Page 7. “His Majesty has not caused the Crown Prince to attend the sittings as one of the King’s advisers, but only for the Prince’s own information, and as a means of preparing him for his future calling. The attempt to ‘neutralise’ the measures of the Government would mean a struggle and rebellion against the Crown. More dangerous than all the attacks of the democracy and all ‘gnawing’ at the roots of the monarchy is the loosening of the bonds that still unite the people with the dynasty through the example of open and avowed opposition on the part of the heir to the throne, through the intentional disclosure of discord in the Royal House itself. If the son and heir to the throne revolts against the authority of the father and King, to whom can that authority still remain sacred? If a premium is set by ambition for the _future_ upon present desertion from the Sovereign, every bond will be loosened, to the detriment of the future King, and the damage done to the authority of the present Government will bear evil fruit for its successors. Any Government is better than one which is divided against itself and paralysed. The shocks which the Crown Prince may provoke affect the foundations of the structure over which he himself will hereafter have to preside as King. “According to the constitutional law hitherto in force, it is the King who _governs_ in Prussia and not the Ministers. Legislative and not governmental power is alone shared with the Chambers, and before them the Ministers represent the King. Therefore now, as _before_ the Constitution, the Ministers are legally the servants of the King, and his Majesty’s authorised advisers, but they are not the regents of the Prussian State. Even since the Constitution, the Prussian monarchy does not stand on the same level as the Belgian or English monarchy. On the contrary, in Prussia the King still governs personally, and _commands_ according to his own discretion, in so far as the Constitution has not otherwise provided, and it has only so provided in matters of legislation.” Page 8. “The publication of State secrets is an offence against the criminal law. What is to be treated as a State secret depends upon the King’s command respecting official secrecy. Why is so much importance attached to giving ‘outside’ publicity to these matters? If his Royal Highness, as in duty bound, gives expression to his opinions in Council, he has satisfied his conscience. The Crown Prince has no official position whatever in State affairs, and no call to express himself publicly upon them. No one who has even a superficial knowledge of the system under which our State affairs are conducted would conclude that the Crown Prince agreed with the decisions of the Government merely because he (without a vote, and therefore without the possibility of effectual opposition) had listened to the discussions in Council.