FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101  
102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   >>   >|  
, 1893, _ibid_. pp. 439, 440. [32] Feb. 14, 1893, _ibid_. pp. 340, 341, 343. [33] Bill, clause 12, sub-clause (3). [34] This is the only sense in which the sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament is inalienable. This should be noted, because a strange and absurd dogma is sometimes propounded that a sovereign power such as the Parliament of the United Kingdom, can never by its own act divest itself of sovereignty, and it is thence inferred or hinted that there is no need for the Imperial Parliament to take measures for the preservation of its supremacy. The dogma is both logically and historically untenable. A sovereign of any kind can abdicate. A Czar can lay down his power, and so also can a Parliament. To argue or imply that because sovereignty is not limitable (which is true) it cannot be surrendered (which is palpably untrue) involves the confusion of two distinct ideas. It is like arguing that because no man can while he lives give up, do what he will, his freedom of volition, so no man can commit suicide. A sovereign power can divest itself of authority in two ways. It may put an end to its own existence or abdicate. It may transfer sovereign authority to another person, or body of persons, of which body it may, or may not, form part. The Parliaments both of England and of Scotland did at the time of the Union each transfer sovereign power to a new sovereign body, namely the Parliament of Great Britain. The British Parliament did in 1782 surrender its sovereignty in Ireland to the Irish Parliament. In 1800 both the British Parliament and the Irish Parliament alienated or surrendered their sovereign powers to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Compare Dicey, _Law of the Constitution_ (7th ed.), note 3, p. 65. [35] It may, I am quite aware, be argued that the presence of Irish representatives is not requisite for the maintenance of parliamentary supremacy. In theory it is not. An arrangement might quite conceivably be made (which if Home Rule were to be conceded might be the least objectionable method of carrying out a radically vicious policy) under which it should be distinctly agreed that Ireland should occupy the position of a self-governing colony with all the immunities and disadvantages thereof, and should cease to be represented at Westminster, whilst the British Parliament retained the right to abolish, or modify, the Irish constitution. Such an arrangement would, however, make it perfectly plain
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101  
102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Parliament
 

sovereign

 

sovereignty

 

British

 
supremacy
 

divest

 
arrangement
 

surrendered

 
abdicate
 
Ireland

clause

 

Imperial

 

transfer

 

authority

 

United

 
Kingdom
 
argued
 

presence

 

representatives

 
maintenance

requisite

 

alienated

 

surrender

 

Britain

 

parliamentary

 

Compare

 

powers

 

Constitution

 
represented
 
Westminster

whilst

 
thereof
 

disadvantages

 

colony

 

immunities

 

retained

 

perfectly

 
abolish
 

modify

 
constitution

governing

 

conceded

 

objectionable

 
conceivably
 
method
 

carrying

 

distinctly

 

agreed

 

occupy

 

position