Greymouth Evening Star, AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, JANUARY 26, 1901. THE BRITISH CROWN.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 26 January 1901, Page 2

Greymouth Evening Star, AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, JANUARY 26, 1901. THE BRITISH CROWN.

At the present time there, naturally enough, is a good deal of interest shown in matters appertaining to the British Crown and Constitutional usuage and prerogative, Albert Edward is now King. The coronation, according to custom, takes place in Westminster Abbey. The Archbishop of Canterbury has the right of crowning the King, and the Archbishop of York the right of crowning the Queen. The power of the King, as is well understood, is limited by law, and is constitutionally derived from a fundamental compact between him and the nation. The divine right of Kings, so stoutly maintained by the Stuarts, is now recognised in Great Britain. Inheritance may from time to time be changed or limited by Parliament. There is both precedent and provision for such action. In the wars of York and Lancaster the powers were exercised ; also at the time of the passing of the Act of Settlement, 1700, when succession was restricted to the Protestant descendants of the Princess Sophia, youngest daughter of Princess Palatine Elizabeth (daughter of James 1.) But since the Restoration, the maxim has been acknowledged that there is no power in the State superior to the Royal prerogatives. The acts of the King arc therefore subject to no examination, and the King is not personally responsible to any tribunal, hence the maxim ; the King can do no wrong. But there is sufficient provision for confining the exercise of the Royal power within the legal limits. They are thus set out (says the Westport News) by one authority : “ 1, All Royal acts are construed in accordance with the laws, and it is taken for granted, that the King can never intend contrary, to law. 2. The Councillors of the King are responsible for the Royal acts, and, as well as well as those who are concerned in the execution of them, are liable to impeachment and examination, without the right of defending themselves by

pleading the Royal commands." This system of resuonsibility is the main pillar of the British constitution. By means of it, Royal orders which are in violation of the law, are set aside either by a recurrence to express limitations, or on the ground that the Sovereign was deceived. "3. The Parliament and the judicial tribunals have also the right to discuss freely such Royal acts, and, in particular, Parliament and each individual member of the Upper House, has the right to make remonstrances to the Crown. Every peer of the realm is by birth a Counsellor,of the Crown, and as such has a right to demand a private audience for the purpose of expressing his opinion on subjects of national concern. For the case of an attempt on the part of the Crown to subvert the constitution, the English law can make no provision, since the maxim that the King cannot think any wrong bars the possibility of such a supposition. An open and direct attack on on the constitution implies in itself an abdication of the Crown, but as to what particular act constitutes such an attack no precedent exists." Blackstone has given the following definition : " If any future Prince should endeavour to subvert the constitution by breaking the original contract between King and people, should violate the fundamental laws, and withdraw himself out of the Kingdom, such a conjunction of circumstances would amount to an abdiction and tho throne thereby be vacant." In addition to the above safeguards for the individual, there are other such as the Habeas Corpus Act, the liability of agents to prosecution, the right of complaining to Parliament, and the liberty of the Press. Thus in the British Empire respect for the person of the monarch is united with the security of the subject.