Of deferential countries England is the type.  But it is not to their actual heavy, sensible middle-class rulers that the mass of the English people yield deference, but to the theatrical show of society.  The few rule by their hold, not over the reason of the multitude, but over their imaginations and their habits.

II.—­The Monarchy

The use of the queen in a dignified capacity is incalculable.  The best reason why monarchy is a strong government is that it is an intelligible government; whereas a constitution is complex.  Men are governed by the weakness of their imagination.  To state the matter shortly, royalty is a government in which the attention of the nation is concentrated on one person doing interesting actions.  A republic is a government in which that attention is divided between many who are all doing uninteresting actions.  Secondly, if you ask the immense majority of the queen’s subjects by what right she rules, they will say she rules by God’s grace.  They believe they have a mystic obligation to obey her.  The crown is a visible symbol of unity with an atmosphere of dignity.

Thirdly, the queen is the head of society.  If she were not so, the prime minister would be the first person in the country.  As it is the House of Commons attracts people who go there merely for social purposes; if the highest social rank was to be scrambled for in the House of Commons, the number of social adventurers there would be even more numerous.  It has been objected of late that English royalty is not splendid enough.  It is compared with the French court, which is quite the most splendid thing in France; but the French emperor is magnified to emphasise the equality of everyone else.  Great splendour in our court would incite competition.  Fourthly, we have come to regard the crown as the head of our morality.  Lastly, constitutional royalty acts as a disguise; it enables our real rulers to change without heedless people knowing it.  Hence, perhaps, the value of constitutional royalty in times of transition.

Popular theory regards the sovereign as a co-ordinate authority with the House of Lords and the House of Commons.  Also it holds that the queen is the executive.  Neither is true.  There is no authentic explicit information as to what the queen can do.  The secrecy of the prerogative is an anomaly, but none the less essential to the utility of English royalty.  Let us see how we should get on without a queen.  We may suppose the House of Commons appointing the premier just as shareholders choose a director.  If the predominant party were agreed as to its leader there would not be much difference at the beginning of an administration.  But if the party were not agreed on its leader the necessity of the case would ensure that the chief forced on the minority by the majority would be an exceedingly capable man; where the judgment of the sovereign intervenes there is no such security.  If, however, there