The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-11-09

ston was so fond of employing on similar oc-
casions and which seemed to proceed on the |
assumption that the great danger impending |
over our country was the failure of the dynasty,
and the consequent necessity of looking out
for q descendants of the Stuarts who
was willing to abjure Popery The Times
has correctly told us that marriages of
Princesses with subjects were once known in
England, but have of late come to be un-
common, and has still more recently assured
its readers in somewhat mysterious language
that her Majesty had great problem to solve,
and has solved it satisfactorily. Finally, we
should have said that the demonstrations of
ELUSIVE affection in which the Daily Tee
graph takes the lead had been all that could
be wished in number and warmth, if they had
not been transcended in the latter quality by
the extraordinary nuptal Grafton
which Mr.. Vernon Harcourt appears
to have addressed to the electors
of Oxford We have no wish to follow up
these views of the subject Nothing but
good can be asserted or predicted of the pro-
posed marriage, and of the Queens conduct
in the matter all that can be said without i'm
pertinence is that she probably acted on a
balance of motives such as constantly iu-
fuence ladies of lower position. It is impos-
sible that her Majesty should not share the
prejudices of her immediate predecessors in
favor of the marriage of princes and prin-
cesses with persons belonging to houses con-
ventionally regarded as sovereign. The
Hanover kings of Great Britain had more of
this feeling than the older English dynnsties,
for two reasons-frst, the theory of the
Divine right of kings hadbeen gaining ground
for q century before they ascended the British
throne, and had tended to turn sovereigns
into O separate caste; next, the German
princes were much more jealous of their
position than others, precisely because,
dwarfed as they were by the sEll-revered
majesty of the Empire, their situation in
monarchical society was somewhat equivocal.
If we suppose objections founded on these
hereditary opinions to have existed, but to
have been waived in favor of character. &C
complishments, and more than fair prospect
Of domestic happiness, we are probably very
close upon the truth. There is something
satisfactory in the reflection that, Just when
we are told to make up our minds that the
direction of European political thought is
passing from England to Germany, the Queen
of England has done what the least among
the princelings swarming at the King of
Prussia's headquarters has not the moral
courage SO much as to dream of.
But there are certain conclusions of our
contemporaries in which we cannot bring
ourselves to agree. So far from thinking it
desirable that the marriages of English royal
personages with sub iects should be contracted
if much multiplied they would constitute a
considerable political danger. 1t is true that
by their instrumentality great part of the
territorial wealth of the country might be
drawn into the private domain of the royal
family and the question (Which may be some
day perpleXing) of provision for multitude
of royal collaterals might lose much of its i'm
portance. But there are political possibili-
ties which outweigh the fiscal advantage.
1,Ntrr EI,op p.,E; Oh,
tuition really works The country is governed
by Parliament through a committee of mem
! bers of both houses, taken alternately from
! the two great English parties The govern
ment is carried on far less by the direct action
of Parliament in legislating and voting sup
| plies than through the delegated agency Of
| the ministers who form the governing COM
mittee. There is, in fact, strong aud grow
| ing tendency in Parliament to prefer govern
ment through its own nominees to direct 60
vernment exercised by itself. But the Cabi-
net Minister, really nominated by Parliament
and carrying Quits pleasure, is conventionally
the Minister of the Crown. The fiction has
its convenience in many ways; andin complete
confidence that it will always be treated as
fiction, Parliament and the British public
delight in rather exaggerating than otherwise
the prerogatives of the Grown, aud not un.
| frequently employ phrases which, if taken
literally, would imply that we are at the mercy
of a dcspotism. We have before taken occa
sion to observe that the foreign copyists oI
our institutions are often msled-and some
times disastrously misled--by this very fic
ton. Nor can any domestic inconveuiencC
of greater magnitude be imagined than the
accide Mt of having the British throne occu
pied by a king or queen who showed dispo
siton TO treat this class of fctions as facts OF
realities. OF course any attempt to impose
on the country policy of which il disap
proved or an entire set of persons not L
its taste may be regarded as so improbable
that it would be waste of time to discuss it
The true danger is of another sort The
Sovereign might show himself not as the op
ponent of parliamentary majority, but a
its hesitating or reluctant or uuready instru
ment. Such a departure from the practic
of the Constitution cannot be looked upon a
impossible; and, if we had Sovereign in
clned to it, it would be extremely difficult {,
check or correct him. The theory of tn
Constitution, which is very greatly at varianc
with the practice, would always, up to Ger
tain point, provide him with pretexts ant
apologies. TO these minor Irregularities
which Parliament would be slow to meet Will
its more formidable means of control, ther
is nothing to oppose but the vague word "un
constitutional" of which the meaning i
doubtful and the application uncertain.
What are the influences Independently O
individual peculiarites of character, whiol
are likely to tempt a British sovereign int
petty acts of recalcitration against the su
preme control of Parliament? Not we think
the connection of the Royal family with th
reigning houses of the Continent. 1t is pro
bable that every prince who marries an Eng
lish princess and every princess who marie
,I.pla