The chief of the state in those days had a great craze for economy, and he thought he could make a bold stroke for saving money by doing away with the human king, who cost a good deal, and substituting a dynasty of turtles, which would be cheap.
He made his proposal to parliament, and supported it for days by the most cogent arguments. He said the position of a king who had nothing to do was dangerous and demoralizing to both country and king. He might rebel against his lot and enter into a conspiracy against the constitution and even succeed in upsetting it; or, if he did not do so, he would certainly tend to degenerate into a mere idle, luxurious wretch. They had no right to expose the constitution to such danger, or the king to this demoralization. Since they had done away with the king's signature to state documents, the sovereign had now nothing earthly to do except to show himself on occasions of public ceremonials. In other countries the sovereign, however destitute of real power, had always to prove himself to be a person of intelligence by receiving and talking to illustrious persons who might visit the country, or ambassadors who might be accredited to him. But as there was no possibility of such services being demanded from him here, no intelligence whatever was required by him; consequently a turtle would be able to discharge the duties of the office with equal or greater efficiency than the human king. He adduced a hundred other reasons for doing away with the human sovereign, for he was a most fluent orator, but the feeling was so strong against the proposed change, that he saw there was no chance of carrying it by the votes of the members of parliament; so when the progress of the debate convinced
