But this was not all. A constitutional question of the most profound importance was raised by the position of the Prince in England. His presence gave a new prominence to an old problem--the precise definition of the functions and the powers of the Crown. Those functions and powers had become, in effect, his; and {180} what sort of use was he making of them? His views as to the place of the Crown in the Constitution are easily ascertainable; for they were Stockmar's; and it happens that we possess a detailed account of Stockmar's opinions upon the subject in a long letter addressed by him to the Prince at the time of this very crisis, just before the outbreak of the Crimean War. Constitutional Monarchy, according to the Baron, had suffered an eclipse since the passing of the Reform Bill. It was now 'constantly in danger of becoming a pure Ministerial Government.' The old race of Tories, who 'had a direct interest in upholding the prerogatives of the Crown,' had died out; and the Whigs were 'nothing but partly conscious, partly unconscious Republicans, who stand in the same relation to the Throne as the wolf does to the lamb.' There was a rule that it was unconstitutional to introduce 'the name and person of the irresponsible Sovereign' into parliamentary debates on constitutional matters; this was 'a constitutional fiction, which, although undoubtedly of old standing, was fraught with danger'; and the Baron warned the Prince that 'if the English Crown permit a Whig Ministry to follow this rule in practice, without exception, you must not wonder if in a little time you find the majority of the people impressed with the belief that the King, in the view of the law, is nothing but a mandarin figure, which has to nod its head in assent, or shake it in denial, as his Minister pleases.' To prevent this from happening, it was of extreme importance, said the Baron, 'that no opportunity should be let slip of vindicating the legitimate position of the Crown.' 'And this is not hard to do,' he added, 'and can never embarrass a Minister where such straightforward loyal personages as the Queen and {181} the Prince are concerned.' In his opinion, the very lowest claim of the Royal Prerogative should include 'a right on the part of the King to be the permanent President of his Ministerial Council.' The Sovereign ought to be 'in the position of a permanent Premier, who takes rank above the temporary head of the Cabinet, and in matters of discipline exercises supreme authority.' The Sovereign 'may even take a part in the initiation and the maturing of the Government measures; for it would be unreasonable to expect that a King, himself as able, as accomplished, and as patriotic as the best of his Ministers, should be prevented from making use of these qualities at the deliberations of his Council.' 'The judicious exercise of this right,' concluded the Baron, 'which certainly requires a master mind,