Bribery has not merely a tendency to involve a nation in wars, which might be avoided, but to enable the ambitious, with the bribes they receive and the money they obtain in such wars, to gain partizans, and contaminate the community.

NOTE 5. All the various forms of government which have appeared in the world, have been very naturally divided into three classes. These are Democracy, Oligarchy, and Monarchy. Under these three divisions, every species of government which can possibly exist, is comprehended. A democracy is a form of government by which the people retain the supreme authority; and in which they exercise, either by themselves or their agents, the power of making, construing, and executing the laws. It is the only free government; and it is divided into two species: one of which is a derivative, complex, or representative democracy; and the other, a primative, simple, or collective democracy. In a representativé democracy, the people exercise the powers of government, by their agents or representatives, who are elected to serve for certain periods, and restricted by a written constitution, which specifies their powers, and their terms of service; and acknowleges the sovereignty of the people. This form is chosen, where the extent of country, or the number of its inhabitants, makes it inconvenient or impracticable for the people to meet, in one body, to enact and enforce their laws. It may be variously modified with respect to the distribution and extent of its power; the number of its representatives; and their periods of service. But if the powers

given are too extensive; placed in an improper department; or continued in the same hands too long, or too short a time, they never fail to become dangerous.

A primative, simple, or collective democracry, is a government, in which the people personally and collectively, and without the assistance or intervention of delegates, enact laws, and administer justice.

An Obligarchy, which is often improperly called an Aristocracy, is a government, which rests the sovereign power in the hands of a few persons, and their heirs, or persons whom they appoint for their successors.

A monarchy is a government, which vests the su preme authority in the hands of one man and his heirs, or persons whom he appoins to succeed him.

Some writers have divided monarchy into limited, and absolute, or despotic monarchy. But a limited monarchy is a visionary government, which exists no where but in the imagination; at least it can have no permanent existence. I shall not deny, that in theory, a mixt or composite government may be formed, and infinitely diversified, by taking different portions of political principles; or by uniting parts of different kinds of governments' But, in practice, though the principles of democracy, obligarchy and monarchy, or of any two of them, may appear to be united; yet even while that appearance continues, the power will be lodged in one, or vibrating from one to the other, until it ultimately settles in monarchy.

An unambitious monarch, may submit to the formalities and appearances of a nominal limitation; but ex

perience has shewn, that whenever a throne is occupied by an ambitious man, these couuterfeit limitations are broken like cobwebs. The reigns of Henry VIII, of Eng-: land, and Gustavus III of Sweden, sufficiently prove the truth of these remarks. But if any more proof be necessary, the conduct of many other kings can also bear testimony to their truth.

Gustavus encompassed the Legislative body with a military force; and while his soldiers with lighted" matches in their hands, stood over the cannon which were pointed towards the Assembly; he broke down in a single day, all the appearances of a limitation, though he had, but a few days before, solemnly swornto support them.

One of those governments which have been called limited monarchies, is that of Great Britain. But it is so far from being limited, that it contains no provision, by which the king is declared to be responsible for his misconduct. But, on the contrary, some of the most celebrious and authentic expounders of English law, have laid it down to be a fundamental principle of their government, that the king can do no wrong; and that he is not answerable, in any human tribunal, nor liable to any punishment, for any act which he may think proper to commit. Now the meaning of this English techical maxim, that the king can do no wrong, is not that they are impeccable, or too good to do wrong, (for their subjects have had many melancholy proofs of the contrary,) but that no act which they can possibly do, is wrong in the eye of the law; for they have made no law against

it; neither is there any constitution, by which the king can be punished for his crimes. Indeed, in a political sense, there is no constitution in England. The people have never been permitted to make any; and unless systematic violence, or arbitrary power, can be called a constitution, there is none, there. Where, then, is the limitation? Is it in a constitution? they have none. Is it in Magna Charta? Magna Charta is a mere statute, which has no more force than another statute; and may be repealed at any time: for that statute did not constitute the government, but the government constituted the statute; and their spurious or sham legislators, have generally been ready to revoke any statute on the slightest intimation from their master. I say master, but if it were not too presumptious, he might be called their creator; for he, and those whom he appoints, form two branches of the legislature; and the third is chiefly composed of his secret pensioners and tools.

The learned professors of the laws of England, have called the power of their government omnipotent; and the king their sovereign: they have said in express terms that his person was sacred, and that no jurisdiction on earth had power to try him in a criminal way, much less to condemn him to punishment: and yet, after all, they endeavour to deceive us, by the scandalous assertion, that the government is limited. The majority of the people have not a single representative; and no rule. which they have established, can impose any restriction on the government; and yet it is limited. The kings person is sacred, intangible, above the laws, and not lia

ble to be restrained or punished, and yet he is a limited monarch. Wonderful limitation! to what lengths will not servility and flattery carry the human mind! But as those able expounders of law have contended that the government of England is limited, lest such honorable men should be suspected of falsehood or hypocrisy, I will search still further for the limitation. And one kind of limit has just occurred to me, which is, perhaps, the one intended by those authors, for they were undoubtedly as conscious of it as I am. The gov ernment of England has been in the practice of squeezing all the taxes from the people, which can possibly have been extorted; and as it can have obtained no more, it has certainly been limited. Thus, after so much inquiry, I have, finally, discovered the limitation. But still, if this physical boundary denominates a limited monar. chy, all monarchies are limited for the same kind of restriction has circumscribed the Grand Seignor, and all other despots; and this boundary, not one of them has been ableto remove.

Monarchs who possessed and exercised the most dispotic power, were sometimes, in fear of their subjects, or of powerful favourites: and, if they had used the English resemblance of limitation, or deception of checks and balances, they would have been no more limited than they were; and perhaps not so much. If a man be a monarch, he has the sovereign power; and how can those who are subject or subordinate, restrict those who are supreme? or how can the smaller power restrain the greater? The will of monarchs is the only