tain them. This party, however, is necessary to their remaining in the ministry, and it follows that the majority of parliament controls the very appointment of ministers, the only important political function that the king can now, even in theory, exercise without the intervention of a responsible minister. Were he, however, to appoint a minister in opposition to the wishes of parliament, that body would refuse the required laws. The first requisite, therefore, on the formation of a new ministry, is to enquire who can "meet parliament," as it is termed; or, in other words, what ministers will be agreeable to a majority of the legislature.
Thus, while the king of England says who shall be his ministers, the parliament says who they shall not be; and, in this instance, supported as it is by a control of all legislation, the negative power is found to be stronger than the affirmative. In reality, the ministers of Great-Britain are appointed by the parliament of the country, and not by the king, and this is virtually neutralizing, if not directly annihilating, all the available authority of the latter.
In theory, the government of France and that of Great-Britain have the same general character. In practice, however, owing to the greater political advancement of the last of these two countries, France, to-day, is not far from the point where England stood a century since. Then the king of England ruled through his parliament, whereas now the parliament rules through the king. On the other hand, with much of the machinery of a free state, the king of the French governs himself. A dread of the people's getting the ascendancy, causes the aristocracy to lend itself to the power of the crown, which not only dictates the law, but, in many cases, proves to be stronger than the law itself. Of the three countries, perhaps
