamentary majority—he would be expected to do the same on another occasion, and perhaps for the other side. Every Act of Parliament of the first order of importance, and only passed after acute controversy, would be regarded as bearing the personal
imprimatur
of the Sovereign. He would, whether he wished it or not, be dragged into the arena of party politics; and at a dissolution following such a dismissal of Ministers as has just been referred to, it is no exaggeration to say that the Crown would become the football of contending factions.