the three names all have reference to the vesting of authority or to sovereignty, in other words, they simply tell us who holds political power, but tell us nothing as to the spirit of the governments, as determined by the ends to which they are directed; that is, whether they are good or bad.

The fact is, governments may be divided in several ways that will throw light on their nature, according as we adopt different ideas or standpoints for our division.

19. THE MONARCHY.-Monarchy is government by one man, or a monarch. A large number of persons may be employed in carrying on the government, but they do so in the name and by the authority of the monarch. Monarchical governments are more numerous in history than all other governments put together.

20. THE DOMOCRACY. Democracy is government by the many, or the people. The people, or so many as participate in public affairs, come together at one place to enact laws, to settle questions of public policy, and to choose officers to carry out their will. Athens was a democracy in ancient times, and so was the Plymouth Colony for a brief period in modern times. But such a government is adapted only to small societies and to narrow territories. The Athenians could meet in Athens to pass upon public questions, and the Pilgrims in Plymouth for the same purpose; but the English could not in this way govern the British Empire from London, or the Americans America from Washington. This is one of the reasons why democracies have been few in number. There is no existing democracy.

21. THE ARISTOCRACY.- In an aristocracy power is not entrusted to one, as in a monarchy, or to the many, as in a democracy, but is confined to a few persons of superior birth and position. Pure aristocracies have been few. Venice was once such a government, but there is not now one existing example. The word means government by the best or the few.

22. MIXED GOVERNMENTS.-Many governments contain a variety of elements, and so are really mixed governments. Of such a government, England is a good example. The monarch reigns by hereditary right; the House of Lords, consisting of the heads of

the great families, is an hereditary aristocratic body; while the House of Commons, which is really sovereign, is chosen by the people and is a republican body. The same is true in a less degree of Germany.

23. IMMEDIATE AND REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENTS.' — This division is made with reference to the identity or non-identity of the government with the state. If the two are identical, the government is immediate or direct; if they are non-identical, the government is representative or indirect. Evidently, immediate government is the simpler and the more readily understood.

24. REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.-The principle of political representation was practically unknown to the ancient world. "No statesman of antiquity, either in Greece or Rome, seems to have conceived the idea of a city sending delegates armed with plenary powers to represent its interests in a general legislative assembly.

. . In an aristocratic Greek city, like Sparta, all the members of the ruling class met together and voted in the assembly; in a democratic city, like Athens, all the free citizens met and voted; in each case the assembly was primary and not representative." The German mind is entitled to the credit of inventing representative government, to which political progress in modern times is more largely due than to all other political causes put together.

25. THE REPUBLIC.-The people of a republic govern themselves by means of chosen men whom they call representatives. Republicanism is government by the people in an indirect sense. The word means the public weal, the commonwealth. In antiquity and the middle ages, a republic was a government of any kind without an hereditary king at its head. President Lincoln called it," Government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

However, the so-called republics and democracies of antiquity and the middle ages were not such according to modern ideas. "After all, the citizens for whose welfare Aristotle conceived the state to exist were, even in the most democratic of con

1 This division, as well as the next one, is given by Burgess: Political Science, II., chap. I.

2 Fiske: American Political Ideas, 59, 71.

stitutions, a limited and privileged class. They are people of leisure and culture, not living by the work of their hands. To make a true citizen of the worker in mechanical arts, the handicraftsman who has not leisure, is thought by Aristotle a hopeless task, and this even with reference to the skilled and finer kinds of work. The grosser kind of labor is assumed to be done by slaves, who are wholly outside the sphere of political right. Not that Aristotle would neglect the welfare of inferior freemen or even of slaves. He would have the statesman make them comfortable, and bring them as near happiness as their condition admits. But of happiness in the true sense they are incapable."1

26. CENTRALIZED AND DUAL GOVERNMENTS.-Here the prin ciple of division is the consolidation or distribution of political powers. In centralized government, authority is lodged in a single organization, as in England and France. Local government may exist, but only as the creature of the central government, by which it can be changed or set aside. In dual government, the state delegates certain powers to one organization and certain other powers to a second one. The two may be strictly co-ordinate, and so independent in their different spheres; or one may be dependent upon the other; or, if they are independent, one may employ the other as an agency.

27. FORMS OF DUAL GOVERNMENT.-Authors differ in the number of forms of dual government that they recognize. Only two call for mention in this place, Confederate government and Federal government; or, as the Germans call them, the Staatenbund and the Bundesstaat. Both of these forms are illustrated by the United States at different periods of its history, as we shall see hereafter.

A confederate government is the creation of the several local governments or states, rather than of the nation; it represents those governments and not the people; and it acts upon them and through them and not upon the nation directly. For example, if it needs money to fill its treasury or men to recruit its army, it calls upon the states for the needed supplies and the states respond in their own way. Sovereignty resides in the states, and not in the one people. A federal government, on the other hand,

1 Pollock; History of the Science of Politics, 28.

is the creation of the nation; it acts directly upon the people and not indirectly through the states; it employs its own agencies and not those of the states, and it is commonly much better developed in all respects. While a legislative council or congress may serve the purposes of a confederacy, only a fully differentiated systemlegislative, executive, and judicial branches-will serve the purposes of an efficient federal state. Plainly, sovereignty is here vested in the one people or nation.

Our study of the American Government will give us the best opportunity that history affords to illustrate these two forms of political dualism.

28. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.-The relations of the local and general governments in a Federal State may be thus summarized: On the one hand, each member of the union must be wholly independent in those matters which concern itself only; on the other hand, all members must be subject to a common power in those matters which concern the whole body collectively. Thus, each member fixes for itself its laws, and even the details of its political constitution, not as a matter of privilege or concession, but as a matter of right, as an independent commonwealth; while in all matters concerning the general body, the several members have no power whatever. Each member is perfectly independent within the local sphere; but in the national sphere its independence, or rather its separate existence, vanishes. It is invested with every right and power on one class of subjects; on another class, it is as incapable of separate political action as any province or city of a monarchy or of an indivisible requblic. Peace and war, and, generally, all that comes within the department of International Law, is reserved wholly to the central power; foreign nations know nothing of the states, aud deal only with the general government. A federal union forms one state or power in relation to other powers, but many states in relation to internal administration.'

29. THE ADVANTAGES OF CENTRALIZED AND DUAL GovERNMENTS.-Each of these governmental forms has its own peculiar advantages. A centralized or unitary government secures greater internal peace, and diminishes faction, party strife, and local prejudice, as well as enhances immunity from the evils of war, both domestic and foreign. A federal government secures greater

1 See Freeman's History of Federal Government, Chap. I.

local freedom, more intense patriotism, and higher political education. We Americans claim that our federal system measurably secures the peculiar advantages that have been claimed for large and small states, local autonomy and national power. We hold that in an extended empire, like our own, local independence is as essential to freedom as centralized power is to peace and security.

30. CIVIL GOVERNMENT.-The word civil is used in a variety of senses. Sometimes it is used in a sense so broad as to make civil government and government the same thing. But the word is derived from the Latin civis, meaning citizen, which again is related to civitas, meaning state; and we commonly limit it to those more advanced social conditions in which proper states are found, Roving savages are not citizens, because they do not constitute a state. In the proper sense, civil society and civilized society are the same thing.

Civil government is the government of the state, and is coextensive with civil society. It is a government of regular and settled order. In the best sense, it is a government of laws resting upon intelligence and moral force. It is discriminated from military government, which is government by the army, or by force, and from the government of savage tribes.

31. CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.-Definitions of rights are both numerous and conflicting. The ideas that the term conveys change with intellectual, social, and political conditions. The modern Chinaman cannot understand it as the ancient Greek understood it; nor do men living under absolute governments know what it means to the people of the United States. A general discussion of the subject is not here called for, but two species of rights that are often confounded must be carefully discriminated.

The use of the common highways, the protection of person and property, the pursuit of whatever trade or calling one sees fit to follow, are civil rights. Participation in the government, as in voting and holding office, are political rights. The civil rights, and still more the political rights, enjoyed by men greatly differ in different countries. As a rule, the freer the government, the larger the measure of rights possessed by the citizen or the subject. These two classes of rights are by no means accorded to men in the same country in equal measure. The citizen may enjoy