« AnteriorContinuar »
spreads among particular branches, there had better be none at all ; since such a liberty only aggravates the misfortune of those who are deprived of it, by setting before them a disagreeable subject of comparison.
This liberty is best preserved, where the legislative power is lodged in several persons, especially if those persons are of different ranks and interests; for where they are of the same rank, and, consequently, have an interest to manage peculiar to that rank, it differs but little from a despotical government in a single person. But the greatest security a people can have for their liberty, is when the legislative power is in the hands of persons so happily distinguished, that by providing for the particular interests of their several ranks, they are providing for the whole body of the people; or, in other words, when there is no part of the people that has not a common interest with at least one part of the legislators.
If there be but one body of legislators, it is no better than a tyranny; if there are only two, there will want a casting voice, and one of them must at length be swallowed up by disputes and contentions that will necessarily arise between them. Four would have the same inconvenience as two, and a greater number would cause too much confusion. I could never read a passage in Polybius and another in Cicero to this purpose without a secret pleasure in applying it to the English constitution, which it suits much better than the Roman. Both these great authors give the pre-eminence to a mixt government, consisting of three branches, the regal, the noble, and the popular. They had, doubtless, in their thoughts, the constitution of the Roman commonwealth, in which the consul represented the king, the senate, the nobles, and the tribunes, the people. This divi
sion of the three powers in the Roman constitution was by no means so distinct and natural, as it is in the English form of government. Among several objections that might be made to it, I think the chief are those that affect the consular power, which had only the ornaments without the force of the regal authority. Their number had not a casting voice in it; for which reason, if one did not chance to be employed abroad, while the other sat at home, the public business was sometimes at a stand, while the consuls pulled two different ways in it. Besides, I do not find that the consuls had ever a negative voice in the passing of a law or decree of the senate ; so that indeed they were rather the chief body of the nobility, or the first ministers of state, than a distinct branch of the sovereignty, in which none can be looked
upon as a part who are not a part of the legislature. Had the consuls been invested with the regal authority to as great a degree as our monarchs, there would never have been any occasions for a dictatorship, which had in it the power of all the three orders, and ended in the subversion of the whole constitution.
Such an history as that of Suetonius, which gives us a succession of absolute princes, is to me an unanswerable argument against despotic power. Where the prince is a man of wisdom and virtue, it is indeed happy for his people that he is absolute; but since, in the common run of mankind, for one that is wise and
find ten of a contrary character, it is very dangerous for a nation to stand to its chance, or to have its public happiness or misery to depend on the virtues or vices of a single person. Look into the historian I have mentioned, or into any series of absolute princes, how many tyrants must you read through, before you come at an emperor that is sup
portable! But this is not all; an honest private man often grows cruel and abandoned, when converted into an absolute prince.
Give a man power of doing what he pleases with impunity, you extinguish his fear, and, consequently, overturn in him one of the great pillars of morality. This, too, we find confirmed by matter of fact. How many hopeful heirs apparent to great empires, when in the possession of them, have become such monsters of lust and cruelty, as are a reproach to human nature !
Some tell us we ought to make our governments on earth like that in heaven, which, say they, is altogether monarchical and unlimited. Was man like his Creator in goodness and justice, I should be for following this great model; but where goodness and justice are not essential to the ruler, I would by no means put myself into his hands to be disposed of according to his particular will and pleasure.
It is odd to consider the connection between despotic government and barbarity, and how the making of one person more than man makes the rest less. Above nine parts of the world in ten are in the lowest state of slavery, and, consequently, sunk into the most gross and brutal ignorance. European slavery is, indeed, a state of liberty, if compared with that which prevails in the other three divisions of the world; and, therefore, it is no wonder that those who grovel under it have many tracks of light among them, of which the others are wholly destitute.
Riches and plenty are the natural fruits of liberty, and, where these abound, learning and all the liberal arts will immediately lift up their
heads and flourish. As a man must have no slavish fears and apprehensions hanging upon his mind, who will indulge the flights of fancy or speculation, and push his researches into all the abstruse corners of truth; so it is necessary
for him to have about him a competency of all the conveniences of life.
The first thing every one looks after, is to provide himself with necessaries. This point will engross our thoughts till it be satisfied. "If this is taken care of to our hands, we look out for pleasures and amusements; and, among a great number of idle people, there will be many whose pleasures will lie in reading and contemplation. These are the two great sources of knowledge, and as men grow wise they naturally love to communicate their discoveries ; and others, seeing the happiness of such a learned life, and improving by their conversation, emulate, imitate, and surpass, one another, till a nation is filled with races of wise and understanding persons. Ease and plenty are, therefore, the great cherishers of knowledge : and as most of the despotic governments of the world have neither of them, they are naturally overrun with ignorance and barbarity In Europe, indeed, notwithstanding several of its princes are absolute, there are men famous for knowledge and learning ; but the reason is, because the subjects are many of them rich and wealthy, the prince not thinking fit to exert himself in his full tyrranny like the princes of the eastern nations, lest his subjects should be invited to new-mould their constitution, having so many prospects of liberty within their view. But in all despotic governments, though a particular prince may favour arts and letters, there is a natural degeneracy of mankind: as you may observe, from Augustus's reign, how the Romans lost themselves by degrees, till they fell to an equality with the most barbarous nations that surrounded them. Look upon Greece under its free states, and you would think its inhabitants lived in different climates, and under different heavens from those at present, so different are
the geniuses which are formed under Turkish slavery, and Grecian liberty.
Besides poverty and want, there are other reasons that debase the minds of men who live under slavery, though I look on this as the principal. This natural tendency of despotic power to ignorance and bar, barity, though not insisted upon by others, is, I think, an unanswerable argument against that form of government, as it shows how repugnant it is to the good of mankind, and the perfection of human nature, which ought to be the great ends of all civil institutions.
No.288.WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30,1711-12.
-Pavor est utrique molestus.
HOR, EPIST. i. 6. 10.
Both fear alike.
MR. SPECTATOR, “When you spoke of the jilts and coquettes, you then promised to be very impartial, and not to spare even your own sex,
of their secret or open faults come under your cognizance : which has given me encouragement to describe a certain species of mankind under the denomination of male jilts. They are gentlemen, who do not design to marry, yet, that they may appear to have some sense of gallantry, think they must pay their devoirs to one particular fair; in order to which they single out from amongst