With all the pride of a Hohenzoller, a sentiment which he never relinquishes, and which, indeed, is a constant spur to regulate his conduct by a high standard, he yet holds that nobody should let a servant do for him what he can do for himself. Also, he has ever felt an unaffected liking for people of humble station who lead useful lives, and have raised themselves _honestly_ by their own merit. In fact, the man who works--however lowly his sphere of life--is nearer to his sympathies than one whose position gives him an excuse for laziness. He instinctively dislikes the "loafer," whatever his birth. He admits as little that exalted position is an excuse for a useless life as that it should be put forward to excuse deviation from the principles of traditional morality. And in this respect his own life, which has been singularly marked by what the German language terms "Sittenreinheit," "purity of morals," offers an impressive justification for his intolerance upon this one particular point. V It is said to be King Charles's earnest conviction that the maxims he has striven to put into practice are the only possible ones upon which a monarchy on a democratic basis can hope to exist in our time. But here he is obviously attempting to award to principle what, in this instance at least, must be largely due to the intuitive gifts of an extraordinary personality. Maxims are all very well so far as they go, but they did not go the whole length of the way. Did not even Immanuel Kant himself admit that, during a long experience as a tutor, he had never been able to put those precepts successfully into practice upon which his work on "Pädagogik" is founded? Also many of the difficulties successfully encountered by the King of Roumania have been of such a nature as cut-and-dry application of precepts or maxims would never have sufficed to vanquish. Among these may be cited the acute crises which from time to time have been the product of bitter party-warfare in Roumania. Thus, during the Franco-German War, when the sympathies of the Roumanian people were with the French to a man, his position was one of extreme difficulty. The spiteful enmity he encountered in those days taxed his endurance to its utmost limits, and even called forth a threat of abdication. A weaker man would have left his post. Again, in 1888, when a peasant rising brought about by party intrigues seemed to threaten the results of many years' labour, even experienced statesmen hinted that the Hohenzollern dynasty might not last another six months. The King was advised to use force and fire upon the rioters. This he declined to do. He simply dismissed the Ministry from office, and called the Opposition into power, and subsequent events proved that his decision was the right one. But by far the greatest crisis of his reign, and at the same time the greatest test of his nerve and political sagacity, was furnished by the singularly difficult situation of Roumania during