The Dominion WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 1913, THE POWER OF VETO.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1791, 2 July 1913, Page 6

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 1913, THE POWER OF VETO.

The Daily News, probably the staunchesfc supporter of the Asquith Government to be found in English journalism, remarked some months ago that "a Pnrliamentwithout freedom of speech is nothing." A striking commentary on tlie lladical paper's sound dictum is the attitude taken up by the Asquith Government on the Home Rule Bill in exercising its power of enforcing the closure and the "guillotine." It might have been thought that on the second presentation of the Bill, opportunity would have been gladly afforded for discussion of clauses and amendments previously closured. In fact, one of the plausibly-sound points made by Mh.'A.squith in introducing tho Parliament Bill in 1911 was that re-prcsentation of a Bill under its provisions would afford n further opportunity for discussing it. But the implied pledge thus given has, like the pledge to bring in the Bill to alter, the House of Lords, been broken at tho first time of oeking, The ! Committee stage, tho stage la

which every detail of a Bill can be analysed, is to be left out altogether. All that the House is to be allowed to do is to make "suggestions." Any "suggestions" that may be made, however, are to bo mero pious opinions. They are not to be incorporated in the Bill. And though they are to accompany it to the Upper House,' the proceedings there promise to be as farcical as in the Lower, since it is open to doubt whether the Peers have jurisdiction to discuss things that are not a part of the Bill. Under the circumstances it is difficult to see that the Unionist leaders could have adopted any other course than their announced course of taking no further part in such a travesty of Parliamentary government. The Bill will, of course, be passed by the Commons and rejected by the Peers a second time. And if the Ministry can hold together long enough, which is probable but not certain, it will be passed and rejected a third time, which brings us to a point on which we recently (June 9) quoted some remarks made by Mh. W. Moose, K.C., M.P. for North Armagh, on the Crown's prerogative of veto. It has been asserted that this power of veto, i.e., the power to refuse the Royal Assent to a Bill which had passed both branches of the Legislature, is dead. Mr. Asquith made the bald assertion in the House in 1911, and the anonymous writer of the very unsatisfying article on "Veto" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica does exactly the same. They would have been more convincing if they had given even a single reason for their opinions. But, curiously enough, neither of them made the slightest attempt la, do. so. On the other hand, although the prerogative has not been exercised since a.d. 1707, in itself a striking testimony to the moderation and_ good sense with which the three' Estates of. the Realm have, until lately, behaved towards each other and towards the nation, there is good 'authority for the contention that nothing that has happened in the meantime has in any way destroyed or even weakened any oi the reasons that originally led to the Crown's power of veto being • incorporated into the Constitution. As our readers know, all legislative power was, until recently, shared between the Crown, the Upper House, and the Lower House, the wise intent being that each should be able to act as a check on any one of the others. To perform its part in this scheme, the Crown's power of veto had to be a real and independent power, meant to be used without flinching when occasion required. It is common ground with all writers on Constitutional history that the Sovereign must be consulted on all important matters of State before they can be carried out. It is, then, the duty of the Crown to be vigilant. - That staunch Radical, the first Lord Brougham, says, in effect, in a remark that we shall quote in full presently, that the Crown must not be a State puppet. Dr. Todd, the standard authority on Constitutional practice, says: Moreover while a Sovereign may forgo the' active oontrol of tho affairs of State, without apparent public loss, .provided liis Ministers are active and patriotic, tho moment political power falls into tho hands of self-seeking and unscrupulous men. tho nation, is deprived of the clieck which a vigilant monarch alono can maintain—ia check'no less valuable be:Tiitiifee unseen—but which may suffice in an ' emergency • to"Sav6'thu country from the effects of misgovernment ... for tho Sovereign can always dismiss a Ministry and summon another to' his counsels, provided he does not do so for merely personal considerations, but for reasons of State policy, which the incoming Ministry can explain and justify to the satisfaction of Parliament. And again: Their (the Crown's) r ancient rights, though dormant, have' never been disallowed, but are still held in reserve. The celebrated Earl Grey, the hero of the first Reform Bill, had no doubts on the point we are discussing, for he writes: In extreme cases, the power of the Crown to refuse its consent to what is proposed by its servants may be used with the greatest benefit to the nation. ... A refusal on tho part of the Sovereign to sanction measures which the Ministers persist in recommending as indispensable is, indeed, a legitimate ground for'their resignation. And if tho question wliich leads to this is one on which they have tho support of public opinion) thepr must, in the end, prevail. But if this high power is exercised with discretion, and is reserved for great emergencies, the Crown may generally count on the support of tho nation in refusing to sanction measures improperly pressed upon it by its Ministers, especially where the measures so urged involve an abuse of the Royal authority for their own party objects. The Earl seems to have been tho owner of a pretty gift of secondsight. Again that sound authority, Stephen's Commentaries, lays it down as a firm proposition that The Sovereign is a constituent part of the supreme legislative power, and, as such, has the rejecting such provisions in Parliament as he judges to be improper.' And, finally, Lord Brougham says: "George 111 set an example which is worthy of imitation in all times. He refused to be made a State puppet in his Ministers' hands, and to allow his name to be used either by men whom he despised or for purposes which he disapproved of. These opinions, so far as we are aware, have never been traversed _by reasoned argument, this being so, they seem to establish fact that the power of veto was still in existence arid undiminished in force up to the date when the Parliament. Act deliberately destroyed the Upper House as one -of the three Constitutional Estates of the Itealm, by depriving it of an effective voice in the councils of the nation. The Parliament Act did nothing in any way to lessen or detract from this Royal power. On the contrary, it is permissible to suggest that if it had become virtually obsolete before 1911, the Parliament Act is one of the very few things that could have revived it.