Page images


[ocr errors]


produce it. A palace of a Louis XIV. is remembered, long after the squalid population which had to pay taxes towards it • have been forgotten. After remarking that, on the other hand,

we must be careful not to take mere physical comfort and personal security as the sole end of a government, or the index of its excellence,' the author adds : Had not this erroneous position been frequently taken, it would not so often have been asserted, that the best government is an absolute monarchy,

with a truly just and wise king. It is a most radical error. An absolute government which forces to act, and does not animate • and fructify the principle of self-action, undermines the state by • its very character, and exposes to the greatest danger, both by

the death of the just and wise ruler, who cannot insure the same qualities in his successor, and by blinding the people, who, con ' tent with their physical welfare and perhaps the brilliant energy of the government, are ready to abandon all law and all institutions, placing implicit confidence in their rulers, until recovery is too late.'

Mr Lieber is entitled, we think, to the credit of being a very impartial writer—we do not mean as between the parties into which his own, or this or any other nation is divided, as to local or temporary questions, (for on these he never touches except in the way of incidental illustration;) but as between the two great parties in which political thinkers in all nations range themselves, according as their fears lie on the side of the despotism of the few, or the license of the many. It will already have sufficiently appeared that Mr Lieber is no patron of divine right-legitimacy-paternal sway—or any of the other pretences under which certain individuals or races have sought to assume an arbitrary irresponsible power. But he distinguishes, better than is often done, the real subject of alarm and precaution, which is not the absolute power of a king, or of nobles, or of an assembly, merely considered in reference to the party holding power, but absolute power by whomsoever held. Wherever all power that can be obtained, .is undivided, unmodified, and un-mediatized, somewhere, whether apparently in an individual, or a body of men, or the whole people-- which means in this case, of course, the majority — there is absolutism. The Athenian democracy sank into absolutism. Comparing democratic and monarchic absolutism, we

sball find that the latter must needs rest its power somewhere « without the monarch himself; for, as has been several times ob

served, the monarch has personally no more power than the mean6 est of the crowd. He must be supported by opinion without him; .but democratic absolutism is power itself-it is a reality-fear


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


'fully sweeping power. It is real power, a torrent which nothing

can stem. If an individual opposes monarchical absolutism, there * is something heroic in it in the eyes of the people ; if a man opposes democratic absolutism he is at once considered a heretic, a traitor to the commonweal.

Proceeding on the views now described as to the real danger to be guarded against in political constitutions—a danger not exclusively pertaining to any particular form of government, or to be avoided by any form—the author ventures to propose a new classification, or at least an additional one, of the different species of governments. . Provided there be absolute power, or • absolutism, a power which dictates and executes, which is direct and positive, we call the polity an autarchy.'. The democratic autarchy stands, therefore, in the same relation to a democracy s in general, as the absolute monarchy or autocracy stands to general. Hamarchy, on the other hand, is that polity, which has an organism, an organic life, if I may say so, in which a thousand distinct parts have their independent ac

tion, yet are by the general organism united into one whole, 4 into one living system.'

It is never very easy, however, to introduce new terms, and those here proposed are alike pedantic, uncouth, and unnecessary; as there are others in common use by means of which we can sufficiently express their import. To say of a government thạt its action is not centralized, and that its powers are divided or distributed, is to say all of it, so far as we can see, that Mr Lieber would do by calling it a hamarchy, and vice versa. Thạt the terms in question are not much wanted in the management of modern political discussions, is made apparent by this, that Mr Lieber seems to have been unable to give an instance, otherwise than in posse, of what he would call a democratic autarchy in modern times; and we doubt if, in a large state at least, a political constitution deserving such a character could at all exist. We

may remark here, that Mr Lieber had previously objected to the expression, division of power, which he characterizes as 'per

haps not a very happy one:' but he assigns no reason. He adds :— The general, and certainly the most important division is, as is well known, into the legislative, executive, and judiciary, though this is not the only one. In Brazil, there are four branches. The first French constitutions speak of the adminis'trative branch, as distinguished from the executive and legisla6 tive, and meaning the administration of the communes,' &c.

In ation to this passage, we take occasion to observe, that the importance of the judicial branch is sometimes too much sunk, by


the classification which ranks it as only a branch of the Executive. "True, the judges are appointed, (to take the instance of our own country,) and the machinery of our courts of justice set in motion by the crown. But it would be quite as reasonable to call the House of Lords a branch of the executive, because the peers are created by the crown, or to call the whole legislature so, because summoned by the crown, The crown can no more direct the judge in his sentence than the peer in his vote.

Of the two, it would perhaps be a juster classification, which should rank the judicial under the legislative. The interpretation of a law is seldom a mere philological or critical affair ; but is generally grounded more or less on considerations of the same kind (those of justice or expediency) on which the legislature has enacted it -in which respects the judiciary may be reckoned a subsidiary legislature. And, considered as a balancing or checking power, it is certainly more in opposition to the executive than to the legislative influence, that the benefit of an independent judiciary is manifested. We have said that, of the two, the judicial is more allied to the legislative than to the executive branch. But it is undervaluing the magnitude of its functions to merge it in either. It is not the mere instrument of one or both of these branches of the constitution, but, with them, a component branch of it—a branch, perhaps, which needs to be the more strengthened in proportion as a constitution is the more democratic. For, in a question between the state and a subject, there are other forces-public opinion, and its exponent, the press-- which, usually to be found in a monarchical government on the side of the weaker party, are apt in a democratic one to be directed against him. The Americans seem to have acted on a wise principle, in placing the judicial, as in some respects they have done, in a position superior even to that of the legislative authority. Nor, as tending to give weight to judicial decrees, is the issue of the late struggle in this country, between the courts of law and the most popular and powerful branch of the legislature in which the latter was virtually overcome) to be considered with regret; whatever may be the opinion formed as to the reasonableness of the decision in which the contest originated, and the necessity of a remedy for the obvious inconveniences of that decision.

The author has some ingenious remarks on the difference, as to their habits of thinking on political subjects, between the ancients and the moderns :— The safety of the state is their principal pro• blem ; 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

[ocr errors]



over every one, and over every thing. 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 never doubted its . unlimited extent. Hence, in Greece and Rome, the apparently inconsistent, yet in reality perfectly natural, sudden transitions ' from entirely or partially popular governments to absolute mo'narchies ; while, with the modern European states, even in the most absolute monarchy, there exists a certain acknowledgment of a public law, of individual rights-of the idea, that the state, after all, is for the protection of the individual, however • ill conceived the means to obtain this object may be.'

In further illustration of the difference now alluded to, it is observed :— Liberty, with the ancients, consisted materially in • the degree of participation in government, “ where all are in turn • the ruled and the rulers."- It is, therefore, perfectly consistent that the ancients aim at perfect liberty in perfect equality, not even allowing for the difference in talent and virtue; so that they 6 give the rados, the lot, as the true characteristic of democracy. • This is striking, and has a deep, meaning. They were natu• rally and consistently led to the lot: in seeking liberty, that • is, the highest enjoyment and manifestation of human reason 6 and will, they were led to their annihilation, to the lot—that .is, chance."

To conclude. In all that relates to scientific deduction and arrangement, Mr Lieber must be reported singularly deficient; but in his remarks of a practical character, he exhibits both soundness and clearness of judgment, joined with much fairness of purpose. His references exhibit a wide extent of historical and political reading. With all its defects, we do not hesitate to recommend his work to the attention of the political student.

ART. IV.- Travels in North America during the years 1834,

1835, and 1836; including a Summer Residence with the Pawnee Tribe of Indians in the remote provinces of the Missouri, and a visit to Cuba and the Azore Islands. By the Hon. CHARLES AUGUSTUS MURRAY. 2 vols. 8vo. London: 1839.

This book of travels is distinguished from the multitude of such

works which in these times issue from the press, by three several peculiarities which give it an unusual interest. The author visited the island of Cuba, little resorted to by foreigners, and still less frequently described. He passed some months * among a tribe of North American Indians, joining in their occupations, and leading the life they led. He has treated of the manners and institutions of the United States with a very uncommon freedom from the prejudices either of nation or of caste; insomuch that we have seldom, if ever, seen a more fair account of republican establishments and of American society, than is to be found in this work-written by the inmate of a court, and a member of one of the noblest families in the empire.t There are other peculiarities of less importance, though they concur to make the perusal very entertaining ;-among these, some most perilous situations and adventures both by sea and land.

It is seldom, indeed, that a narrower escape has been made by any traveller, than we find described in the outset of this work. Mr Murray embarked at Liverpool in an American vessel, where, beside eleven or twelve fellow-passengers in the cabin, there were in the steerage 140 or 150 Irish emigrants, whose habits at first were the subject of not unnatural complaint even among the less squeamish of the gentlefolks. Yet to these unhappy people did the vessel, beyond all doubt, owe her safety. For, a few days after she had cleared the Channel, when proceeding at a great pace, she sprang a most formidable leak, upon which the pumps

* Mr Murray has himself to blame for our being unable to say how many months, with any certainty. He has not taken the trouble to give dates with even ordinary care. For many pages together the month is not mentioned, but only 12th, 15th, &c. 'Then, when he does give the month, it is often wrong. Thus, vol. i. p. 378, we bave August 5, and then several days are given, when all at once we come to May 20, soon after July 22, and so on to 3), and next day is September 1. This is sad carelessness; it, however, shows that the arts of bookmaking have not been practised.

| The reader in this part of the island must derive a pleasing satisfaction from reflecting that the author is the near kinsman of one to whom Scotland owes so much--the late Lord A. Hamilton,

« EelmineJätka »