It is to be regretted the world does not discriminate more justly in its
use of political terms. Governments are usually called either monarchies
or republics. The former class embraces equally those institutions in
which the sovereign is worshipped as a god, and those in which he
performs the humble office of a manikin. In the latter we find
aristocracies and democracies blended in the same generic appellation.
The consequence of a generalization so wide is an utter confusion on the
subject of the polity of states.
The author has endeavored to give his countrymen, in this book, a
picture of the social system of one of the _soi-disant_ republics of the
other hemisphere. There has been no attempt to portray historical
characters, only too fictitious in their graver dress, but simply to set
forth the familiar operations of Venetian policy. For the justification
of his likeness, after allowing for the defects of execution, he refers
to the well-known work of M. Daru.
A history of the progress of political liberty, written purely in the
interests of humanity, is still a desideratum in literature. In nations
which have made a false commencement, it would be found that the
citizen, or rather the subject, has extorted immunity after immunity, as
his growing intelligence and importance have both instructed and
required him to defend those particular rights which were necessary to
his well-being. A certain accumulation of these immunities constitutes,
with a solitary and recent exception in Switzerland, the essence of
European liberty, even at this hour. It is scarcely necessary to tell
the reader, that this freedom, be it more or less, depends on a
principle entirely different from our own. Here the immunities do not
proceed from, but they are granted to, the government, being, in other
words, concessions of natural rights made by the people to the state,
for the benefits of social protection. So long as this vital difference
exists between ourselves and other nations, it will be vain to think of
finding analogies in their institutions. It is true that, in an age like
this, public opinion is itself a charter, and that the most despotic
government which exists within the pale of Christendom, must, in some
degree, respect its influence. The mildest and justest governments in
Europe are, at this moment, theoretically despotisms. The characters of
both prince and people enter largely into the consideration of so
extraordinary results; and it should never be forgotten that, though the
character of the latter be sufficiently secure, that of the former is
liable to change. But, admitting every benefit which possibly can flow
from a just administration, with wise and humane princes, a government
which is not properly based on the people, possesses an unavoidable and
oppressive evil of the first magnitude, in the necessity of supporting
itself by physical force and onerous impositions, against the natural
action of the majority.
Were we to characterize a republic, we should say it was a state in
which power, both theoretically and practically, is derived from the
nation, with a constant responsibility of the agents of the public to
the people--a responsibility that is neither to be evaded nor denied.
That such a system is better on a large than on a small scale, though
contrary to brilliant theories which have been written to uphold
different institutions, must be evident on the smallest reflection,
since the danger of all popular governments is from popular mistakes;
and a people of diversified interests and extended territorial
possessions, are much less likely to be the subjects of sinister
passions than the inhabitants of a single town or county. If to this
definition we should add, as an infallible test of the genus, that a
true republic is a government of which all others are jealous and
vituperative, on the instinct of self-preservation, we believe there
would be no mistaking the class. How far Venice would have been
obnoxious to this proof, the reader is left to judge for himself.