Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1867-07-11
Belmont C6roniC(e
ST. CLAIRSVILLE, OHIO:
THURSDAY MORNING, JULY IL, 1867.
MONARCHICAL VS.. DEMOCRATIC
INsTITUTIONs.

INSTITUTIONS.
We find the following paragraph in an
address delivered by the Hon. Aaron +.
Perry, of this city, before Western Re
serve College. He said:
"In proportion as governments take
their character from the personal quali-
ties of leadership, they must be unstable
and accidental. In proportion as they
rest upon the broad basis of common con-
sent and interest, they become indes-
tructible. Mondrchicdt and democratic
Institutions compare IN STABILITY ds the
fcktencss Of ihdiUiofudt men TO the un-
changing attributes Of the human race"
The above is a very pretty and beauti-
full sentiment, quite poetically expressed.
We wish IL were true. 1t ought to be
true. But, unfortunately, it Is the re-
verse of the statement which is correct
as matter of fact. The only political
institutions which have possessed any
stability in this world have been mon
archical in their character. Nearly every
people that ever did exist on this globe,
or do now exist, have lived under mon
archy. 1t has been the general rule, in
every age of the world and among peo-
pie in every degree of civilization, from
the most barbarous to the most refined
and cultivated. Democratic governments
have been rare exceptions among men,
and in the great volume of universal his
tory few pages suffice to recount their
rise and speedy destruction. This fact is
so well known that we wonder that Mr.
Perry should have fallen into an error as
singular as it is gigantic. Zeal and en-
thusfasm for Democratic institutions are
good, but, alas! they cannot destroy the
records of the past. They cannot make
black white, nor fieeting and glimmer-
ing light burn brilliantly and steadily
over the sterile wastes of the failures and
follies of humanity. We democrats in
the United States, with our Government
founded upon the consent of the govern
ed, have been indeed trying "an expert
men, p" in which history has said that all
the chances wereagainst us.-[Cin. Eng.
The above, says the Columbus Journal,
is fine commentary on the almost daily
assertions of the Enquirer, and other
Democratic journals throughout the land,
that there is no freedom in this country.
When the leading organ of n great party
is allowed, by law and public opinion, to
advance arguments which, by the broad
est inference, favor the overthrow of re-
publican institutions and the establish
ment of monarchy, can it be claimed
that the freedom of speech is in any de-
gree abridged by that "despotic power"
which rules over us? Is not this an evil
dence of extraordinary liberty, such as nc
other country can tolerate without danger
to the existing form of government? We
will admit that there isan apparent weak
ness in republicanism, growing out of the
fact that, to be consistent with ITSELF it
must put weapons free speech and free
press) into the hands of its enemies
which may be used for its own destruc.
ton. But the weak is more seeming
than real, for, as Jefferson remarks
terror may well lie tolerated, where truth
is left free to combat it.
But is it true that in the "great volume
of universal history few pages suffice tC
recount the rise and speedy destruction
of popular governments? Far from it
Numerous pages in the great volume o
human history-in fact, nearly all tha
are worth reading and remembering-ar
filled with the records of men and ma
; tions who adhered to, and illustrated, thu
principles of popular government, to |
greater or less extent. How many mon
arches are there now in existence whicl
have stood SO long--and which could 81
successfully withstand foreign invasion
and internal violence-as the ancien
: Republic of Rome? 1t is the estimate O
, Ferguson, the historian, himself mon
archist, that to know we'll the history Q
that celebrated Republic, is to knoN
!, mankind, to have seen human nature il
its most exalted phases, and to have con
templated it under circumstances tn
: most favorable to the development of fel
vent patriotism, invincible courage, sui
: lime virtues and great abilities. Its fina
= fall was owing, in agreat measure, to tn
denial of voice in the government t
the common people; and this denial {
rights grew out of the principle of cast
which existed in the government froI
it's very inception-an example and LEI
son for us! ...
The stability of the Government {
Great Britain is owing to its popular {
r, democratic element, and not to the faC
D that it is monarchy. The only thin
Il which now threatens the peace and st'
r. bility of that Government is the agitatio
- growing out of the denial of politics
rights to the workingmen and others {
the humber classes. Great Britain hf
h mixed government-it is neither amor
: archy nor a republic. British statesme
claim, and for generations have claime'
that the popular power is conservativ
rather than disturbing element in ii
the nation; and Great Britain has el
e, ioyed an immunity from violent revolt
'e tions for nearly one hundred and seveni
years, not because the Government res
"upon the broad basis of common COZ
= sent and interest. Iyl
How is it with France, where the MOI
N archie principle has taken deep root
where, pre-eminently, the governmel
takes its "character from the person
qualities of leadership"-where, wit
IF the exception of two short interval
Ia monarchy has prevailed in its purity f
a thousand years? Have not the Freno