"I can not, therefore, see how this can be imputed as a crime, or how any of the king's ministers can be blamed for his doing what the public has no concern in; for if the public be well and faithfully served it has no business to ask by whom"

Robert Walpole asserts a distinction between public interest and the private machinations of government. He suggests that the assignment of governmental tasks or the decision-making process among the king’s ministers should not become matters for public scrutiny as long as the interests of the people are faithfully served. Walpole’s argument reflects a pragmatic approach to governance, positing that efficiency and faithful service to the public outweigh the need for full transparency concerning who takes credit or responsibility for actions within the higher echelons of power.

By stating that the public "has no concern in" the internal affairs or decisions about whom the king entrusts with power, Walpole defends a certain degree of opacity in government procedures. He implies that so long as the outcomes are beneficial and the administration is conducted with integrity, the populace should refrain from meddling in or questioning the decisions made behind closed doors. Criticism or the assigning of blame to the king’s ministers, in this framework, is unwarranted unless there is a direct infringement upon the effective and faithful management of public affairs.

Underlying these assertions is an implicit endorsement of trust in authority, advocating for a social contract in which the governed rely on the judgment of their leaders as long as their needs are addressed. Walpole is wary of the dangers posed by scandal-mongering or the politicization of every internal decision, which could cloud the focus on results that matter most to citizens. The statement also subtly cautions against a form of populist agitation that seeks to hold leaders to account for processes that, effectively, are deemed irrelevant if efficiency and fidelity to the public good are preserved. This perspective distinguishes between accountability for outcomes and the privacy or discretion of those entrusted with power, ultimately advocating for government stability and efficiency over total transparency.