as old as any part of our constitution. The doctrine that his
ministers are responsible is also of immemorial antiquity. That
where there is no responsibility there can be no trustworthy
security against maladministration, is a doctrine which, in our
age and country, few people will be inclined to dispute. From
these three propositions it plainly follows that the
administration is likely to be best conducted when the Sovereign
performs no public act without the concurrence and
instrumentality of a minister. This argument is perfectly sound.
But we must remember that arguments are constructed in one way,
and governments in another. In logic, none but an idiot admits
the premises and denies the legitimate conclusion. But in
practice, we see that great and enlightened communities often
persist, generation after generation, in asserting principles,
and refusing to act upon those principles. It may be doubted
whether any real polity that ever existed has exactly
corresponded to the pure idea of that polity. According to the
pure idea of constitutional royalty, the prince reigns and does
not govern; and constitutional royalty, as it now exists in
England, comes nearer than in any other country to the pure idea.
Yet it would be a great error to imagine that our princes merely
reign and never govern. In the seventeenth century, both Whigs
and Tories thought it, not only the right, but the duty, of the
first magistrate to govern. All parties agreed in blaming Charles
the Second for not being his own Prime Minister; all parties
agreed in praising James for being his own Lord High Admiral; and
all parties thought it natural and reasonable that William should
be his own Foreign Secretary.

It may be observed that the ablest and best informed of those who