n
are much in the habit of referring to the political maxim that the
king can do no wrong, as a fundamental principle of the constitution,
which concerns them as directly as it does their neighbours the
English. Dr. Chalmers alluded to it no later than last week, in his
admirable speech in the Commission. The old maxim, that the king could
do no wrong, he said, had now, it would seem, descended from the
throne to the level of courts co-ordinate with the Church. Would it
not be a somewhat curious matter to find that this doctrine is one
which has in reality not entered Scotland at all? It stands in
England, a guardian in front of the throne, transferring every blow
which would otherwise fall on the sovereign himself, to the
sovereign's ministers: it is ministers, not sovereigns, who are
responsible to the people of England. But it would at least seem, that
with regard to the people of Scotland the responsibility extends
further. At least the English doctrine was regarded as _exclusively_
an English one in the days of Baillie, nearly half a century prior to
the Union, and more than a whole century ahead of those times in
which the influence of that event began to have the effect of mixing
up in men's minds matters peculiar to England with matters common to
Britain. We find Baillie, in his letter written immediately after the
passing of the Act Recissory, pronouncing the doctrine that the 'king
can do no fault,' as in his judgment 'good and wise,' but referring to
it at the same time as a doctrine, not of the Scottish Constitution,
but of the 'State of England.'

The circumstance is of importance chiefly from the light which it
serves to cast on an interesting passage in Scottish history. The
famous declaration of our Scotch Convention at the Revolution, that
James VII. had _forfeited_ the throne, as contrasted with the
singularly inadequate though virtually corresponding declaration of
the English Convention, that James II. 'had _abdicated_ the
government, and that the throne was thereby vacant,' has been often
remarked by the historians. Hume indirectly accounts for the
employment of the stronger word, by prominently stating that the more
zealous among the Scotch Royalists, regarding the assembly as illegal,
had forborne to appear at elections, and that the antagonist party
commanded a preponderating majority in consequence; whereas in England
the Tories mustered strong, and had to be conciliated by the
employment of s