CHAMBERS'S INFORMATION FOR THE PEOPLE. 



intelligent and order-loving people, accustomed to 

 freedom by a preliminary training under a consti- 

 tutional monarchy. It is often loudly maintained 

 by continental politicians, and tacitly assumed by 

 those at home, that, however frightful may have 

 been the horrors of the French Revolution, its 

 ultimate results were a vast stride in advance in 

 the direction of liberty, not for Frenchmen alone, 

 but for mankind. That France has suffered more 

 than she has gained, is a conviction which has 

 been gradually forced upon most people, as each 

 fresh page in her troubled history unfolded itself. 

 But the impression of the general value of the revo- 

 lution remains, and many have been brought by 

 reiterated assertion to regard it as marking the 

 point at which mankind fell heir to liberties of 

 which even our own forefathers never dreamed. Yet 

 can we put our finger on a single point in which 

 the creed of the Revolution was really an advance 

 on that which had been held, and more or less 

 perfectly realised, by Englishmen for ages ? We 

 are told, for example, that ' it transferred the ulti- 

 mate sovereignty from the king to the people;' 

 but the people was the ultimate sovereign in Eng- 

 land, as Mr Freeman has proved to us, from 

 Anglo-Saxon times downwards. Then 'it broke 

 up exclusive and privileged classes ;' but we never 

 had any exclusive classes at all, or privileged 

 classes either, except the peerage, and even their 

 privileges did not exempt them from citizen 

 duties. It declared ' all careers open to talent ;' 

 but all careers, the throne only excepted, always 

 were open to talent in England. It made 'all 

 men equal before the law;' but therein it only 

 recognised one of our oldest constitutional maxims. 

 The moment it went farther, it went wrong. It no 

 doubt declared all men equal in a sense unknown 

 to us : it declared them equal in rights, however 

 unequal they were in merits ; whereas we had 

 always followed more or less consistently the 

 Aristotelian rule of making merits the measure of 

 rights. But did it thereby lay the foundation of a 

 wider liberty and a fairer order than ours ; or did 

 it simply offer to mankind the option of anarchy 

 or despotism? The latter, as yet, must be the 

 response. 



Concluding Remarks. 



In considering the nature and supposed influ- 

 ence of different forms of government, of which 

 the preceding notices afford examples, it is import- 

 ant to guard ourselves against the too common 

 error of mistaking names for things. A despotism 

 has been described as the government of an irre- 

 sponsible individual ; and a republic, as a govern- 

 ment formed by the concurrence of the whole 

 people. We should, however, be liable to commit 

 an error did we at once rush to the conclusion, 

 that a despotism was invariably tyrannical ; and 

 that a republic was certain to be in every instance 

 tolerant. It may happen that a despotism is 

 really the more liberal of the two. This will occur 

 when the despot is an intelligent and benevolent 

 man. Instead of tormenting his subjects, he will 

 take a pleasure in seeing them happy and pros- 

 perous ; while, by a sleepless and undistracted 

 vigilance, he will conduct the government with a 

 degree of firmness and efficiency not to be equalled 

 by a miscellaneously composed body. Such a 

 beneficent government as this, is said to be pater- 

 nal j the sovereign acting as if he were the father 



and guardian of his people. Could it be possible 

 to secure a continuance of sovereigns of this char- 

 acter, we might almost arrive at the conviction 

 that despotisms were the best forms of govern- 

 ment ; but, unfortunately, there is no security on 

 this score ; an evil may follow a well-disposed 

 ruler, and suddenly the nation may be thrown into 

 confusion. On this account, it should be the object 

 of despotisms of the paternal character to prepare 

 the people for the degree of self-government inci- 

 dental to a constitutional monarchy ; and having 

 done so, to grant a constitution which will insure 

 good government on a permanent basis. 



That republics may be liberal and tolerant 

 only in name, we have too many examples in 

 history. Not to go farther back than the French 

 Revolution of 1789-1793, what despotism ever 

 equalled, or came within many degrees of, the 

 republican Convention, which for years oppressed 

 and deluged France in blood ! Not even the 

 tyranny of Nero or Caligula could be compared to 

 the disregard of all public and private rights 

 manifested by that iniquitous and popularly con- 

 stituted body. The only historical episode that 

 approaches it in atrocity is the brief reign of the 

 Commune in Paris in 1871. The weak point in 

 all republics is, that the most noisy and forward, 

 who are usually the most ignorant, gain the 

 ascendency, and, under colour of constitutional 

 privilege, tyrannise over the more quietly disposed 

 and intelligent citizens, many of whom, shrinking 

 from the turbulence of faction, retire altogether 

 from public affairs; so that, finally, the much 

 admired republican government is found to be a 

 mere government by venal and presumptuous 

 demagogues. The same danger, in kind, if not in 

 degree, attends all states, whatever their form, in 

 which the ultimate sovereignty rests with the 

 numerical majority. All this we mention, in con- 

 sequence of the value which we attach to liberty as 

 a reality, and in order to put people on their guard 

 against the illusions of a name. Let it be remem- 

 bered that government is a complex machine, ful- 

 filling a wide variety of purposes, and that it is to 

 be judged of less from the precise nature of its con- 

 struction, than the quality of the work it performs. 

 Another conclusion we arrive at is That good 

 government, although it certainly promotes the 

 civilisation of a country, is much more its con- 

 sequence than its cause ; and that attention to the 

 conduct and constitution of government, although 

 a duty of the citizen, is only one of many public 

 duties not less important and necessary both to 

 the general wellbeing of society and the happiness 

 of the individual. 



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION. 



Whatever be the form of government, it re- 

 quires to be conducted by a set of functionaries 

 capable of superintending the different branches 

 of the public service. The chief officials at the 

 head of affairs, and who act as the cabinet council 

 of the sovereign, are usually styled ministers, a 

 word signifying servants ; and collectively they 

 are called the ministry. In constitutional govern- 

 ments the ministry are appointed by the sover- 

 eign, and take on themselves the entire respon- 

 sibility of all acts of the crown. The British 

 ministry, which is constructed on no broad prin- 

 ciple, but is merely a result of occasional additions 



