New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-10-04

Fallacics Concerning Limitations OF
PrerOgatires of English CrO7Cn.

While no one can assume to speak with au-
thority of the deliberations at BarnoraI between
Edward VII and his Prime Minister Arthur
Bafour, vet il is pretty generally known that
the delay IN the reconstruction of the Cabinet
has been due TO the Kings insistence that the
administration should be reconstructed in such
a fashion to enjoy his confidence. rs well
as that of the Premier and of the leaders of the
Unionist party This has been made the sub
jet of much unjust criticism at the expense Of
the sovereign, who is charged with exceeding
his constitutional prerogatfves and of ignoring
in the most fragrant manner the limitations
imposed by statute upon the authority of the
crown. Those who bring forward these accusa-
tions. whether in England or abroad must be
wOfully lacking in knowledge of the history of
the British Parliament and of the tenor of
English law, else they wilfuny distorting
facts ard placing a false construction thereon
for purposes Of party warfare.
There is no law written or unwritten which
compels the King of England to accept as min
listers of the crown re1 whom he does not re-
gard as possessed OF the necessary Qualifications
for the office From "a statutory Point Of view
he is every bit as free 10 chose his advisers as
is the President of the United States. Ee is not
even obliged to select his ministers from any
particular political party. and should ne take
them from political faction which has no ma
jority in the House Of Commons. and the oppo-
sition by means Of its superior numbers reject
the measures submitted to ParIiarren, by the
Cabinet, the King could dissolve Parliament and
order new general election. There is no rea-
son, therefore why King Edward should not in
sist upon duly qualified men being appointed to
the seats in the Cabinet left vacant by the res
ignations of Charles Richie, Joseph Chamber
lain and Of Lord George Hamilton.
her reign refused TO accede to the nomination
Of ministers who did not possess her confidence
and for whom she entertained d dislike. Indeed
it may be recalled that in one rnc-Cra BILE in
stance she actually demanded the surrender
by Lord PaluerstOn # his seals of Office
Minister Of Foreign Affairs because he had
failed to comply with her wishes in connection
with the attitude II the English Government
toward Louis Napoleon at the tine q the coup
detat Lord PaImerston was 1T tn time the
most popular statesman Of the day in England.
and enjoyed a stronger hold on thu good Will
and admiration Of his countrymen than any of
his colleagues in the John Russell Cabinet. He
was indeed at thu very height f his power.
and his party possessed overwhelming ma
jority in the House Of Commons Yet. nOtwith-
standing this. ne dismissed by the Queen
in the most curt fashion. on the ground that he
no longer enjoyed her confidence, and Lord joan
Russell had no alternative but % h-d another
statesman to take his place the Foreign
office. OF course. there was some cutlery in the
press to the effect that the Queen had exec ded
her prerogatives. But 1t soon qUieted down.
Parliamentary leaders well as III most en-
ineut jurists Of the day pointing out that she
was entirely within her rights in the step which
she had taken. II. therefore. the late Queen
was justified in dismissing at q few hours no
tice one of the most important members of an
administration solely because he had ceased TO
enjoy her confidence then her son, King Ed
ward, cannot be regarded overstepping -.
limitations Of his constitutional prerogatives|
declining TO accept the appointment to seats in
the Cabinet Of men whom he does not consider
fitted for the Office. and who do not therefore
possess his confidence
When Queen Victoria dismissed Lord Palmer
ston it was in consequence of dispute between
herself and the offending minister. In the pres