the rulers proper.' Disjointedness, and absolute independence of the parts, in some respects, as the pashalics in Turkey, by no means constitute, as it will have appeared, hamarchy. A united organism is requisite. The polity of England, with her independent judiciary, independent courts, corporations, commons, lords, king, etc., is a hamarchy. The various United States, with their counties, judiciary, state legislatures, and congress, and their thousand semi-official meetings, form a hamarchy. Some of the states, without the American union, would have little of a hamacratic character; the federal government, without the state legislatures and sovereignties, would probably soon lose its hamacratic character.

CXXX. The independence of the parts can be carried much too far, as the activity of certain organs or systems in the body can be too intense, and disease must ensue. It is not the severance from the common system of life that constitutes the independence requisite to hamarchy. The Turks were before the gates of Vienna, diet after diet was held in Germany, but no united effort was made against the fearful enemy. Germans have fought against Germans, until their country has been drenched with the blood of her sons; yet not on account of her hamacratic character, but only on account of its being a loosely united confederacy. France, on the other hand, has for centuries systematically concentrated all power, and is now only in the process of passing from autarchy to hamarchy, restoring, as she does, political life to the various spheres out of Paris. That there are between the two extremes a multitude of shades, is clear. A part of a certain political system may be autarchic, and another have assumed more. of a hamacratic character. It depends upon the mode of operation.

I

One of the most striking proofs of the hamacratic charac

[This word, so far as I can see, ought to denote collegiality, or joint rule of several administrative officers. Hamarchy is a compound unknown to the Greeks, who form almost no compounds with a.]

ter of the English polity is this, that her gigantic capital, much vaster and richer than Paris, though of a country much smaller and less populous than France, has at no period so entirely absorbed the energy of the country, or so absolutely influenced the distant parts, be it in fashion, social intercourse, language, literature, taste, politics, or whatever else, as Paris has influenced and in fact guided France, even though the idea of fashion is so powerful in England. The word province, in France an expression which savors of disdain, has never acquired this meaning in England. A book is not disregarded in England because published in the "province," as it would be in France. Gaining or losing Paris has been gaining or losing France. It will not be always so in future.

CXXXI. The Greeks had no clear perception of hamarchy. Government, with them, strongly inclined towards autarchy, democratic, aristocratic, oligarchic, or monarchic, as we shall see in the next chapter. Yet if we view ancient Greece as a whole, we shall find that, as such, she had a hamacratic character, and many of the unrivalled traits in her glorious civilization are owing to this very fact. The Roman polity had more of a hamacratic character, yet only in the city itself, and could never reach a decided character of this sort in the higher political spheres, on account of the whole view the ancients took of the state; though the Romans left a large sphere of free political action to the cities and provinces. The true germs of hamacratic polity must be sought for in the conquests of the Teutonic races, and the consequent feudal system, which indeed fluctuated long between barbarous anarchy or revolting lawlessness, and an auspicious hamarchy. When the cities with their charters, the provinces with their privileges, etc., etc., were added, the idea of independent action became clearer. In England, again, a sufficient union of the estates took place, not to permit anarchy; yet by happily uniting into two houses, and not one, or not remaining divided into three parts, one of the great foundations of her hamacratic polity was laid. The counties, etc., retained their pro

portionate independence, so the colonies, so almost everything connected with England, and thus she has produced what we may well call the peculiar Anglican hamarchy, which has transplanted political life into many distant regions, and from which the seeds of constitutional liberty have been carried over the continent of Europe. It is mainly the substantial principles of Anglican hamarchy for which continental Europe is now striving and struggling.

CHAPTER XIII.

Political Spirit of the Ancients.-The Ancients had not what we call Law of Nature. Essential Difference between the View of the State taken by the Ancients and the Moderns.-Greek Meaning of Liberty: absolute Equality, even disavowing the Inequality of Talent and Virtue.-Protection of the Individual, first object of the Moderns; the Existence of the State, of the Ancients: hence high Importance of Judicial Forms with the Moderns. He who has Supreme Power, be it One, Many, or All, must not sit in Judgment.— Greek Laws often very oppressive to the Individual.-The most private Affairs frequently interfered with.- Socrates' View of the State-Lavalette, Hugo Grotius, and Lord John Russell, on the other hand.-Ostracism.-Causes of the powerful Change in the View of the State. — Christianity. - Conquest of the Roman Empire by Teutonic Tribes. - Feudalism. — Increased Extent of States. Printing. - Increased Wants of Government. - Taxation. — Rise of the Third Estate.-Increased Industry.-Discovery of America.

CXXXII. THE Civilization of the ancient Greeks and Romans was in many respects higher than that of the moderns; in others, the latter would have the advantage in the comparison; and among those things in which the most civilized modern nations excel the two gifted and noble ones of antiquity, or perhaps that subject in which we most signally and characteristically surpass them, is public law, or that branch of law which defines the relation of the individual to the state. With the ancients, all that an individual was, he was as a member of the state. The moderns, on the other hand, acknowledge the humanity in the individual, besides his civility or citizenship. We speak of individual, of primordial, rights; we consider the protection of the individual as one of the chief subjects of the whole science of politics. The Rodiτix èniorýμn, or political science, of the ancients, does not occupy itself with the rights of the individual; the ancient science of politics is what we would term the art of government, that is, "the art of regulating the state, and the means

of preserving and directing it." The ancients start with the state, and deduce every relation of the individual to it from this first position; the moderns acknowledge that the state, however important and indispensable to mankind, however natural, and though of absolute necessity, still is but a means to obtain certain objects both for the individual, and society collectively, in which the individual is, by his nature, bound to live. The ancients have not that which the moderns understand by jus naturale, that is, the law which flows from the individual rights of man as man, and decides what the objects are which justice demands for every one and which the state is bound to promote and protect. On what supreme power rests, what the extent and limitation of supreme power ought to be, according to the fundamental idea of the state,-these questions have never occupied the ancient votaries of political science.

Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, do not begin with this question. Their works are mainly occupied with the discussion of the question, Who shall govern? The safety of the state is their principal problem; the safety of the individual is one of our greatest. No ancient, therefore, doubted the extent of supreme power. If the people had it, no one ever hesitated in allowing absolute power over every one and everything. If it passed from the people to a few, or was usurped by one, they considered, in many cases, the acquisition of power unlawful, but

Heeren, Sketch of the Political History of Greece, translated, Oxford, 1834, p. 140.

2 But even here we find that the gigantic mind of Aristotle had a glimmering of the truth far in advance of his times, when in his Politics, iii. 7, and Ethics, viii. 12, he finds the essential difference of states not in the number of rulers, but in the object of government, whether this be the welfare of the whole, in which monarchy, aristocracy, and polity are to be classed, or the interest of a few, in which he classes tyrannis, oligarchy, and democracy. Democracy he distinguishes from polity by this, that in the latter the most numerous class of citizens, the indigent, vote according to their separate interest, while in the absolute democracy, as we would call it now, the great number must always outvote the smaller number, and are led by a few. The moderns know a third - the representative principle.