answering back, but agreement with everything which His Majesty chose to ordain. And yet it was in that quarter that the dignity of a free man was most needed ; otherwise such subservience was bound one day to be the ruin of the Monarchy.
This is good enough for toadies by profession, but all proper men—and the best men in the State still are that—will only feel repulsion when such nonsense is defended. For them history is history and truth is truth, even when a Monarch is concerned. No, the happiness of possessing a great man and a great Monarch combined is so seldom the lot of nations that they have to be content if cruel destiny at least spares them a terrible misfit.
Thus the virtue and significance of the monarchical idea cannot rest essentially in the person of the Monarch, unless Heaven deigns to set the crown on the brow of a brilliant hero such as Frederick the Great, or a wise character such as William I. This may happen once in several centuries—hardly oftener. Otherwise the con¬ ception takes precedence of the person, and its signi¬ ficance has to rest exclusively and intrinsically on the institution, and the Monarch himself enters the circle of those who serve it.
One result of wrong-headed education was fear of I IO MY STRUGGLE shouldering responsibility and the consequent weak¬ ness in the handling of essential problems.
I will pick a few cases out of the mass of instances which occur to me.
In journalist circles it is customary to describe the Press as a “Great Power” within the State. It is true that its importance is actually immense. It is hardly possible to over-estimate it—what it does is really to continue education up to an advanced age.
It is an essential interest of State and nation to see that the people do not fall into the hands of bad, ignorant, or indeed ill-disposed teachers. It is