LETTERS TO TUE EDITOR.
THE KING AND THE CONSTITUTION.
[TO TEX EDITOR 01 TEl "SPECTATOR."]
Ste,—The doctrine you propound as to the position of the Throne in this country is one which, in theory, no one has any desire to dispute. Unfortunately, however, in fact, in the year 1911 the Throne was induced to descend into the arena of party politics and to overwhelm, in the name of a non- existent prerogative, one vital element in our Constitution, the integrity of which it was solemnly pledged to maintain. It was useless at the time to point out that though the acts of the Sovereign are in theory the acts of his Ministers, there must be some sorts of advice, easily hypothesized, which, if tendered, it must be his duty to resist. It was also idle at the time to indicate that by the intervention of 1911 the whole position of the Throne had been revolutionized, and that not merely on account of that intervention, but because it became obvious that the abolition of the veto of the House of Lords must inevitably result in the revival of the veto of the Crown. The necessity for that veto was admitted by a prominent Radical member of Parliament in a letter published in the Times last autumn, and is confirmed by the consideration that without it there can be no possible check to the usurpation of despotic power by a single faction in these realms. To take an extreme case—and it is after all only by extreme cases that a principle can be tested—suppose a Bill was brought in, and automatically passed, to disfranchise every Unionist—the Government are at this moment engaged in passing a Bill partially to disfranchise a large number of Unionists—we are told that the Royal assent must mechanically and unavoidably be given to the same. If so, there is no safeguard of any kind against the tyranny of an unscrupulous administration, and it is manifest that civil war can be the only remedy, not merely to save Ulster and preserve the Union, but to insure the elementary components of freedom to the citizens of this country which are now every day being violently jeopardized. —I am, Sir, &c.,
[In our opinion the only result of the intervention of the Sovereign in opposition to his Ministers in any case whatsoever would be that in the long run we should have the destruction of the Monarchy plus civil war. Charles I. proved that con- clusively enough, we should have thought. —En. Spectator.]
Previous page
