[Footnote 6:  A letter of the Prince Consort examines the principle of ministerial responsibility with so remarkable a clearness of perception and distinctness of explanation, that we may be excused for quoting it at length:  “The notion that the responsibility of his advisers impairs the monarch’s dignity and importance is a complete mistake.  Here we have no law of ministerial responsibility, for the simple reason that we have no written constitution; but this responsibility flows as a logical necessity from the dignity of the crown and of the sovereign.  ’The King can do no wrong,’ says the legal axiom, and hence it follows that somebody must be responsible for his measures, if these be contrary to law or injurious to the country’s welfare.  Ministers here are not responsible qua ministers, that is, qua officials (as such they are responsible to the crown), but they are responsible to Parliament and the people, or the country, as ‘advisers of the crown.’  Any one of them may advise the crown, and whoever does so is responsible to the country for the advice he has given.  The so-called accountability of ministers to Parliament does not arise out of an abstract principle of responsibility, but out of the practical necessity which they are under of obtaining the consent of Parliament to legislation and the voting of taxes, and, as an essential to this end, of securing its confidence.  In practice, ministers are liable to account for the way and manner in which they have administered the laws which they, conjointly with the Parliament, have made, and for the way they have expended the moneys that have been voted for definite objects.  They are bound to furnish explanations, to justify their proceedings, to satisfy reasonable scruples, and the answer, ’We have, as dutiful subjects, obeyed the sovereign,’ will not be accepted.  ’Have you acted upon conviction, or have you not?’ is the question.  ’If you have not, then you are civil servants of the crown, who counsel and do what you consider wrong or unjust, with a view to retain your snug places or to win the favor of the sovereign.’  And this being so, Parliament withdraws its confidence from them.  Herein, too, lies that ministerial power of which sovereigns are so much afraid.  They can say, ’We will not do this or that which the sovereign wishes, because we cannot be responsible for it.’  But why should a sovereign see anything here to be afraid of?  To him it is, in truth, the best of safeguards.  A really loyal servant should do nothing for which he is not prepared to answer, even though his master desires it.  This practical responsibility is of the utmost advantage to the sovereign.  Make independence, not subservience, the essential of service, and you compel the minister to keep his soul free toward the sovereign, you ennoble his advice, you make him staunch and patriotic, while time-servers, the submissive instruments of a monarch’s extreme wishes and commands, may lead, and often have led, him to destruction.