On Monday the Times published a leading article, chiefly on
Mr. Cave's letter, which was full of good sense. We offer our congratulations to the Titnes on the way in which it is performing the highest service which a paper bolding its great position can render to the public—that of a moderator and cool and collected onlooker. First the Times dismisses the idea of a petition to the King to refuse his assent to the Home Rule Bill. "Such a proposal does not bear analysis. It originated in irresponsible quarters, and it betrays its amateur origin in a complete ignorance of our legal and con- stitutional usage." As for Mr. Cave's proposal, which is less drastic in appearance, the Times says :—
" It is, however, in our judgment, inconceivable that the Sovereign should contemplate a step which might lead to an apparent disagreement between the occupant of the Throne and the majority of his people. Unionists must face the possi- bility, however remote they believe it to be, of another reverse at the next general election. A dissolution of Parliament by the exercise of the royal prerogative, proprio triotu regis, might be followed by a vindication at the polls of those very Ministers whose advice had been set aside. The proposal, in fact, has only to be stated with its implications for its constitutional absurdity to be revealed. It is a first principle of our Constitution that the King acts solely on the advice of his Ministers. Ministers, there- fore, must bear on their own shoulders complete responsibility for the advice they give."
Previous page
