POWERS OF THE CROWN.

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 332, 13 January 1937, Page 3

POWERS OF THE CROWN.

CONSTITUTION OF EMPIRE. PRE-EMINENT JURIST’S. BOOK In reviewing “The King and the Imperial Crown: The Powers and Duties of His Majesty,” by Dr A. Berrledale Keith, Sir John Marriott writes in a London paper:— Tins is a ‘deeply interesting book on an exceedingly important subject. But the sub-title is much more exactly descriptive qf its contents than the main title,- something of which we treat nothing- until we reach the :se ven teen th (and concluding) chapter of the work. Among the constitution?! jurists bf the Empire Dr. Keith /s- pre-eminent, and. so far as the prtseat volume deals with law, it contains- nothing to detract from his deserved reputation. Ufritorttirtaiely, however, this volume 1b largely devoted to political history, a subject in -which Dr. Keith is less adept. He may, of course, plead* that without the back-ground of political history constitutional law is apt to be arid. That is true; but there are considerable portions of this book ■where Dr. Keith is travelling over ■Well-trodden ground, and ground which lies outside his main route. This is notably the case in section v, chapter vi, which deals with the history { of the War Ministries of 1915-1918. Incidentally, Dr Keith is in error in stating that Sir Edward Carson was a member of the War Cabinet, as originally formed. As to that Cabinet Dr. observes:— W “It was-not an Imposing body; intellectually dt was strong, but Lord Milaer and Sir E. Carson had been very poor administrators, and Mr Henderson iKas of no great value.” A Harsh Judgment. 0 It would be interesting to learn on what Dr. Keith bases his harsh judgments On the men just mentioned? The qualities demanded of the members of the War Cabinet were not those of departmental administrators, but, apart from that, where had Lord Milner demonstrated his incompetence as an “administrator”? In Egypt? Or as Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue (where he gave Invaluable assistance to Sir William Harcourt)? Or in South Africa? And Sir Edward CarsOn? Where and when (until his subsequent appointment to the Adnrfraltyh had he had any opportunity of revealing either competence or the reverse as an administrator?. This is hot the only case where Dr. Kefth .passes harsh judgments, very dogmatically expressed, on individuals, it may be relevant to explain that Queen Victoria found in Dr. Norman Maeleod an adviser “equally capable” with Dr. Davidson, but on what authority, and with what relevance, does Dr. Keith describe the great Presbyterian divine as “far more devout” than the great Anglican Archbishop? Dr. Keith makes no secret of his likes and dislikes—especially of his dislikes. Mr Gladstone is, indeed, almost the only prominent statesman who escapes censure. He constantly sneers at Lord Beaconsfield, and he is severe on Lord Salisbury for his part. Jtuthe incident. But, surely, there is not much that now remains “obscure” in that episode, though there seems a (food deal of obscurity in the following sentence (a propos of the Bulgarian business of 1885): “It was of the Queen s attitude during this affair that Lord R. Churchill alleged that he had resigned because of his opposition to the policy of Lord Salisbury and the Queen over Russia, and that she wanted to go to war with Russia in order to secure the restoration of the Prince to his throne. When Bonar Law Came Back. Is it the case that as Minister of Health Mr Wheatley “failed later to justify the high hopes placed in him”? Most people who sat opposite to him In 1924 would, I fancy, point to him as the most conspicuous success (however much they might differ from his housing policy) in the first Labour Ministry. Is it true that Mr Bonar Law “had been the soul ol 'the opposition [to Mr Lloyd George in 1922], and had doubtelss largely inspired

it”? Is it not rather flic ease that Mr Bonar Law was -dragged, somewhat reluctantly, from his retirement in order to place, himself—but only at the -eleventh hour—at the head ot the Opposition which had long been gathering force in Hie Conservative ranks? Nor was the “bellicose attitude of the Ministry’’ the main cause of the Conservative revolt. Ireland had far more to do with it than Ch.anak — though Chanak brought things to a head. Dr. Keith is, of course, entitled to his opinions on public men and public events, and many people will share them. But. is the constant expression of them appropriate io the high theme of ids work—“ The King and the Imperial CPown”? It is needless to add that, the analysis of which the bookmainly consists is skilfully conducted. although even here there are judgments that will not receive universal assent. Queen Victoria’s Conduct. Not everyone will agree, for instance. that Queen Victoria’s conduct in sending for Lord Hartington in 1880 was “hardly constitutional.” It way, of course, have been due to hei dislike of Mr Gladstone (about which Dr. Keith is so sensitive'), but, wise or unwise, it was entirely “constitutional.” since Lord Hartington was the accepted leader of the Liberal Party In the House of Commons. Nor does Dr. Keith’s reference, in this matter, to Mr Gladstone himself 'Morley's Life IL 622) seem at all contusive. Mr Gladstone was. of course, entirely within his rights in declining to sehve under Lord Hartington, or any other Minister, but there is. surely, no warrant whatever for his contention that it was wrong for the Queen to have preferred Lord Hartington to Lord Granville, because it was Hie .words are • Gladstone’s) “to Granville that 1 had resigned my trust, and he, Hartington. was subsequently elected by the party to the leadership in the House of Commons.” Was ever a more ridiculous doctrine put forward by»a responsible statesman? Suppose that Mr Baldwin (in opposition) had, in a fit of the sulks/retired from the leadership of the party and “resigned his trust” to Lord Halifax, and the party in the Commons had elected Mr Neville Chamberlain as their leader, then King Edward VMI would, on Mr Gladstone’s showing be under a constitutional obligation to send for Lord Halifax, on the ensuing Conservative victory! And this is the doctrine to which Dr. Keith appears to subscribe. Through Four Reigns. But, obtrusive as the spots on the sun may be, the sun is more important than the spots. Dr. Keith’s book, in fine, is not merely valuable, but to the student of Constitutional Law is indispensable. The plan of the book, as will be inferred, is not chronological but topical and analytical. Successive chapters are dexoted to such topics as the King and the Formation and Termination of Ministries; the- King and the Right of Dissolution; the King’-s Influence in Foreign Affairs; the Crown as tire Fountain of Honour; the King and the Established Church, Within these topics the treatment is chronological; each topic being traced through the four reigns of William IV, Queen Victoria, Edward VII, and George V. This method is pursued to the concluding chapter where Dr. Keith is on ground which is peculiarly his own—the Empire. But surely Dr. Keith will not seriously maintain (p. vii) that an Imperial Conference can “decide” anything? Steadfast as my acceptance of Dr. Keith’s authority had always been down to 1926, I parted company with him in that fateful, if not “deciding,” year; and I fear the breach widens. Nothing, however, can diminish my gratitude for all that he has taught me in the past on the Constitution of the Empire, and I look, not unhopefully, for stiji further instruction from the same source.