LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE CROWN AND THE CONSTITUTION. (TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.') San,—Intentional misrepresentation of an opponent is a policy which is not likely to be imputed to the Spectator, even by Tories. When, therefore, I saw the long extract from the Quarterly Review quoted in your last issue, and reflected how your description of my political enormities must have erected the hair of the "Con- stitutional Tories," I became very uneasy at the light in which I was exhibited before my own party. And whether you believe it or not, Sir, I was filled with concern to think that 1 had uncon- sciously been suggesting a return to the days of the Tudors and the Stuarts. It was not till my excitement had subsided that I began to reflect that perhaps, after all, I was not so black as I was painted, and that if I could make a clear statement of the facts upon which we are both agreed, I might be able to persuade even you, Sir, that in your conclusions you had done me a little injustice.
It seems to me that, in reference to the subject of the article,
there are two facts to be considered. The first is the actual existence of the Royal prerogative. Whether you and " Verax " like it or not, you are confronted with the fact of a Royal person in possession of very extensive powers, which are restricted by statutory limits, but within those limits are sanctioned by law. The second fact is the existence of public opinion. Whether the high Tories, with whom you are pleased to class me, like it or not, they have to recognise that this is the supreme power of the nation, that it returns the House of Commons, and consequently has the final voice, through the control of Supply, in determining the policy of the State. The real question to be settled is how these two distinct but not necessarily antagonistic forces are to be reconciled with each other.
The point at which we diverge is this,—that you, Sir, and " Verax " declare that the Royal person aforesaid, possessed of a vast legal prerogative and innumerable sources of influence, ought to have no personal voice in the direction of affairs ; whilst the Tories say, on the other band, that in the first place, such an arrangement would be impossible, as being contrary to nature, —and secondly, that even if possible, it would not be advis- able to restrict the influence of the Sovereign so long as it is not brought into conflict with the expressed and settled convic- tions of the majority. I think, Sir, that these considerations, and not vague apprehensions of possible loss of liberty, are the points to which you ought to address yourself, in order to meet the argument of the Qtatritrly Rcriete.
The only way in which I can conceive of the system favoured by yourself and " Verax " prevailing is by Party Government. Allow that public opinion were fairly divided between two power- ful parties, each differing radically from the other, yet in perfect harmony with itself, as to the principles on which public affairs should be conducted, then, no doubt, the personal influence of the Crown would be greatly reduced. But the argument of the Quarterly Review is that these genuine party differences do not exist. The "New Tories" do not wish to preserve what is obso- lete, nor do the sober Liberals wish to destroy what is funda-
mental in the institutions of the country. hence the lines of party become confused, and even in home affairs the influence of the Crown makes itself increasingly and beneficially felt. if I am wrong in this assumption, then I think it rests with you, Sir, to indicate the direction in which the Liberal party can act neces- sarily in union with itself, and necessarily in opposition to the Tories.
As regards foreign affairs, the argument in the Quarterly Review is that England's principle of foreign policy—a principle essential both to her safety and freedom—is one and unchangeable. The article does not attempt to deny that public opinion must ulti- mately determine the course of our foreign policy. It allows, too, that English common-sense will, in firc nd, cause sound opinion to prevail ; but it seeks to prove that before it settles itself public opinion is fluctuating and undecided, that it is liable to be overpowered by sentiment, and apt to perpetrate injustice. It shows, on the other band, that during the Crimean war the Sovereign personally exhibited foresight, sagacity, and a true per- ception of the national interest. It shows that during the present crisis the Ministerial policy of conditional neutrality was adopted in conformity with the traditional principle of non-intervention, and that from the beginning to the end of the war this policy was adhered to without wavering. On the other band, it shows that the fluctuations of opinion were innumerable, and were accurately reflected in the astounding tergiversations of the Times.
And here, Sir, 1 must utterly repudiate the paternity of the opinion which you impute to me, that "the people are to approve whatever a King and his Minister may lay before them as a policy." I should have thought that from the most cursory perusal of the article, you would have gathered that the writer assumed it to be utterly impossible in a self-governed nation for the Government to act against the expressed opinion of the majority. In the very passage which you extract, the Quarterly Review says :— " The Crown has no solid support but opinion." Elsewhere it says, "Our Empire is founded on opinion." It shows that even if the Ministry had wished to give armed assistance to the Turks, the outburst of public feeling after the Bulgarian massacres would have prevented them from advancing beyond a policy of "con- ditional neutrality." What it does say with regard to the exercise of the Royal prerogative in foreign affairs is in effect this :—That had the Ministry been what " Verax " wishes them to be—the mere delegates of public opinion—there was a period during the past eighteen months when we should certainly have been com- mitted to Mr. Gladstone's " bag-and-baggage" policy. And that policy, Sir, you will allow to be one which the cooler opinion of
the present time would scarcely look back upon with satis- faction. Therefore, the Quarterly Review argues, since the Crown has not changed its opinion, while the majority, having perceived the impolicy of their original opinion, have come round to support the opinion of the Crown, it is not an unfair conclusion that the people would have acted more wisely if they had from the beginning shown more confidence in their own Government. To suppose that any one person, or body of persons, could in these days so far defy the wishes of the majority of their countrymen as to plunge the country into war from motives of private ambi- tion, is a hypothesis so wild that it could not be entertained if party feeling were not in an overheated state. You allow, Sir, that "the King may remonstrate, and argue, and influence, with the force inseparable from ancient kingship." That is precisely the "just liberty" which " Verax " will not allow the King, and which alone is claimed for him by the Quarterly Review. If the development of this position in the Review appears to you to involve a return to "passive obedience," I am sorry for it, but I hope the "Constitutional Tories" will think differently. I must apologise for the extent to which I have trespassed on your space, but I know I have only to ask, what you will be sure to grant, a fair field and no favour.— P.S.—I am unaware of having used any expression which could lead to the inference that the Court desired an anti-Russian policy. The reference to "her Majesty and the members of the Royal family" in the passage which you quote is as general as possible.
["Opinion," in "The Reviewer's" sense, was the foundation of the Second Empire. The policy he pleads for is certainly this,—that the Crown should guide English foreign policy. We say, English- men should guide it.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
