governed under a good constitution than under a bad constitution.  But they will be better governed under the worst constitution than some other nations under the best.  In any general classification of constitutions, the constitution of Scotland must be reckoned as one of the worst, perhaps as the worst, in Christian Europe.  Yet the Scotch are not ill governed.  And the reason is simply that they will not bear to be ill governed.

In some of the Oriental monarchies, in Afghanistan for example, though there exists nothing which an European publicist would call a Constitution, the sovereign generally governs in conformity with certain rules established for the public benefit; and the sanction of those rules is, that every Afghan approves them, and that every Afghan is a soldier.

The monarchy of England in the sixteenth century was a monarchy of this kind.  It is called an absolute monarchy, because little respect was paid by the Tudors to those institutions which we have been accustomed to consider as the sole checks on the power of the sovereign.  A modern Englishman can hardly understand how the people can have had any real security for good government under kings who levied benevolences, and chid the House of Commons as they would have chid a pack of dogs.  People do not sufficiently consider that, though the legal cheeks were feeble, the natural checks were strong.  There was one great and effectual limitation on the royal authority, the knowledge that, if the patience of the nation were severely tried, the nation would put forth its strength, and that its strength would be found irresistible.  If a large body of Englishmen became thoroughly discontented, instead of presenting requisitions, holding large meetings, passing resolutions, signing petitions, forming associations and unions, they rose up; they took their halberds and their bows; and, if the sovereign was not sufficiently popular to find among his subjects other halberds and other bows to oppose to the rebels, nothing remained for him but a repetition of the horrible scenes of Berkeley and Pomfret, He had no regular army which could, by its superior arms and its superior skill, overawe or vanquish the sturdy Commons of his realm, abounding in the native hardihood of Englishmen, and trained in the simple discipline of the militia.

It has been said that the Tudors were as absolute as the Caesars.  Never was parallel so unfortunate.  The government of the Tudors was the direct opposite to the government of Augustus and his successors.  The Caesars ruled despotically, by means of a great standing army, under the decent forms of a republican constitution.  They called themselves citizens.  They mixed unceremoniously with other citizens.  In theory they were only the elective magistrates of a free commonwealth.  Instead of arrogating to themselves despotic power, they acknowledged allegiance to the senate.  They were merely the lieutenants of that venerable body.  They mixed in debate.