, 1879-05-20
THE COURT PARTY IN ENGLAND.

tfEA41G4FEH} IAlef kAo1 RAV AiANA>AJ AAAHtAS
--.-.,-=----..--
THE COURT PARTY In ENGLAND.
Queen V1cron,A's Royal dignity md that
Of tho coming King hayo received n shook
In Sir HonEnT PEEt's letter from which they
1,,ny not aoon recoycA Tho bad tasto anil
unnecessary violence Of tho letter in qncs-
ton weru at tfirst tho only qualities Of 1t which
attracted mnch public attention. But after
tho first storm of Indignation against tho
author had paasod away, people began to
think that below nll the coarscness autl
ridiculous c-.~gcratlon Of tho nttack tl,oro
might bo sonic roal provocntion for 1t. The
l.oynl induonco and tho Royal prcrogasivo
havo been constantly growing unlor tho
fostering euro Of Earl DEAcoasr1E1p. It has
been part Of hin policy to aggraudizo both,
md to reinforce his own Government
through them. lie malo tho Queen m En-
press; 11a prepared for war, aud concluded
peaoo in hor 1,amo. 1to las claimed for tho
Royal pregrogativo an exercise of power
which has not been enjoyed by it since tho
time Of GEonaE III. The effects Of this
cunning policy hare been to secure for hiu.
1nrger share Of tho Royal favor thnn
Inns been enjoyed by nny other Premier
for fifty years, and to give tho
Queen and her immediate family nh ex-
nggoratcd Henso Of their own Importance
to the British nat!ou. Il is not surprising
Tint tho lattor result should havo followed
upon the obsequious itattory OF tho Queen by
tho Eerl Of BEAcoNsr1ELp. No other prcmlor
in modern times has been equa1ly mindful
Of tho diguities md omo1nments Of tho
Court, and no othor Government fas boon 30
absolutely dependent upon Royal favor for
its prosperous cxistenoo. The sturdy inde-
rondcnro Of true Englishmen 1,as matlo
othor Premio1s Indifferent to Royal smiles
or frowns. Tho Immediate predecessor Of
DEAcoSsFrE1p wns jealous Of the Royal pre-
rogatiyo rAtler tnan aolicitous On its bollalf,
md patronized Royalty, SO far az the funo-
tions Of Government wsro concerned, with
lofty superiority mud CALLING good humor.
The contrast between Mr.. GIADsroHE's ilen
Of the nse Of tho sovereign power in the
british Constitution, as exhibited In hia late
article iu tho NORTH american Reaic,o, and
that OF Earl DEAcoxsf1E1p, as oyidonced in
lis public acts, Is most instructive CON-
1nentary on the drift of political alfairs III
| England.
Sir ltopEnT PEEL's letter, unwiso md un-
founded rs part Of it was, soems to havo aot
the people thinking with reference to tho
abuse Of tho Roynl power, which is now
constantly threatened. Sir ROBERT may
havo boon wrong in' Bupposing that tho
| Prince Of WAles was Que pf those members
of tho Royal family who Ind declared
thoir intention ,lavor to take any notice Of
him In f,tturc," on aocount Of words spoken
in Parliament. But 1t is not 80 cortain that
somo members Of tho Royal family had not
made declaration to that sffeot. Tho Htate-
nent wns first published in Naniy Fair,
tue editor Of which, Alr. DowLEs, is known
to bo ono Of tho Prince of Wales friends.
And, nsido from tho truth or fnlaity Of this
particular charge, tho fact TINT 1t aAould bo
published In reputable journal, widely cir.
culated aud widely believed, was startling
evidence Of the hight Of assumption to whicl,
tho Court party hos latoly rison. Sir ROBERT
wns quite right IN saying that tin tho
ofloial attempt TO gag nlembors Of par.
| lamont In the FREQ debnto of questions
OF public interest in the House Of Commons
by tho published menace Of tho Royal dis.
pleasure, thero III oloar breach OF privilege,
recolling tho .noat stupid exhibitions oi
Royal misconduct" Tho ofllciM attempt was
not mado perhaps in the caso OF Str RonEn1
PEtI, but It was 1nf9le, wo know, tn the
caso Of A1r. GLADSTONE and tho Royal mar,
riago, and 1t may havo been made In tho case