implication in their celebrated phrase of "the inalienable prerogatives of the Crown," as interpreted by the stretches of prerogative which they advised. They virtually asserted of one particular polity, or distribution of civil power (c. viii., s. iii., n. 5, p. 312), that which is true only of civil power taken nakedly, apart from the mode of its distribution--they said of _monarchy_ what is true of _government_--that the sum of its power is a constant quantity (c. viii., s. iv., n. 7, p. 322), and that it is of God _antecedently_ to and irrespectively of any determination of popular will. (c. viii., s. iv., n. 10, p. 325.) 3. Such a position is easily refuted, _negatively_, by its being wholly unproven, unless the English Reformation, and the servile spirit in Church and State that promoted and was promoted by the Reformation, can pass for a proof; and again the position is _positively_ refuted, when we come to consider how all that nature requires and God commands, is government under some polity, not government everywhere under monarchy; there being many workable polities besides monarchy. (s. iv., nn. 1-4, p. 319.) 4. The same argument that demolishes Gog, also overturns Magog. The two idols, opposed to one another, stand upon the same pedestal, the identification of government in general with one particular polity, as though _a_ polity were _the_ polity. The great assertor and worshipper of the inalienable sovereignty of the people is Jean Jacques Rousseau. He starts from postulates which we have already rejected--that all men are equal (c. viii., s. i., n. 9, p. 305)--that man is born free (_ib._, n. 10)--that none can be bound to obey another without his own consent (_ib._, n. 11)--that civil society is formed by an arbitrary convention (_ib._, n. 4)--which convention is the Social Contract. (_ib._, n. 5.) From these unreasonable postulates Rousseau draws the conclusion, logically enough, that the sovereign will in every State is the will of the majority of the citizens: but the will of the majority, he goes on, cannot be alienated from the majority: therefore neither can the sovereignty be alienated, but must abide permanently with the people ruling by a majority of votes. The argumentation is excellent, but the premisses are all false. The conclusion is vastly popular, few minds considering from what premisses it is drawn.