not himself a strong liking for
democratic principles, "the rights of the people," "the royalty of man,"
which Burns was then blazing forth, and held such sentiments as quite
justified the prime minister's accusation that he was "a sad radical."

In Britain, since Watt's day, all traces of opposition to monarchy
aroused by the French Revolution have disappeared, as completely as the
monarchy of King George. The "limited monarchy" of to-day, developed
during the admirable reign of Queen Victoria, has taken its place. The
French abolished monarchy by a frontal attack upon the citadel,
involving serious loss. Not such the policy of the colder Briton. He won
his great victory, losing nothing, by flanking the position. That the
king "could do no wrong," is a doctrine almost coeval with modern
history, flowing from the "divine right" of kings, and, as such, was
quietly accepted. It needed only to be properly harnessed to become a
very serviceable agent for registering the people's will.

It was obvious that the acceptance of the doctrine that the king could
do no wrong involved the duty of proving the truth of the axiom, and it
was equally obvious that the only possible way of doing this was that
the king should not be allowed to do anything. Hence he was made the
mouthpiece of his ministers, and it is not the king, but they, who,
being fallible men, may occasionally err. The monarch, in losing power
to do anything has gained power to influence everything. The ministers
hold office through the approval of the House of Commons. Members of
that house are elected by the people. Thus stands government in Britain
"broad-based upon the people's will."

All that the revolutionists of Watt's day desired has, in substance,
been obtained, and Britain has become in truth a "crowned republic,"
with "government of the people, for the people, and by the people." This
steady and beneficent development was peaceably attained. The
difference between the French and British methods is that between
revolution and evolution.

In America's political domain, a similar evolution has been even more
silently at work than in Britain during the past century, and is not yet
exhausted--the transformation of a loose confederacy of sovereign
states, with different laws, into one solid government, which assumes
control and insures uniformity over one department after another. The
centripetal forces grow stronger with the years; power leaves the
individua