[35:5] Parker, "Sir Robert Peel," II., 391 et seq., and Lee, "Life of Queen Victoria," 97-103.
[36:1] Morley, "Walpole," 158.
[37:1] The Times, June 26, 1902.
[38:1] Martin, "Life of the Prince Consort," 4 Ed., I., 74.
[38:2] I., 73.
[38:3] Lee, "Life of Queen Victoria," 1 Ed., 211-13.
[39:1] Todd, "Parl. Govt. in England," 2 Ed., I., 266, note y. Hans., 3 Ser. CCIV., 173, 370.
[39:2] Disraeli's opponents were right for criticising him for letting it be known that it was the Queen who had decided whether to accept his resignation or to dissolve in 1868: Hans., 3 Ser. CXCI., 1705, 1724, 1742, 1788, 1794, 1800, 1806, 1811. There was no objection to allowing her to decide if he pleased,—that is, he might accept her opinion as his own,—but he ought to have assumed in public the sole responsibility for the decision.
[39:3] In 1876 Mr. Lowe in a public speech expressed his belief that the Queen had urged previous ministers in vain to procure for her the title of Empress of India. The matter was brought to the attention of the House of Commons, and he was forced to make an apology, which was somewhat abject, the Queen through the Prime Minister having denied the truth of his statement: Hans., 3 Ser. CCXXVIII., 2023 et seq.; and CCXXIX., 52-53.
An apparent, though not a real, exception may be found in the rule which requires that before a bill affecting the prerogative can be introduced into Parliament, notice of the King's assent thereto must be given. If the bill affects only the private property of the Crown it is not a political matter. If it affects the public powers of the Crown, then the assent is given on the responsibility of the ministers.