Printed for the Cabinet. April 1951
ligat oft has good un mated when in CONFIDENTIAL
Page 349 -
31
bad tur pautes me to colpina
na snow waren bas de canna avidin hd to Copy No.
C.P. (51) 120s wear dhub of tach
9
Potato
M Wedding ni asbiyung alsgen Tada fanmaitoff ia ebrows bac 30th April, 1951 Goldenä sende pund er gritssteilywoon enumoo brza la ak onatione ben Beaigal konwaar gaidrotuwo car pite its W/ Japasues eslgaço e ed
CABINET
STONE OF SCONE
MEMORANDUM BY THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I have been considering the constitutional position regarding the custody of the Coronation Stone and have come to these conclusions:
(a) That the right of disposal of the Stone is a prerogative right of His Majesty which he can exercise unfettered by the charter or statutes of West- minster Abbey.
(b) That it would be inadvisable and possibly unconstitutional for His Majesty
to act in this matter without consulting Parliament.
(c) I realise that it might be thought that the Stone is the property of the Dean and Chapter, and though this conclusion is not, I think, justified, it would be important that before any decision is taken they should be given full opportunity of making such representations as they might desire.
(b) That in this matter His Majesty would act on the advice of his Ministers.
2. The reasons that have led me to these conclusions are as follows:
In 1296 King Edward I became the owner of the Stone by right of capture. There is no evidence that The King or his successors ever relinquished that ownership. Although the stone was physically lodged in Westminster Abbey, it was, as far as we know, never given to the Abbey or dedicated to the service of religion. In the writ of 1328 the King refers to the Stone merely as being in the Abbot's "custody ("en votre garde"). Effluxion of time will not alter the nature of The King's title; the Stone remains to this day vested in The King.
""
3. It may fairly be argued that the history of the Stone in the reign of Edward III shows that The King's ownership was not treated as a personal one, but that the Stone was considered to belong to him as the head and embodiment of the English nation. This proposition is supported by the fact that the writs of 1328 owed their origin to the proceedings in the Parliament of Northampton.
4. It must be observed that the operative part of the writ of 1st July, 1328, was that the Stone should be handed over to Isabella in the north of England. It seems obvious that it was anticipated that she would negotiate with the Scots about its return, and these negotiations proved abortive. It is not the fact that the operative part of the order transferred the Stone to the Scots.
5. The Historiographer-Royal for Scotland assumes that an obligation to return the Stone arises from the terms of the Treaty of Northampton of 1328. I have some doubt whether the relevant provision really bears out such a construc- tion. The section refers to "records, bonds, instruments and other muniments relating to the subjugation of the people or country of Scotland and all other instruments and privileges touching upon the liberty of Scotland." It seems difficult to me to assume that the Stone would fall under any of these heads.
6. If the rights be considered on the somewhat fanciful basis of a dispute between The King in right of the Crown of England and The King in right of the Crown of Scotlandf there is a further consideration which musphe borne in mind.
40527
$