monarch.

It would be like playing at paradoxes if I went on to adduce many
mysteries and contradictions that strike us when we consider man's
dominion over man. We can only come to the same conclusion if we bring
forward a million of instances; we can only see that the whole human
race, individual by individual, are separated one from the other by
differences more or less minute, and wherever two human beings are
placed together one must inevitably begin to assert mastery over the
other. The method of self-assertion may be that of the athlete, or that
of the intriguer, or that of the clear-sighted over the purblind, or
that of the subtle over the simple; it matters not, the effort for
mastery may be made either roughly or gently, or subtly, or even
clownishly, but made it will be.

Would it not be better to cease babbling of equality altogether, and to
try to accept the laws of life with some submission? The mistake of
rabid theorists lies in their supposition that the assertion of
superiority by one person necessarily inflicts wrong on another, whereas
it is only the mastery obtained by certain men over others that makes
the life of the civilized human creature bearable. The very servant who
is insolent while performing his duty only dares to exhibit rudeness
because he is sure of protection by law. All men are equal before the
law. Yes--but how was the recognition of equality enforced? Simply by
the power of the strong. No monarch in the world would venture to deal
out such measure to our rude servitor as was dealt by Clovis to one of
his men. The king regarded himself as being affronted by his soldier,
and he wiped out the affront to his own satisfaction by splitting his
follower's head in twain. But the civilized man is secured by a bulwark
of legality built up by strong hands, and manned, like the great Roman
walls, by powerful legionaries of the law. In this law of England, if a
peer and a peasant fight out a cause the peer has the advantage of the
strength given by accumulated wealth--that is one example of our
multifarious complexities; but the judge is stronger than either
litigant, and it is the inequality personified by the judge that makes
the safety of the peasant. In our ordered state, the strong have forced
themselves into positions of power; they have decided that the
coarseness of brutish conflict is not to be permitted, and one ruling
agency is established which rests on force, and force alone, but w