10. GODWIN, Wм., Political Justice. Paine, Mackintosh, and Godwin wrote in opposition to Burke's Reflections.

II. LECKY, History of England in Eighteenth Century, vol. i. See references, p. 9, on Divine Right.

12. RITCHIE, DAVID G., Studies in Political and Social Ethics. Chapter on "Equality."

13. HOOKER, "Ecclesiastical Polity" (1594).

14. LOWELL, Essays on Government, iv., "The Theory of the Social

Compact."

15. GROTIUS, De Jure Belli et Pacis, Introduction and the first chapters on the nature of law, (1625).

16. MILTON, The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, (1649). Written in justification of the execution of Charles I.

17. HOBBES, Leviathan, (1651), written in support of Absolute Monarchy. 18. AUSTIN, JOHN, Jurisprudence.

19. ROSCHER, Political Economy. Notes to Section LXXIX. See references to authorities on the spread of socialistic ideas.

20. MARSIGLIO, of Padua (1324). The laws ought to be made by all the citizens. Marsiglio based this sovereignty of the people upon the greater likelihood of the laws being better obeyed, and being good laws when made by the whole body affected.

21. ROUSSEAU (1751, 1753, 1762).

22. "Equality," essay by CHAS. Dudley Warner, in Relation of Life to Literature (1897).

23. MORLEY, JOHN, Essay on Rousseau.

24. The Outlook, Editorial on "The Principles of the Fathers,” May 20, 1899; on "Concerning Self-Government,” May 27, 1899.

25. ABBOTT, LYMAN, The Rights of Man, Chapter III.

A

CHAPTER II

THE FEDERAL NATION

RISTOTLE,' the father of political science, taught long ago what every schoolboy is supposed to know in these days, that there are three forms of gov- Forms of ernment: Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy. Government.

Monarchy is the rule of an individual. This is the form of government under which the sovereignty of the state is vested in the hands of a single ruler. If the political powers of the individual are unlimited by law, if they are exercised at his own will without restraint, we have an unlimited or absolute monarchy. If the monarch's powers are limited by the law of a constitution, we have a limited, or constitutional, monarchy. Very few civilized countries now retain the form of an absolute monarchy. We speak further of this form of government under the term "Despotism.'

Aristocracy is the rule of a minority, of a superior few. Strictly, an Aristocracy is a government of the few best citizens exercised for the best interests of the state."

A Democracy is the rule of a majority, of the masses, exercised for the common interests.

Of the three forms of government in his classification Aristotle conceived that each had its perverted form. There were three normal, or good forms and Perverted three bad, or perverted forms.

Forms.

Pervert Monarchy and you have a Despotism or a Tyranny.

'Aristotle lived from 384 to 322 B.C.

See pp. 39, 40, 49.

Pervert Aristocracy and you have an Oligarchy.
Pervert Democracy and you have a Mobocracy.1

The perverted forms, then, are:

1. A Despotism, or Tyranny. This is like the absolute monarchy, a government in which the power of the A Despotism monarch is not constitutionally limited. It is or Tyranny. the rule of an individual exercised by his own will, or caprice, without control of law or without restraint by any other authority. An absolute monarchy is a despotism. The despot may be a good man and therefore his government may be a benevolent despotism. But he may also be a bad man and govern like a tyrant.

A Tyrant is a malevolent despot, a ruler with absolute power who oppresses the people and governs in his own interest. "A Tyrant," says Milton, quoting St. Basil, "whether by wrong or by right coming to the throne, is he who, regarding neither law nor the common good, reigns only for himself and his faction." To the Greek, in Aristotle's day, the tyrant was one who seized upon power irregularly and lawlessly, like a usurper, without color of title. The usurping tyrant was not necessarily a bad ruler who oppressed the people. He might find his interests best subserved by mild, wise, and benevolent government, and he often provided a better government than that which he overthrew. But in our modern sense a tyrant is an absolute ruler who governs oppressively. While some absolute rulers may be wise and good, promoting good government in a capable way; and while, on the other hand, democracies may sometimes exercise

66

'I give here the ideas but not the terms of Aristotle. For our word Democracy" he used the term "Polity." He used "democracy" as a perversion of "polity," as equivalent to our "mobocracy," or the rule of the unregulated mob. In Aristotle's day the democracy of the Greek cities, especially of Athens, was a degenerate rule, the rule of the incompetent, uneducated masses, moved without law, and by excitement and passion. 'Milton's Tenure of Kings and Magistrates.

tyranny, governing in as capricious, arbitrary, and despotic a manner as any single monarch, yet we usually think very properly that the absolute monarchy is the most inconsistent with free government. "Monarchy unaccountable is the worst form of tyranny and least of all to be endured by free-born men. This judgment of Aristotle, expressed more than two thousand years ago, is confirmed by history and modern opinion."

2. An Oligarchy is the rule of the few, exercised at their own behest. In modern conception the oligarchy may be:

The

Oligarchy.

(1) An Aristocracy of landed and hereditary privileges, who use the government for their own benefit, or,

The

Plutocracy.

(2) A Plutocracy, the rule of the rich, by means of constitutions and laws giving special privileges and power to wealth and property. Under such a government the few, by means of their wealth, corrupt or force the people into subjection. This is the most vicious and corrupting of all forms of government, and under it the people are the most dependent.

Oligarchy and

Compared.

The distinction between Aristocracy and Oligarchy has been largely obliterated. The two terms are often used as convertible. But this distinction is worthy of notice: The Oligarchy commonly denotes Aristocracy the government of a wealthy minority in its own interest, and it always has a bad signification, while Aristocracy, though usually quite objectionable to the advocate of a Democracy, may have a good signification. By its original meaning and in its true sense an

"Benevolent despotism " is an expression frequently used to excuse the subjection of weaker peoples to superior force. The weakness of human nature is such that it cannot endure the temptations of irresponsible power; and, as a matter of fact, a benevolent despotism has been such a rare phenomenon in the history of the world that most reasonable men are disposed to allow a people to govern themselves badly rather than to subject them to the unrestrained power of any man, or small set of men.

Aristocracy suggests the "government of persons especially qualified by experience, training, and abilities for the work of government."'1 If we look merely to the quality of the government and not to the character and development of the people to be governed, no one can reasonably object to a true Aristocracy.' If there were a fair, safe way of choosing such competent persons to govern, and if guarantees could be had that they would govern in the interest of all and not chiefly in the interest of a class, it would be readily agreed that such would be the most desirable of all forms of government. The difficulty is not in agreeing that the best and most competent persons should rule, but rather in finding the safest way of placing such persons in power. It must be borne in mind that the motive with which one rules is a vital factor in determining the competency and virtue of a government. If power is not exercised unselfishly for the benefit of all, the government is seriously vitiated. It is the claim of Democracy that the chief end of government—the education of the people, "the greatest good to the greatest number" is best secured by the democratic representative system.

Turning again to the Oligarchy, we notice that it is usually a plutocracy, but not necessarily so. When, be

The
Oligarchy
Illustrated.

fore our Civil War, a slave-owner in Mississippi with one thousand slaves had as much political power at Washington as six hundred free men in Ohio, he was called an oligarch, and the government of the slave-master class in the South was called an oligarchy. A comparatively few slave-owners exercised dominant power in the State. Since the war, the white democracy in the South has triumphed over the former landed, slaveholding oligarchy. When the English barons at Runnymede forced from King John the Magna Charta and, in effect, became the chief power in the realm for a 1 Sidgwick, The Elements of Politics, p. 582. See pp. 39, 40.