What the King has, in fact, done has been as
far as possible to prevent his subjects from flying at each other's throats. He has played the game of neither party, but has done what no doubt the hotheads on both sides consider hateful—. has acted the part of "neutrality personified " which is allotted him by the Constitution—the part of moderator and of pacificator. He has used his influence in the cause of peace and of keeping the ship of State steady. If that is a crime, then, and only then, is the King guilty of misdoing. Yet here is Mr. Ward, who professes to be a leader of men, trying. on no evidence except some backstairs gossip, and because he thinks it a fine and popular thing and a proof of his own sterling independence, to throw odium on the King, and to insinuate that his influence has been improperly used As a rule, the Labour men have shown themselves not only honest, but thoroughly well bred in debate. Let us trust that Mr. Ward's example will not prove contagious. Fortunately for Mr. Ward, no one challenged him to eay on what grounds he had made his suggestion of Royal interference against the Liberals. If anyone had done so, he would have bad none to produce, and he must have stood shamed in the opinion of all decent people as the retailer of false and malicious gossip on a matter of vital import.
