“The electorate is, in fact, the sovereign of England. It is a body which does not, and from its nature hardly can, itself legislate, and which, owing chiefly to historical causes, has left in existence a theoretically supreme legislature.”--_Ibid._, p. 355. “Our modern mode of constitutional morality secures, though in a roundabout way, what is called abroad ‘the sovereignty of the people.’”--_Ibid._ [24] The American system would not have succeeded in France. If the president had exercised the authority of an American president the Chamber would not have endured it, and there would have been a presidential crisis, with a new presidential election, every six months. The present system is not ideally perfect, but it suits the French temper better than any other that modern ingenuity can devise. [25] It may be answered that this could be done by refusing to vote the supplies, but if the Sovereign were perfectly obstinate the House of Commons could not long put a stop to the working of the public service. [26] It is an English habit to represent _égalité_ as an Utopian aspiration for equality in all things. The French understand it to mean nothing more than equality before the law. [27] Article in the _Contemporary Review_ for March 1888. [28] The reader will observe that I have substituted “nobility” for “House of Lords,” as there is no House of Lords in France, and “clerical” for “academical” education, as there is nothing corresponding to Oxford and Cambridge. [29] _Popular Government_, Essay III. [30] An English critic once said that the decimal monetary system had not yet been accepted by the French people because they counted in sous. They do not invariably count in sous, but they often do, and that without being unfaithful to the decimal principle, as may be seen by the following table:-- The five-franc piece = 100 sous. The half-franc piece = 10 sous. The one-sou piece = 1 sou. [31] The word “conservative” is not used in this place with reference to the Tory party alone. There is much conservative sentiment in other parties. [32] Even if the English did ultimately adopt the French weights and measures, without the coinage, they would not enjoy the full convenience of those systems, which consists in great part in their _relation_ to the coinage. For example, in English land measure (what is called “square measure”) you have 160 poles to the acre. A farmer takes an acre at thirty-seven shillings, how much is that per pole? I do not know; I must make an elaborate calculation to find it out. A French farmer takes a _hectare_ at sixty-seven francs, how much is that per _are_? Owing to the _intentional relation between measures and money_, the answer comes instantaneously, without calculation, sixty-seven centimes.