of Brittany. She could make every citizen in the United Kingdom,
male or female, a peer; she could make every parish in the United
Kingdom a "university"; she could dismiss most of the civil
servants; she could pardon all offenders. In a word, the Queen could
by prerogative upset all the action of civil government within the
Government, could disgrace the nation by a bad war or peace, and
could, by disbanding our forces, whether land or sea, leave us
defenceless against foreign nations. Why do we not fear that she
would do this, or any approach to it?

Because there are two checks--one ancient and coarse, the other
modern and delicate. The first is the check of impeachment. Any
Minister who advised the Queen so to use her prerogative as to
endanger the safety of the realm, might be impeached for high
treason, and would be so. Such a Minister would, in our technical
law, be said to have levied, or aided to levy, "war against the
Queen". This counsel to her so to use her prerogative would by the
Judge be declared to be an act of violence against herself, and in
that peculiar but effectual way the offender could be condemned and
executed. Against all gross excesses of the prerogative this is a
sufficient protection. But it would be no protection against minor
mistakes; any error of judgment committed bona fide, and only
entailing consequences which one person might say were good, and
another say were bad, could not be so punished. It would be possible
to impeach any Minister who disbanded the Queen's army, and it would
be done for certain. But suppose a Minister were to reduce the army
or the navy much below the contemplated strength--suppose he were
only to spend upon them one-third of the amount which Parliament had
permitted him to spend--suppose a Minister of Lord Palmerston's
principles were suddenly and while in office converted to the