The Washington herald., 1911-09-17

I But what of the King? His position
is easily explainable, but it is not palpa-
BILE. Even among persons who ought to
know better there IS a grotesque failure
to appreciate the Kings position in rela-
ton to Mr.. Redmond. Whatever may
have been the practice of previous
sovereigns since the accession of Queen
Victoria, there has been a consistent ad-
hesion of the monarch to the principle
of the complete responsibility OF the
Kings advisers in all the affairs Of the
nation. This attitude is summed up in
a letter by Lord Palmerston, dated No
vember q, 1862:
"One great security for the throne in
this country is the maxim that the
sovereign can do no wrong. This does
not mean that no wrong can be done;
but it means that. as the sovereign ac-
cepts and acts by the advice Of those
ministers who. for the time being, en-
joy the confidence Of the crown. 1t Is
those ministers, and not the sovereign
personally, upon whom must fall the
blame or the criticism which any acts
of the royal prerogative may produce.
Lord Palmerston's words have added
weight from the fact that several years
before he had been dismissed by the
Queen from her cabinet as foreign min
ister for having acted invariably with
out first informing the Queen Of his de-
signs. Lord Palmerstcn's firm belief in
a disassociation OF the crown with the
acts OF the ministry brought about his
downfall The principle. however. OF the
British sovereigns noninterference with
the politics OF the country and the en-
tire responsibility OF the advisers Of the
crown for all acts done in the name OF
the King is as much a part Of the con-
stitution as II 1t were embodied in the
coronation oath. The course which has
been pursued by King George would
have been followed precisely by Queen
Victoria and King Edward.
As a matter OF fact, the safety Of the
Crown rests upon the adherence to this
principle. Fifty years ago the Prince
Consort laid down a few rules for the
guidance of Queen Victoria. upon this
most important dogma: Here they are:
The notion that the responsibility OF
the advisers impairs the monarch's
dignity and importance is a complete
mistake. Here we have no law of minis
terial responsibility, for the simple rea-
son that we have no written constitution.
but this responsibility flows as a logical
necessity from the dignity of the Crown
and of the Sovereign.
The King can do no wrong" says
the legal axiom, and hence 1t follows
that somebody must be responsible for
his measures II these be contrary to law
or injurious to the countrys welfare.
Ministers here are not responsible qua
ministers, that is. qua officials as such
they are responsible to the Crown, but
they are responsible to Parliament and
the people, or the country as advisers
Of the Crown" Any one Of them may
advise the Crown. and whoever does so
is responsible to the country for the ad-
vice he has given"
This insularity OF the King is the
greatest safeguard of the British mon
archy. 1t is good for the King and 1t is
good for the country. In such countries.
where what is called personal govern
ment obtains, all the mistakes OF the
ruler are put down to the sovereign him-
self. In England everything political
falls entirely upon the minister who ui-
vises the King. This is as 1t should be.
as the minister is alone answerable 20
the people. All wars, treaties. and con-
stitutionaI innovations fall upon the
shoulders OF the ministers who create
them, leaving the monarch free to help
the cause of peace or progress. And
there never was n greater occasion for
the monarch's subscription to this pcin-
ciple of "the responsibility of the Kings
advisers" than when Mr.. Asquith asked
King George for guarantees that he
would make 500 peers to swamp the
House OF Lords. FLANEUR.
Copyright. 1911, by Court Gossip SyndiCate.)