Vol. 12 · pages 196–200

175THE CROWN right of the King to take the profits which the episcopal sea is vacant, though these are held in trust for his successor. (2) The rights to annates and tenths. Annates were the first year’s profits of church’s benefits formerly paid to the Pope and afterwards to the Crown. Tenths were the tenth part of the annual profits of a church’s benefit formerly paid to the Pope. These are now paid to the Governor of the Queen Anne’s Bounty. (3) Profits derived from the Crown lands. (4) The right to Royal fish wreck, treasure-trove, waifs and cotrays, royal mines and escheats. The foregoing items constituting the ordinary revenues of the Crown were collected by Prerogative and paid to the King until 1715 when the first Civil Lists Act was passed whereby an arrangement was made between the King and Parliament whereby the King surrendered his Prerogative revenues to the state which are since then paid into the Consolidated Fund and Parliament in consideration of this assignment granted to the Royal family for its maintenance a fixed sum, which is made an annual charge upon the Consolidated Fund and is called the Civil List. The Civil List is not a permanent arrangement but is a temporary agreement made between the reigning King and the Parliament and lasts during the life-time of that King. When a new King succeeds, a new agreement is made with him which again is to last during his life-time. If no agreement is made, the Prerogative of the King in respect of the ordinary revenue will revive. The Civil List arrangement does not abrogate it in any way. It merely affects the appropriation of the revenue. It does not affect the right to raise that revenue. II. The King’s Prerogatives in relation to the foreign relations of the Country. The King possesses the right and the power to receive Ambassadors of foreign Countries and to send his Ambassadors to them. This is his Prerogative right. The right is important because of the immunity from Civil and Criminal process which Ambassadors, who are recognized as such by the King, enjoy. What those immunities are will be discussed at a later stage. It is enough here to note that they depend upon the recognition by

176 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the King of a person as an Ambassador and that recognition is a Prerogative Right of the King. The King has also the right to make war and peace whenever he thinks fit to do so. This also is his Prerogative right. The King possesses the power to make a treaty with any foreign nation. The treaty may be a political treaty or a commercial treaty. It is his Prerogative. The only limitation upon the King’s Prerogative to make a treaty is that he must not in any manner affect the rights of his subjects given to them by law. There are some questions that arise in connection with the question of the King’s Prerogatives and which it would not be desirable to pass over without some consideration being bestowed upon them. The first question is this. What is the exact relation of the King’s Prerogative to the authority of Parliament ? The second question is what happens if the King becomes incapable of exercising his Prerogative or other Statutory rights ? Taking the first inquiry for consideration it is necessary to get a clear idea of what is exactly meant when it is said that it is the King’s Prerogative to do this, that or other act. What is meant by this expression, that when the King acts on the authority of his Prerogative, he does not need the sanction of Parliament. His authority is inherent in him and is independent of Parliament. But while it is true that the Prerogative power of the King is inherent and independent of Parliament, it must not be supposed that it is on that account beyond the control of Parliament. On the other hand the Prerogative power of the King can be regulated, amended or abrogated by Parliament, so that the correct position would be that the King possesses Prerogative power so long as Parliament has not by law trenched upon it. A matter which was once a matter of Prerogative if subsequently regulated by law made by Parliament, then the King cannot resort to his Prerogative power, but must act within the law which has superseded the Prerogative. Therefore, so far as the first inquiry is concerned, the conclusion is that the King’s Prerogative is a source of independent power to him so long as Parliament has not interfered with its existence.

177THE CROWN What happens if the King becomes incapable of exercising his Prerogative and other Statutory rights. Now this is no idle inquiry because there are certain important duties which are attached to the Kingly office and the King may become incapable of discharging them. Four contingencies of incapacity may be visualized. (1) The King may be absent from his Kingdom. (2) The King may be a minor. (3) The King may be insane. (4) The King may be morally incapable. The absence of the King from the Kingdom cannot raise any very great difficulty. Modern means of communication have annihilated distance and have facilitated quick dispatch. The King, therefore, could discharge his Kingly duties from a distance with expedition at any rate without delay. There is also the other possibility of the King delegating his powers to somebody who could exercise them on his behalf when he is away. Minority of the King cannot create any difficulty so far as the law is concerned. The law holds that the King is never an infant and is capable of transacting business even though he is a minor. A minor King, therefore, can exercise all his powers and discharge all his duties lawfully. Ordinarily if the reigning King is expected to die leaving an infant as his heir, Parliament always takes the precaution of appointing by law a regent. But this is by way of prudence and not by way of any requirement by law. Insanity makes a hard case. The King cannot delegate his powers if he is insane. Parliament cannot pass a law, appointing a regent because the King being insane cannot give his assent to the Bill. There are two cases of English Monarchs having gone insane, while on the throne, Henry VI (1454) and George III (1788). The procedure then adopted was a very crude one and certainly could be deemed to be strictly in conformity with the law of the Constitution, which requires the assent of all three elements which constitute Parliament. The moral incapacity of the King is another hard case. Can the King resign supposing people do not want him ? Can the King be deposed if he does not resign ? There is no legal provision regulating the insanity or the moral incapacity of the

178 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES King. Question of moral incapacity may not perhaps arise under the English Constitution owing to the development of responsible Government. But the question of insanity might. Effect of the death of the King I. On Parliament The original rule was that Parliament was automatically dissolved by the death of the King. The Constitution and theory of which this was a consequence regarded members of Parliament as councillors of the King who summoned them. The tie of summons was regarded as a personal tie between the King who summoned and the members who assembled in return and that tie was broken by the death of the King. The members called by deceased King could not be on this account be called the councillors of the new King, and the King was entitled to call new councillors, which could happpen only when the old Parliament was dissolved and the new King obtained an opportunity to call a new Parliament. This rule was first amended in * by 7-8 William III Chapter XV whereby it was provided that the existing Parliament was to work for six months after the death of the King if not sooner dissolved by his successor. Subsequently in the year 1867, (30, 31 Victoria, Chapter II 102), the rule was altogether abrogated and the life of Parliament was made independent of the death of the king. II. On the tenure of office The original rule was that all executive officers were to vacate their offices on the death of the King, and for the same reasons whereby the death of the King resulted in the dissolution of Parliament. Here again the law has gradually altered the theory. The Succession to the Crown Act of 1707 extended the tenure of executive Officers to six months after the death of the King. By another Act passed in the year * the period was again extended and finally the Demise of the Crown Act of 1901 made the tenure of office independent of the death of the King. zz * Space left blank in MS.—ed.

IV CHAPTER III THE HOUSE OF LORDS The House of Lords consists of three different classes of Peers. (1) Hereditary Peers of England and United Kingdom, (2) Representative Peers and (3) Peers by virtue of Office. The first question that must be raised and answered in order to understand the Constitution of the House of Lords is this. What is the title of the Peers to sit in the House of Lords ? Peers of England and the United Kingdom The title of the English Peers and the Peers of the United Kingdom is founded on the King’s writ of summons addressed to each Peer individually to come and to attend Parliament. The English Peerage is created by the King by Letters Patent. No difficulty arises, therefore, with regard to persons holding Peerage by Letters Patent. The only question that arises is whether the King could create a Peerage for life. This was at one time a matter of controversy and the controversy was whether a life-Peer created by the King entitles the Peer to sit in the House of Lords. But the issue was decided finally in the Weynesdale Peerage case in 1856 in which two things were decided. (1) That the King had the right to create any class of life-peer or hereditary but (2) the life-Peer cannot sit as a member of the House of the Lords and the King could not send such a Peer a writ of summons. The reason assigned was that the hereditary character of the Peerage was by custom, if not by law, an integral feature of the Peerage and the King while entitled to exercise his right to create a Peerage was not entitled to abrogate the custom. What about the right of the Peers whose Peerage was not created by Letters Patent ? Their right also was founded upon the King’s writ of summons. Two questions, however, were long agitated with regard to the writ of summons to such Peers. Could every Peer claim the writ of Summons ? Was the King free to address or not to address