kingship, of its traditional superiority to all other positions, which certainly is neither dead nor dying. Then the sovereign, if a worker, not only gathers more experience than any minister, even a premier, can, seeing all departments, as well as all the jealousies and differences among all their chiefs, but possesses, as the essayist admits, personal means, through relationships, friendships, and accidents, of knowing what is going on abroad, and some special means of influencing current events. Europe is governed by persons who are still invested with power as well as influence, and those persons are greatly moved by the representations of their own caste, of the few human beings with whom they feel on an equality, who do not offend them by plainness — witness the queen's letters on the Spanish marriages — and towards whom they feel bound to maintain an attitude of deferential courtesy. Caste opinion is a great power, and Louis Philippe did not at all like to feel that Queen Victoria thought him in relation to the Spanish intrigue a scamp or worse, while Louis Napoleon did feel himself raised several inches in Europe by the equality to which he was admitted by the queen. Add that the precise limits of power in a constitutional country are almost imperceptible to foreign statesmen, and that the most experienced kings are constantly tempted to forget that prerogative and power are not always conterminous — witness the king of Prussia's request for a reprieve of Müller — and we perceive a genuine source of authority vested indestructibly in any sovereign who will use it. Then there is the weight of the sovereign in all questions of the higher patronage. The essayist notes this as equivalent to actual power during a ministerial interregnum, but we conceive that it is in one way a power even when a ministry is in office. The sovereign can no longer make a minister, or a bishop, or a peer by mere fiat, as George III. and at times even George IV. could do, but the range of persons who could be elevated to high posts in spite of a fixed dislike on the part of the crown is very limited. No bishop could be so made, for no bishop can have the support which would make it worth the while of a cabinet seriously to annoy the sovereign in order to secure his nomination. Scarcely any peer could be so made, for the same reason, unless absolutely required for purposes of debate, and scarcely any minister except of the first class. In every cabinet there are three or four men whom the premier must have, and probably one more whom he will have, but amongst the ruck of aspirants to office, always so much more numerous than the posts to be distributed, the favour or disfavour of the crown would act as a great make-weight or retarding force. A working sovereign who takes trouble, and who recollects careers, has in this influence upon patronage an immense source of authority, which is not the less because the premier through whom it is exercised does not forget that, when parties become equal, the throne holds a deciding voice, or that any king can merely by his privileges of etiquette make any minister brought daily into contact with him very uncomfortable. Finally, there is the influence over the people which resides permanently in the sovereign simply as such, and the extent of which is almost incalculable. The essayist, be he Mr. Gladstone or not, describes and analyzes this influence, so far as it affects society, with great acumen: — "With us, society is passing under many subtle, yet vital changes. It must never be forgotten that wealth is now in England no longer the possession of a few, but rather what is termed a 'drug.' That is to say, it is diffused through a circle so much extended, and so fast extending, that to be wealthy does not of itself satisfy; and the keenness of the unsatisfied desire, aspiring selfishly not to superiority, but rather to the marks of superiority, seeks them above all in the shape of what we term social distinction. But the true test of the highest social distinction in this country is nearness to the monarch; and all this avidity for access, for notice, for favour, expresses an amount of readiness to conform, to follow, to come under influence, which may often be indifferent enough in quality, but is very large in quantity." He does not, however, add, and the reticence may be wise, that the influence of the sovereign over the masses is possibly much greater than his influence over society. No occasion for its exercise and no opportunity has arisen since the accession of the House of Hanover, and it is impossible, therefore, to offer evidence of the correctness of an opinion on either side; but we should be much inclined to question whether Lord Brougham's test of the British Constitution was the hardest to which it could possibly be subjected. He dreaded the appearance of a political
