516 Right Hon. Viscount Esher [March 5, 



It may be thought that any Prime Minister of strong character 

 and vigorous intellect would enforce these rules. Experience shows, 

 however, that all Prime Ministers — Lord John Russell often. Lord 

 Beaconsfield once or twice, Mr. Gladstone frequently — are tempted to 

 turn a blind eye towards a too impetuous colleague. 



On the other hand, there is no example, in this correspondence, 

 of a Minister not appreciating with some relish the support against 

 an unruly colleague which was offered him by the Sovereign. 



The Queen's Hatred of War. 



Another point well worth noting is that the most careful scrutiny 

 of the published and unpublished letters shows beyond dispute that 

 the influence of the Crown was uniformly asserted in the interests of 

 peace and against action which might lead to war. Although no one 

 could show rarer determination when once the die was cast, and more 

 firmness to reap the fruit of national sacrifices than the Queen, there 

 is no instance in the whole of her reign where she can be shown to 

 have favoured war, or encouraged those who were anxious for it. 

 There are many to the contrary. Two will suffice. 



It was largely due to the pertinacious support given by the Queen 

 to those members of the Cabinet who in 1850 favoured peace that 

 England was not dragged by Lord Palmerston and Lord John 

 Russell into the contest between Prussia and Denmark. It was an 

 occasion when the sentiment of the country and the policy of a 

 powerful Minister came into conflict, and no one, reading the inner 

 history of that conflict of opinion, can doubt that the peaceful issue 

 was largely determined by the action of the Queen. The non-inter- 

 vention oi Great Britain in 1850 was largely due to the joint endeavour 

 of the Queen and the Prince Consort : and, later on, it was to the infi- 

 nite credit of the Prince that in 1.S61, at a moment of national heat 

 and excitement, this country was saved from the crime of a w^ar with 

 the United States. The proofs of these statements are to be found 

 in the volumes of the Queen's Correspondence. 



We are not concerned, how^ever, with the merits of these, bygone 

 controversies. The question as to Avhich policy was right may still 

 be argued. But we are concerned with the illustration afforded by 

 the Queen of the effect of throwing the whole weight of the indirect 

 influence of the Crown into the scale of peace. Had she acted other- 

 wise the result would have been to cast doubt upon the institution 

 of Monarchy, and possibly, at some period, to have jeopardised the 

 Crown. 



Flexibility of the Unwritten Constitution. 



At this point may I pause for a moment to note once more the 

 singular flexibility of our unwritten Constitution, and the ease and 

 smoothness with which the relations between the Crown and a repre- 

 sentative Government adjusted themselves to varying conditions ? 



