He made no distinction between the unlimited sovereignty of law and the very obviously limited sovereignty of reality.

He must have known that to talk of the independence of the branches of the legislature was simple nonsense at a time when King and peers competed for the control of elections to the House of Commons.

His idealization of a peerage whose typical spiritual member was Archbishop Cornwallis and whose temporal embodiment was the Duke of Bedford would not have deceived a schoolboy had it not provided a bulwark against improvement.

It was ridiculous to describe the Commons as representative of property so long as places like Manchester and Sheffield were virtually disfranchised.
His picture of the royal prerogative was a portrait against every detail of which what was best in England had struggled in the preceding century and a half.

He has nothing to say of the cabinet, nothing of ministerial responsibility, nothing of the party system.