cient time to make herself acquainted with their contents, before they must be sent off." 1

Such being the relations of the foreign secretary to the Crown, the sovereign is advised upon questions of foreign policy by her first minister, to whom copies of despatches and other information are also communicated, in order to enable him to give such advice effectually. In controlling ne minister, the sovereign yet acts upon the counsels and esponsibility of another.

Lord Palmerston's removal from

Immediately after the coup d'état of the 2d December, 1851, in Paris, the cabinet determined that the Government of this country should abstain from office in 1851. any interference in the internal affairs of France; and a despatch to that effect, approved by the queen, was addressed to Lord Normanby, the British ambassador in Paris. But before this official communication was written, it appeared that M. Walewski, the French ambassador at the Court of St. James's, had assured his own Government, that Lord Palmerston had "expressed to him his entire approbation of the act of the president, and his conviction that he could not have acted otherwise than he had done." This statement having been communicated to Lord Normanby by M. Turgot, was reported by him to Lord Palmerston. On receiving a copy of Lord Normanby's letter, Lord John Russell immediately wrote to Lord Palmerston requiring explanations of the variance between his verbal communications with the French ambassador, and the despatch agreed upon by the cabinet; and a few days afterwards her Majesty also demanded similar explanations. These were delayed for several days; and in the mean time, in reply to another letter from Lord Normanby, Lord Palm erston, on the 16th of December, wrote to his lordship, ex plaining his own views in favor of the policy of the recent

1 Hansard's Debates, 3d Series, cxix. 90.

2 Sir Robert Peel's evidence before Select Committee on Official Salaries. Statement by Lord J. Russell; Hansard's Debates, 3d Series, cxix. 91.

coup d'état. On receiving a copy of this correspondence, Lord John Russell conceived that the secretary of state was not justified in expressing such opinions, without the sanction of the Crown and the concurrence of the cabinet, more particularly as these opinions were opposed to the policy of non-intervention upon which the cabinet had determined, and inconsistent with that moral support and sympa thy, which England had generally offered to constitutional government in foreign countries. The explanations which ensued were not deemed satisfactory; and Lord Palmerston was accordingly removed from office, on the ground that he had exceeded his authority as secretary of state, and had taken upon himself alone, to be the organ of the queen's government.1

In defence of his own conduct, Lord Palmerston, while fully recognizing the principles upon which a secretary of state is required to act in relation to the Crown and his own colleagues, explained that his conversation with Count Walewski on the 3d of December, and his explanatory letter to Lord Normanby on the 16th, were not inconsistent with the policy of non-intervention upon which the cabinet had resolved; that whatever opinions he might have expressed, were merely his own; and that he had given no official instructions or assurances on the part of the Government, except in the despatch of the 5th of December, which her Majesty and the cabinet had approved.

Though the premier and the secretary of state had differed as to the propriety of the particular acts of the latter, they were agreed upon the general principles which regulate the relations of ministers to the Crown. These events exemplify the effective control which the Crown constitutionally exercises in the government of the country. The policy and conduct of its ministers are subject to its active supervision. In minor affairs the ministers have a separate discretion, in their several departments; but in the general acts 1 Explanations of Lord J. Russell, Feb. 3, 1852.

of the government, the Crown is to be consulted, and has a control over them all.

Wise use of

of the Crown,

reign.

From this time no question has arisen concerning the exercise of the prerogatives or influence of the the influence Crown, which calls for notice. Both have been in the present exercised wisely, justly, and in the true spirit of the constitution. Ministers, enjoying the conidence of Parliament, have never claimed in vain the confidence of the Crown. Their measures have not beer thwarted by secret influence, and irresponsible advice. Their policy has been directed by Parliament and public opinion, and not by the will of the sovereign, or the intrigues of the court. Vast as is the power of the Crown, it has been exercised, throughout the present reign, by the advice of responsible ministers, in a constitutional manner, and for legitimate objects. It has been held in trust, as it were, for the benefit of the people. Hence it has ceased to excite either the jealousy of rival parties, or popular discontents.

This judicious exercise of the royal authority, while it has conduced to the good government of the state, has sustained the moral influence of the Crown; and the devoted loyalty of a free people, which her Majesty's personal virtues have merited, has never been disturbed by the voice of faction.

General increase of the influence of the Crown.

But while the influence of the Crown in the government of the country, has been gradually brought into subordination to Parliament and public opinion, the same causes, which, for more than a century and a half, contributed to its enlargement, have never ceased to add to its greatness. The national expenditure and public establishments have been increased to an extent which alarms financiers; armies and navies have been maintained, such as at no former period had been endured in time of peace. Our colonies have expanded into a vast and populous empire; and her Majesty, invested with the sovereignty of the East Indies, now rules over two hundred millions of Asiatic

subjects. Governors, commanders-in-chief, and bishops attest her supremacy in all parts of the world; and the greatness of the British empire, while it has redounded to the glory of England, has widely extended the influence of the Crown. As that influence, constitutionally exercised, has ceased to be regarded with jealousy, its continued enlargement has been watched by Parliament without any of those efforts to restrain it, which marked the parliamentary history of the eighteenth century. On the contrary, Parliament has met the increasing demands of a community rapidly advancing in population and wealth, by constant additions to the power and patronage of the Crown. The judicial establishments of the country have been extended, by the appointment of more judges in the superior courts, by a large staff of county court judges, with local jurisdiction, — and by numerous stipendiary magistrates. Offices and commissions have been multiplied, for various public purposes; and all these appointments proceed from the same high source of patronage and preferment. Parliament has wisely excluded all these officers, with a few necessary exceptions, from the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons; but otherwise these extensive means of influence have been intrusted to the executive government, without any apprehension that they will be perverted to uses injurious to the freedom, or public interests of the country.

great families.

The history of the influence of the Crown has now been sketched, for a period of one hundred years. We Continued inhave seen George III. jealous of the great Whig fluence of families, and wresting power out of the hands of his ministers we have seen ministers becoming more accountable to Parliament, and less dependent upon the Crown; but, as in the commencement of this period, a few great families commanded the support of Parliament, and engrossed all the power of the state, so under a more free representation, and more extended responsibilities, do we see nearly the same families still in the ascendant. De

prived in great measure of their direct influence over Parliament, their general weight in the country, and in the councils of the state, has suffered little diminution. Notwithstanding the more democratic tendencies of later times, rank and station have still retained the respect and confidence of the people. When the aristocracy have enjoyed too exclusive an influence in the government, they have aroused jealousies and hostility; but when duly sharing power with other classes, and admitting the just claims of talent, they have prevailed over every rival and adverse interest; and, whatever party has been in power, - have still been the rulers of the state.

In a society comprising so many classes as that of England, the highest are willingly accepted as governors, when their personal qualities are not unequal to their position. They excite less jealousy than abler men of inferior social pretensions, who climb to power. Born and nurtured to influences, they have studied how to maintain it. That they have maintained it so well, against the encroachments of wealth, an expanding society, and popular influences, is mainly due to their progressive policy. As they have been ready to advance with their age, the people have been content to acknowledge them as leaders; but had they endeavored to stem the tide of public opinion, they would have been swept aside, while men from other classes advanced to power.