to the Virgin Queen, rendered them _dramatis personae_, and gave them a
whole play to themselves. Above all, they have been held up to us, not
only as a likeness, but as "a great moral lesson;" and this, not merely
with regard to the duties of occupation, but the form of their polity. A
monarchical government, it is said, is natural to man, because it is an
instinct of nature: the very bees have it.

It may be worth while to inquire a moment into the value of this
argument; not as affecting the right and title of our Sovereign Lord
King William the Fourth (whom, with the greatest sincerity, we hope God
will preserve!), but for its own sake, as well as for certain little
collateral deductions. And, in the first place, we cannot but remark how
unfairly the animal creation are treated, with reference to the purposes
of moral example. We degrade or exalt them, as it suits the lesson we
desire to inculcate. If we rebuke a drunkard or a sensualist, we think
we can say nothing severer to him than to recommend him not to make "a
beast of himself;" which is very unfair towards the beasts, who are no
drunkards, and behave themselves as nature intended. A horse has no
habit of drinking; he does not get a red face with it. The stag does not
go reeling home to his wives. On the other hand, we are desired to be as
faithful as a dog, as bold as a lion, as tender as a dove; as if the
qualities denoted by these epithets were not to be found among
ourselves. But above all, the bee is the argument. Is not the honey-bee,
we are asked, a wise animal?--We grant it.--"Doth he not improve each
passing hour?"--He is pretty busy, it must be owned--as much occupied at
eleven, twelve, and one o'clock, as if his life depended on it:--Does he
not lay up stores?--He does.--Is he not social? Does he not live in
communities?--There can be no doubt of it.--Well, then, he has a
monarchical government; and does not that clearly show that a monarchy
is the instinct of nature? Does it prove, by an unerring rule, that the