judge upon. Here, both in the power given, and its limitations, we have
always cautiously felt our way. The parts of our Constitution have
gradually, and almost insensibly, in a long course of time, accommodated
themselves to each other, and to their common as well as to their
separate purposes. But this adaptation of contending parts, as it has
not been in ours, so it can never be in yours, or in any country, the
effect of a single instantaneous regulation, and no sound heads could
ever think of doing it in that manner.

I believe, Sir, that many on the Continent altogether mistake the
condition of a king of Great Britain. He is a real king, and not an
executive officer. If he will not trouble himself with contemptible
details, nor wish to degrade himself by becoming a party in little
squabbles, I am far from sure that a king of Great Britain, in whatever
concerns him as a king, or indeed as a rational man, who combines his
public interest with his personal satisfaction, does not possess a more
real, solid, extensive power than the king of France was possessed of
before this miserable revolution. The direct power of the king of
England is considerable. His indirect, and far more certain power, is
great indeed. He stands in need of nothing towards dignity,--of nothing
towards splendor,--of nothing towards authority,--of nothing at all
towards consideration abroad. When was it that a king of England wanted
wherewithal to make him respected, courted, or perhaps even feared, in
every state in Europe?

I am constantly of opinion that your States, in three orders, on the
footing on which they stood in 1614, were capable of being brought into
a proper and harmonious combination with royal authority. This
constitution by Estates was the natural and only just representation of
France. It grew out of the habitual conditions, relations, and