In addition to the control over particular Ministers, and especially over the Foreign Minister, the Queen has a certain control over the Cabinet.  The first Minister, it is understood, transmits to her authentic information of all the most important decisions, together with, what the newspapers would do equally well, the more important votes in Parliament.  He is bound to take care that she knows everything which there is to know as to the passing politics of the nation.  She has by rigid usage a right to complain if she does not know of every great act of her Ministry, not only before it is done, but while there is yet time to consider it—­while it is still possible that it may not be done.

To state the matter shortly, the sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights—­the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn.  And a king of great sense and sagacity would want no others.  He would find that his having no others would enable him to use these with singular effect.  He would say to his Minister:  “The responsibility of these measures is upon you.  Whatever you think best must be done.  Whatever you think best shall have my full and effectual support.  But you will observe that for this reason and that reason what you propose to do is bad; for this reason and that reason what you do not propose is better.  I do not oppose, it is my duty not to oppose; but observe that I warn.”  Supposing the king to be right, and to have what kings often have, the gift of effectual expression, he could not help moving his Minister.  He might not always turn his course, but he would always trouble his mind.

In the course of a long reign a sagacious king would acquire an experience with which few Ministers could contend.  The king could say:  “Have you referred to the transactions which happened during such and such an administration, I think about fourteen years ago?  They afford an instructive example of the bad results which are sure to attend the policy which you propose.  You did not at that time take so prominent a part in public life as you now do, and it is possible you do not fully remember all the events.  I should recommend you to recur to them, and to discuss them with your older colleagues who took part in them.  It is unwise to recommence a policy which so lately worked so ill.”  The king would indeed have the advantage which a permanent under-secretary has over his superior the Parliamentary secretary—­that of having shared in the proceedings of the previous Parliamentary secretaries.  These proceedings were part of his own life; occupied the best of his thoughts, gave him perhaps anxiety, perhaps pleasure, were commenced in spite of his dissuasion, or were sanctioned by his approval.  The Parliamentary secretary vaguely remembers that something was done in the time of some of his predecessors, when he very likely did not know the least or care the least about