A princely marriage is the brilliant edition of a universal fact, and, as such, it rivets mankind.  We smile at the Court Circular; but remember how many people read the Court Circular!  Its use is not in what it says, but in those to whom it speaks.  They say that the Americans were more pleased at the Queen’s letter to Mrs. Lincoln, than at any act of the English Government.  It was a spontaneous act of intelligible feeling in the midst of confused and tiresome business.  Just so a royal family sweetens politics by the seasonable addition of nice and pretty events.  It introduces irrelevant facts into the business of government, but they are facts which speak to “men’s bosoms” and employ their thoughts.

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.  Accordingly, so long as the human heart is strong and the human reason weak, royalty will be strong because it appeals to diffused feeling, and Republics weak because they appeal to the understanding.

Secondly.  The English Monarchy strengthens our Government with the strength of religion.  It is not easy to say why it should be so.  Every instructed theologian would say that it was the duty of a person born under a Republic as much to obey that Republic as it is the duty of one born under a Monarchy to obey the monarch.  But the mass of the English people do not think so; they agree with the oath of allegiance; they say it is their duty to obey the “Queen,” and they have but hazy notions as to obeying laws without a queen.  In former times, when our Constitution was incomplete, this notion of local holiness in one part was mischievous.  All parts were struggling, and it was necessary each should have its full growth.  But superstition said one should grow where it would, and no other part should grow without its leave.  The whole cavalier party said it was their duty to obey the king, whatever the king did.  There was to be “passive obedience” to him, and there was no religious obedience due to any one else.  He was the “Lord’s anointed,” and no one else had been anointed at all.  The Parliament, the laws, the press were human institutions; but the Monarchy was a Divine institution.  An undue advantage was given to a part of the Constitution, and therefore the progress of the whole was stayed.

After the Revolution this mischievous sentiment was much weaker.  The change of the line of sovereigns was at first conclusive, If there was a mystic right in any one, that right was plainly in James II.; if it was an English duty to obey any one whatever he did, he was the person to be so obeyed; if there was an inherent inherited claim in any king, it was in the Stuart king to whom the crown had come by descent, and not in the Revolution king to whom it had come