. 341 
eee ~ GOVERNMENT.. 
Govenwuens, in political science, sometimes signi- 
’ fies the act of carrying the yee archaea execu- 
tion ; sometimes the person, or persons who, as a 
yate branch of the constitution, are lawfully charged 
with that function ; and sometimes it imports the whole 
frame of the civil polity. In this latter and more com- 
prehensive sense, it is synonymous with constitution ; 
. apne eeeeeentes panpoee bere: to ean ploy de 
_ In endeavouring to simplify a subject so infinitely 
varied and complex, Aristotle and othen ancient writers 
have reduced all systems of government to the primary 
‘and elementary forms of Democracy, Aristocracy, and 
Despotism. Under the first, the whole body of the peo- 
ple are at once the sovereign and the subject ; laws are 
enacted by them alone, and the whole business of the 
commonwealth, whether it be the command of armies, 
‘the judiciary and ecclesiastical functions, negotiations 
_ with foreign states, or any other department of affairs, 
is transacted by officers appointed by them, and re- 
ible to their authority. Under the second form, 
ety are subject to the few,—on whom superior 
wealth, talent, and, it may be, virtue, have originally 
_ conferred power, and in whose descendants a still fur- 
ther accumulation of wealth,—ambition,—and the popu- 
lar sentiment in favour of illustrious birth, even where 
talent and virtue have no , have, by a natural and 
easy transition, confirmed it. Under a Despotism, no 
orders are issued, no measures adopted, no affairs trans- 
acted, but with an exclusive reference to the personal 
tification of the prince, or the security of his power. 
ws which, under a Democracy, are enacted by the 
‘people themselves, and, under an Aristocracy, by the 
nobles, as the rule of public and private conduct, and the 
measure of public and private —_ have no existence 
under a Despotism. The will of the tyrant is the sole 
law,--which, therefore, fluctuates every moment, and the 
people, their children, and their p: , exist only in 
subservience to his passions, his caprices, and his crimes. 
Modern writers, and particularly the President Mon- 
tesquieu, have regarded this arrangement of the ele- 
forms of government as inaccurate. Accord-~ 
ing to the well known division of that eloquent philoso- 
, these forms are, in like manner, three; the Repub- 
ican, the Monarchical, and the Despotic. Under the 
first, he comprehends the Democratical and Aristocrati- 
cal of the ancients ;. his description of which, as well as 
of the ic form, ds with theirs. The de- 
ipti the Monarchical form differs in nothing from 
that of the Aristocratical, except that, in the latter, the su- 
preme power is exercised by a combined plurality, but, in 
the former, by asingle individual. As in the Aristocrati- 
cal too, the administration of the nobles is controlled by 
the laws which they have themselves enacted ; so, in the 
Monarchical, that of the prince is restrained, however im- 
perfectly, by the rules of his own sovereign appointment; 
and this, asin both the Republican forms, constitutes 
the elementary difference between it and the Despotic. 
But, © ing to this eee the ancient ar- 
rangement is not so ly inaccurate, as incomplete. 
The arrangement. of Raden is precisely that of 
the Greek pale with the addition of the Mo- 
narchical form. @ inaccuracy, it would seem, is ra- 
ther chargeable upon him, since, in his enunciation of 
the elementary or simple forms of government, he li- 
mits, after the ancients, the number to three, whilst, in 
his description, he enumerates, (as they appear to us, ) 
four essentially different systems. For though he has 
combined the Democratical and Aristocratical forms un- 
der the general term republican, it is difficult to per- 
ceive in what sense the latter is more republican than 
the Monarchy of his enumeration. e character- 
istic difference, according to his own description, be- 
tween an Aristocracy and such a Monarchy, consists,in 
ra eatery in the one case, and, in the other, in 
the plurality ersons by whom the soverei wer 
is exercised. The people are absolutely excluded alike 
under both, from all share in the public authority.; 
alike under both, the concerns of the state, its interests, 
its , and its rights, are in no respect subject to 
their control or interference. In what sense therefore 
can these rights, interests, and concerns, or (which is 
here the same thing) the power by which they are re- 
gulated ard controlled, be denominated republican, 
when applied to the Aristocratical form, which will not 
be equally applicable to the Monarchical ? 
Whether this enumeration of the elementary govern- 
ments, as enlarged by Montesquieu, be complete, we 
shall not at present stop to inquire ;—that it is charge~ 
able with the inaccuracy we have alluded to, can scarce- 
ly, we think, be questioned. We rather proceed to ob- 
serve, (what must likewise be well known to most of 
our readers,) that the same writer, besides describing the 
nature of the different simpler forms of government, has, 
with no less elegance than, as it appears to us, sound 
philosophy, indicated the principle wpon which they 
chiefly depend for their respective support. 
Under the Democratical form, public virtue, perva- 
ding the hearts and cornluct of the whole body of the 
people, is the animating and sustaining principle. 
Every selfish and exclusive purpose must be relinquish- 
ed by the individual ; and his country, its glory, and its 
happiness, must take entire possession of his breast, 
Proud distinction for popular government! and happy 
the people among whom it is established, if the prin- 
ciple were'a sure consequence of the form! 
Under an Aristocracy, (and as a distinct principle is 
ascribed to it, we have here a further indication that it 
constitutes a fourth form, altogether different from a 
Democracy with which the celebrated writer we have 
alluded to, had classed it,) moderation, as well on the 
of the few who govern, as of the many who obey, 
is the principle. If, among the former, any individual 
aspire to an over-ruling share of power, a tendency to 
the Monarchical or to the Despotic form, immediately 
arises ; and if, among the latter, a sense of public rights, 
a spirit of patriotism, a disposition to interfere with the 
government, should appear, a tendency emerges in fa- 
vour of Democracy. 
Under the Monarchical form, the preserving principle 
is said to be honour. The word is abundantly vague and 
illusory, because the thing signified is commonly so also ; 
but here it seems to import, that each individual of a nu- 
merous nobility, (for a Monarchy, in the sense of Mon- 
tesquieu, implies a nobility,—no nobles, no king,) as well 
as the wholeorder considered as a separate body, and even 
each individual of the people, as well as the separate class= 
es of which they may be composed, are constantly actuat- 
ed bya jealousy fortheir respective and exclusive interests 
and consequence. Ever jostling in the pursuit of these ob- 
jects ; ever suspicious of mutual encroachments ; and, at 
the same time, alike intent upon securing a portion of the 
royal favour, through one or other of the many chan- 
nels in which, in a Monarchy so nearly absolute, it al- 
ways abundantly flows, they become at once the vigilant 
