Above all things our royalty is to be reverenced, and if you begin to poke about it you cannot reverence it.

We must not bring the Queen into the combat of politics, or she will cease to be reverenced by all combatants; she will become one combatant among many.

The existence of this secret power is, according to abstract theory, a defect in our constitutional polity, but it is a defect incident to a civilisation such as ours, where august and therefore unknown powers are needed, as well as known…

Both the courtiers of George III. and the courtiers of Queen Victoria are agreed as to the magnitude of the royal influence.

It is with both an accepted secret doctrine that the Crown does more than it seems.

The mystery of the Constitution, which used to be hated by our calmest, most thoughtful, and instructed statesmen, is now loved and reverenced by them.

If the Queen had been an ordinary officer she would long since have complained, and long since have been relieved of this slavish labour.

But it is in truth childish to heap formal duties of business upon a person who has of necessity so many formal duties of society.

It is a remnant of the old days when George III. would know everything, however trivial, and assent to everything, however insignificant.

The best mode of testing what we owe to the Queen is to make a vigorous effort of the imagination, and see how we should get on without her.

Let us strip Cabinet government of all its accessories, let us reduce it to its two necessary constituents--a representative assembly (a House of Commons) and a Cabinet appointed by that assembly--and examine how we should manage with them…

We are so little accustomed to analyse the Constitution; we are so used to ascribe the whole effect of the Constitution to the whole Constitution, that a great many people will imagine it to be impossible that a nation should thrive or…

A monarch that can be truly reverenced, a House of Peers that can be really respected, are historical accidents nearly peculiar to this one island, and entirely peculiar to Europe.

A new country, if it is to be capable of a Cabinet government, if it is not to degrade itself to Presidential government, must create that Cabinet out of its native resources--must not rely on these Old World debris.

We shall then see the bare skeleton of this polity, perceive in what it differs from the royal form, and be quite free from the imputation of having selected an unduly charming and attractive substitute.

Let us suppose the House of Commons--existing alone and by itself--to appoint the Premier quite simply, just as the shareholders of a railway choose a director.

The Premier should not be appointed for a fixed time, but during good behaviour or the pleasure of Parliament.

The Premier then, as now, must resign upon a vote of want of confidence, but the volition of Parliament would then be the overt and single force in the selection of a successor, whereas it is now the predominant though latent force.

Let us consider what is the exact use of the Queen at each of these stages, and how our present form of government differs in each, whether for good or for evil from that simpler form of Cabinet government which might exist without her.

The sovereign must now accept that recognised leader; and if the choice were directly made by the House of Commons, the House must also choose him; its supreme section, acting compactly and harmoniously, would sway its decisions without…

The best sovereign could then achieve no good, and the worst effect no harm.

But the difficulties are far greater when the predominant party is not agreed who should be its leader.

The tacit compression which a party anxious for office would exercise over leaders who divided its strength, would be used and must be used.

In a party once divided it is very difficult to secure unanimity in favour of the very person whom a disinterested bystander would recommend.

All manner of jealousies and enmities are immediately awakened, and it is always difficult, often impossible, to get them to sleep again.