§ MR. RAIKESasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the declaration recently made by him as to the duty of Ministers in conducting Bills affecting the rights of the Crown, he will feel it his duty to advise the withdrawal of the Royal Consent from the Thames Embankment Bill in the event of any limitation of the rights of the Crown being introduced in Committee of either House of Parliament?
MR. GLADSTONEI think, Sir, the hon. Member has put his Question to me under a misapprehension. He supposes that I have said, that I have given an opinion that, in the event of any alteration being made in a Bill affecting any rights of the Crown, it would be the duty of the Government to advise the withdrawal of the Royal Assent from it. I have not said anything of that kind. My meaning with regard to the Ewelme Rectory Bill was simply to convey that, if such a construction were attached to the particular alteration referred to, as had been contended, I should have advised the Crown not to assent to the Bill. With respect to the general question of the rights of the Crown, I need not say it is a matter of importance, as to which responsibility rests in the hands of the Government; and a great many considerations must be taken into view before it is possible to give an answer in a particular case. If the hon. Gentleman asks me with regard to the Thames Embankment Bill, my answer is that there is no foregone conclusion in the minds of the Government on that subject. If I knew what alteration would be made in the Bill, I should be prepared to consider it and give an answer.