Royal Prerogative
BY ROBERT BLAKE THE Prime Minister's departure to Jamaica has inevitably raised a crop of rumours about his possible resignation. The constitutional aspect of the problem which would then arise is of some interest and is often mis- understood. People talk vaguely of the support which Mr. Butler or Mr. Macmillan or someone else would command in the party, forgetting perhaps that, if Sir Anthony were to resign tomorrow, the party as such would have no direct or formal say in the succession. It is the Queen's prerogative to choose a new Prime Minister. She would not—and indeed could not with dignity—canvass, however. indirectly, .the opinions of Conservative MPs. In any case the party's con- stitution vests the election of the leader in a body which com- prises peers, candidates, and representatives of the party organisation, as well as MPs. Therefore, since the Crown's choice would in practice always be ratified by the party, the paradoxical situation prevails that a party is only free to elect a new leader when it is in opposition. When it is in power the choice lies with the Crown.
No doubt in most cases this makes little practical difference. There is usually an obvious successor whose claims cannot be ignored—for example Neville Chamberlain in 1937. Nevertheless cases may occur where the choice is not so simple, where the party is divided, and where there is more than one candidate able to form a government if the Sovereign's choice should light upon him. Queen Victoria had a genuine freedom of choice in this sense when she preferred Rosebery to Harcourt as Gladstone's successor. King George V was in the same position when he chose Baldwin rather than Curzon to succeed Bonar Law.
If Sir Anthony felt obliged to resign now or in the near future, would the Queen have a similar freedom of choice? On the face of things it seems that she would. The fortunes of Mr. Butler and Mr. Macmillan have fluctuated a good d'eal in the past. Eighteen months ago Mr. Butler was clearly the second man in the Government, but his autumn Budget and his apparent ill-health had, by the early summer of this year, lowered his chances appreciably.. However he was rapidly gaining ground until the Egyptian crisis, and the real question is whether he still remains as certain of command- ing the support of the whole party as he was five weeks ago. There is no doubt that an important section of the party— by no means confined to the Suez Group—regdrds Mr. Macmillan as being a 'sounder' man, by which they mean a tougher man over the Middle East question, than Mr. Butler. The long shadow of Munich, which has lain over the events of the past few weeks, reminds many members of the party that Mr. Butler first received important office when he became Lord Halifax's Under-Secretary at the. Foreign Office early in 1938, after Sir Anthony Eden and Lord Salisbury had resigned in protest at Mr. Chamberlain's policy of appease- ment. Mr. Macmillan, on the other hand, was at that, time one of the thirty Conservative' MPs who constantly attacked the Government's policy and who were later to vote against the Munich settlement.
Evidently in the present inflamed condition of the Con- servative Party—a condition which may, of course, become less acute in the future—the choice of a new leader would not be easy. The Queen exercises this particular prerogative on her own sole responsibility. All other executive acts of the Crown are made upon the advice of Ministers—advice which is constitutionally binding. But, although the Queen can informally consult Ministers and ex-Ministers, and although she can ask the advice of the outgoing Prime Minister about his successor, she need not take it. She is indeed under no obligation to consult anyone. Queen Victoria did not consult the retiring Prime Minister in 1894, nor did King Edward VII in 1902 or 1908. On the other hand, King George VI appears to have done so in 1940, and he certainly asked Sir Winston Churchill's advice in 1943, in case the latter was killed on his journey to America. Sir Winston recommended Sir Anthony Eden. Perhaps Sir Anthony will now recommend Sir Winston. After all he is no older than Gladstone was when he formed his last administration in 1892.
However, deSpite some suggestions to the contrary, it is clear that such advice is not constitutionally binding. Nor can the Prime Minister fix the succession in advance by nominating a 'deputy prime minister.' Strictly speaking, that office is unknown to the constitution and the Crown is fully entitled to disregard it. Mr. Macmillan's friends are said to be very indignant if anyone, by accident or design, attributes the title to Mr. Butler. The most that a Prime Minister can do is to nominate someone to preside in his absence at Cabinet meetings. This is Mr. Butler's position, but it does not in itself carry the reversion to the Premiership. Curzon presided when Bonar Law was ill, Crewe when Asquith was away, Kimberley during Gladstone's absence. None of them became Prime Minister.
It may well be asked whether the true spirit of the con- stitution is really best followed by imposing such an invidious choice upon the Crown. Sir Winston Churchill in his famous biographical sketch of Curzon has suggested that in modern circumstances it would be a wise reform to allow the party to choose its leader rather than to have him chosen by the Sovereign.
`The Crown would then act upon an ascertained fact rather than upon an estimate, however well founded.'
There is certainly much to be said for preventing the Crown from being involved even indirectly in an internal party dispute. A possible solution would be for the outgoing Prime Minister first to resign his party leadership, and then to resign the premiership when his successor as party leader has been duly elected. There would be a few days' delay,' but this need not be fatal. After all, at worst it could not last as long as the three weeks' interregnum caused by Sir Anthony Eden's exhaustion.
Previous page
