It has already been observed that England was the first European state both in mediaeval and modern times to reach a high degree of national efficiency.  At a period when the foreign policies of the continental states were exclusively but timidly dynastic, and when their domestic organizations illustrated the disadvantages of a tepid autocracy, Great Britain had entered upon a foreign policy of national colonial expansion and was building up a representative national domestic organization.  After several centuries of revolutionary disturbance the English had regained their national balance, without sacrificing any of the time-honored elements in their national life.  The monarchy was reconstituted as the symbol of the national integrity and as the crown of the social system.  The hereditary aristocracy, which was kept in touch with the commoners because its younger sons were not noble and which was national, if not liberal, in spirit, became the real rulers of England; but its role was supplemented by an effective though limited measure of general representation.  This organization was perfected in the nineteenth century.  Little by little the area of popular representation was enlarged, until it included almost the whole adult male population; and the government became more and more effectively controlled by national public opinion.  As a result of this slowly gathering but comprehensive plan of national organization, the English have become more completely united in spirit and purpose than are the people of any other country.  The crown and the aristocracy recognize the limitations of their positions and their inherited responsibilities to the gentry and the people.  The commoners on their side are proud of their lords and of the monarchy and grant them full confidence.  It is a unique instance of mutual loyalty and well-distributed responsibility among social classes, differing widely in station, occupations, and wealth; and it is founded upon habit of joint consultation, coupled, as the result of the long persistence of this habit, with an unusual similarity of intellectual and moral outlook.

The result, until recently, was an exceptional degree of national efficiency; and in scrutinizing this national efficiency the fact must be faced that the political success of Great Britain has apparently been due, not merely to her adoption of the practice of national representation, but to her abhorrence of any more subversive democratic ideas.  On the one hand, the British have organized a political system which is probably more sensitively and completely responsive to a nationalized public opinion than is the political system of the American democracy.  On the other hand, this same nationalized political organization is aristocratic to the core—­aristocratic without scruple or qualification.  What is the effect of this aristocratic organization upon the efficiently and fertility of the English political system?  Has it contributed in the past to such efficiency?  Does it still contribute?  And if so, how far?