Grant that men cannot do without an overlord; how to make that
over-lordship consist with the largest practical measure of national and
individual liberty? We, at all events, have for a time solved the
question. For a time only, of course; but consider the history of
Europe, and our jubilation is perhaps justified.

For sixty years has the British Republic held on its way under one
President. It is wide of the mark to object that other Republics, which
change their President more frequently, support the semblance of over-
lordship at considerably less cost to the people. Britons are minded for
the present that the Head of their State shall be called King or Queen;
the name is pleasant to them; it corresponds to a popular sentiment,
vaguely understood, but still operative, which is called loyalty. The
majority thinking thus, and the system being found to work more than
tolerably well, what purpose could be served by an attempt at _novas
res_? The nation is content to pay the price; it is the nation's affair.
Moreover, who can feel the least assurance that a change to one of the
common forms of Republicanism would be for the general advantage? Do we
find that countries which have made the experiment are so very much
better off than our own in point of stable, quiet government and of
national welfare? The theorist scoffs at forms which have survived their
meaning, at privilege which will bear no examination, at compromises
which sound ludicrous, at submissions which seem contemptible; but let
him put forward his practical scheme for making all men rational,
consistent, just. Englishmen, I imagine, are not endowed with these
qualities in any extraordinary degree. Their strength, politically
speaking, lies in a recognition of expediency, complemented by respect
for the established fact. One of the facts particularly clear to them is
the suitability to their minds, their tempers, their habits, of a system
of polity which has been established by the slow effort of generations