# The American Democrat/On Government

ON GOVERNMENT.
Man is known to exist in no part of the world, without certain rules for the regulation of his intercourse with those around him. It is a first necessity of his weakness, that laws, founded on the immutable principles of natural justice, should be framed, in order to protect the feeble against the violence of the strong; the honest from the schemes of the dishonest; the temperate and industrious, from the waste and indolence of the dissolute and idle. These laws, though varying with circumstances, possess a common character, being formed on that consciousness of right, which God has bestowed in order that men may judge between good and evil.
Governments have many names, which names, in all cases, are dependent on some one of the leading features of the institutions. It is usual, however, to divide governments into despotisms, limited monarchies, and republicks; but these terms are too vague to answer the objects of definitions, since many aristocracies have existed under the designation of monarchies, and many monarchies have been styled republicks.
​A despotism is a government of absolute power, in which the entire authority is the possession of the prince. The term "despot," as applied to a sovereign, however, is not properly one of reproach. It merely signifies a ruler who is irresponsible for his acts, and who governs without any legal restraint on his will. The word "tyrant" had originally the same meaning, though, in a measure, both have become so far corrupted as to convey an idea of abuses.
A limited monarchy is a government in which the will of the sovereign is restrained by certain provisions of the state, that cannot lawfully be violated. In its true signification, the word monarch means any prince at the head of a state. Monarchs are known by different titles; such as emperors, kings, princes, grand dukes, dukes, &c. &c.; but it is not now common to apply the term to any below the rank of kings. The title of sovereign is of more general use, though properly meaning the same thing as that of monarch.
A republick is a government in which the pervading acknowledged principle is the right of the community as opposed to the right of a sovereign. In other words, the term implies the sovereignty of the people, in lieu of that of a monarch. Thus nations which have possessed kings, dukes, and princes at their heads, have been termed republicks, because they have reserved the right to elect the monarchs; as was formerly the case in Poland, Venice, Genoa, and in many other of the Italian states, in particular. Even Napoleon continued to style France a republick, after he had assumed the imperial diadem, because his elevation to the throne was sanctioned by the votes of the French nation. The term, in his case, however, was evidently misapplied, for the crown was made hereditary in his family, while the polity of a ​republick supposes a new election on the death of the last ruler, if not oftener. In the case of Napoleon, the people elected a dynasty, rather than a prince.
In a republick the chief of the state is always elective. Perhaps this fact is the most accurate technical distinction between a monarchy and this form of government, though the pervading principle of the first is the right of the sovereign, and of the last the right of the community. The term republick, (respublica) means the public things, or the common weal. Hence the term commonwealth, the word wealth, in its political sense, meaning prosperity in general, and not riches in particular.
If these theoretical distinctions were rigidly respected, it would be easy to infer the real character of a government from its name; but nothing can be less alike than governments ordinarily are, in their action, and in their professions. Thus despotism can scarcely be said to exist in truth, in any part of Christendom; monarchs being compelled to govern according to established laws, which laws are formed on principles reasonably just, while they are restrained in the exercise of their will by an opinion that has been created by the advanced intelligence of the age.
Some kings are monarchs only in name, the power having essentially passed into the hands of a few of their nominal subjects; and, on the other hand, some princes, who, by the constitutional principles of the system, are deemed to be but a part of the state, effectually control it, by means of bribes, rewards, and political combinations, submitting to little more restraint than the nominal despots. Just at this time, Prussia is an instance of the first of these truths, England of the second, and France of the last.
Prussia, though a despotism in theory, is governed ​as mildly, and, apart from political justice, as equitably and legally, as any other country. The will of the sovereign is never made to interfere, arbitrarily, with the administration of law, and the law itself proceeds from the principles that properly influence all legislation, though it can only receive its authority from the will of the king. That country furnishes a proof of the progress of opinion, as well as of its power to check abuses. It was only the great grandfather of the present sovereign who caused tall men to marry tall women at his command, in order to gratify a silly desire to possess a regiment of the tallest troops in the world. The influence of opinion on governments has been greatly aided by the wars and revolutions of the last, and of the present century, in which privileges have been diminished, and the rights, as well as, what is perhaps of more importance, the knowledge of their rights among the people, have been greatly augmented.
England, which is called a monarchy, is in fact a complicated but efficient aristocracy. Scarcely one of the powers that is attributed to the king by the constitution, and which were in truth exercised by his predecessors, is possessed by the present monarch in fact. By the constitution, the king of England is supposed to form a balance between the nobles and the people, whereas, in truth, his utmost influence is limited to holding a balance between parties, and this only in cases of a nearly equal force between contending factions. The extent of the authority of the king of England, at the present day, amounts to little more than the influence which he is permitted to use in minor cases, the aristocracy having devised expedients to control him on all occasions that are deemed of moment. As the mode in which this change has been effected, illustrates the manner in which ​governments are made to take one character, while they profess to belong to another, a brief exposition will aid the reader in understanding the subject.
The king of England can do no wrong, but the ministers are responsible to parliament. As the country has no written constitution, and laws enacted by the king, lords and commons, have the force of constitutional provisions, a system has been established, by taking advantage of the necessities of different sovereigns, by which no executive act is legal, that is not sanctioned by at least one responsible minister. It follows, the monarch can do nothing to which his parliament is seriously opposed, since no minister will incur the risk of its displeasure. It is true that the nominal assent of the king is necessary to the enactment of a law, but the ministers being responsible for the consequences if it is withheld, and the parliament alone being the judge of these consequences, as well as of the criminals, while it has an active jealousy of its own power, no instance of the exercise of this authority has occurred for more than a century. The right to withhold supplies has been the most efficient agent of the parliament, in subduing the authority of the crown.
By the theory of the British constitution, the king can declare war. Formerly this prerogative was exercised by different warlike sovereigns for personal motives. Now, the right exists only in name, for no minister would consent to give the declaration the legal forms, with the certainty of being impeached, and punished, unless acting in accordance with the wishes of parliament.
Although parliament exercises this authority in all cases of importance, the ministers are permitted to perform most minor acts of authority unquestioned, so long as they have a party in the legislature to ​sustain them. This party, however, is necessary to their remaining in the ministry, and it follows that the majority of parliament controls the very appointment of ministers, the only important political function that the king can now, even in theory, exercise without the intervention of a responsible minister. Were he, however, to appoint a minister in opposition to the wishes of parliament, that body would refuse the required laws. The first requisite, therefore, on the formation of a new ministry, is to enquire who can "meet parliament," as it is termed; or, in other words, what ministers will be agreeable to a majority of the legislature.
Thus, while the king of England says who shall be his ministers, the parliament says who they shall not be; and, in this instance, supported as it is by a control of all legislation, the negative power is found to be stronger than the affirmative. In reality, the ministers of Great-Britain are appointed by the parliament of the country, and not by the king, and this is virtually neutralizing, if not directly annihilating, all the available authority of the latter.
In theory, the government of France and that of Great-Britain have the same general character. In practice, however, owing to the greater political advancement of the last of these two countries, France, to-day, is not far from the point where England stood a century since. Then the king of England ruled through his parliament, whereas now the parliament rules through the king. On the other hand, with much of the machinery of a free state, the king of the French governs himself. A dread of the people's getting the ascendancy, causes the aristocracy to lend itself to the power of the crown, which not only dictates the law, but, in many cases, proves to be stronger than the law itself. Of the three countries, perhaps ​legality is more respected in Prussia and Austria, both despotisms in theory, than in France, which has the profession of a limited monarchy. This difference is owing to the security of the two first governments, and to the insecurity of the last.
These facts show the necessity of distinguishing between names and things in governments, as well as in other matters. The institutions of no country are rigidly respected in practice, owing to the cupidity and passions of men; and vigilance in the protection of principles is even more necessary in a democracy than in a monarchy, as their violation is more certain to affect the interests of the people under such a form of government than under any other. A violation of the principles of a democracy is at the loss of the people, while, in a monarchy, it is usually their gain.