pression of democracy. But it is rarely that circumstances allow that the sagacity of a lawgiver has conferred on his nation that good fortune; and when it has happened to be obtained, violence and intrigue have seldom conceded to it a long duration in a state of purity. Sparta, Rome, and some later republics, but particularly England, have sought more or less to attain this ideal standard of perfection; but governments of the simple form have always been more numerous and more permanent.

At the same time it very seldom happens that we find a form of government wholly unmixed. Religion and prevailing opinions impose salutary restraints upon despotism; in monarchies it is not easy for the ruler, without one of these resources, to govern the nobles according to his wishes. An aristocracy is generally indulgent to the people; it sometimes allows them a participation in the most important conclusions; or in the election to certain high offices of state. In like manner democratic governments are, for the most part, held in check by the influence of a perpetual council, which prepares affairs for the deliberation of the popular assembly. By far the most common form of government is the oligarchical. How can the sovereign exercise his power, let

him be as

anxious as he may to govern for himself, without confiding on many occasions in the information and proposals of his ministers? A few party leaders govern the senate and the popular assembly. The ablest, the most eloquent, or the richest, will everywhere take the lead. The essential difference between the forms of government consists in the various pursuits to which a man must direct his endeavours, in order to become powerful in each. Another important consideration relates to the greater or more limited sphere, in which the ruler can exert his arbitrary will.

With respect to the former circumstance, there are scarcely any governments in which the ambition of men is directed altogether as it ought to be; under a wise prince those obtain power who deserved it; under a sovereign of an opposite character, those are successful who possess the greatest skill in the arts of a court. Family influence decides, for the most part, in aristocracies.

The

With the multitude, eloquence and corruption often obtain the victory over real merit. natural desire of self-preservation does not prevent the abuse of power; human passions, full of resources, provide for all contingencies; kings have surrounded themselves with standing armies,

against whose accurate tactics, when no conjecture of circumstances rouses whole nations to the contest, nothing can prevail. The party leaders know how to put their private wishes into the mouths of the people, and thus to avoid all responsibility; moreover, the depraved crowd who receive bribes, and do anything for the permission of licentiousness, would sufficiently protect them. An aristocracy is extremely vigilant over the first and scarcely discernible movements: it leaves everything else to its fate, and is willing to impede even the prosperity of a multitude, which is formidable to it.

With all this, it appears wonderful that the forms of human society could be maintained in the midst of such various corruptions. But the greater number of men are neither firmly bent on good nor on evil; there are few who pursue only one of the two, and that one with all their might; and these, moreover, must be favoured by circumstances, in order to carry their endeavours into effect. Certain attempts are only practicable in particular times; and this forms the distinguishing character of ages, the regulation of which depends on a higher power.

It is fortunate that even imperfect modes of

government have always a certain tendency to order; their founders have surrounded them with a multitude of forms, which always serve as a barrier against great calamities, and which impart to the course of affairs a certain regularity, for which the multitude acquire a sort of veneration. The more forms there are, the fewer commotions happen. So great is their authority, that the conquerors of Rome and China have been obliged to adopt the laws of the conquered countries.

Herein consist also the advantages of the Oriental and other ancient lawgivers: they considered as much the nature of men as the circumstances of their particular subjects; our laws, for the most part, only concern themselves with public affairs. That simplicity of manners, temperance, industry, constancy, those military virtues, which among us each individual must enjoin himself, became among the ancients matter of prescriptive obligation.

In fact, it is only through the influence of manners that society can be maintained; the laws may form them, but men must give assistance to the laws by their own endeavours. Everything will go well when men shall declaim less on their share in the supreme power, and each individual shall

seek to acquire so much the more authority over himself. Let every one aim at attaining a correct estimate of things; for by this means his desires will be very much moderated. Let alterations in the form of government be left to the operation of time, which gives to every people the constitution of which it is susceptible at each particular period, and a different one when it becomes mature for the change.