Conclusion

Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the great bulk of mankind.  If either of these can be rendered sufficiently extensive in a country, the machinery of government goes easily on.  Reason obeys itself; and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.

The two modes of government which prevail in the world, are, First, government by election and representation: Secondly, government by hereditary succession.  The former is generally known by the name of republic; the latter by that of monarchy and aristocracy.
 
Those two distinct and opposite forms, erect themselves on the two distinct and opposite bases of Reason and Ignorance.  As the exercise of government requires talents and abilities, and as talents and abilities cannot have hereditary descent, it is evident that hereditary succession requires a belief from man, to which his reason cannot subscribe, and which can only be established upon his ignorance; and the more ignorant any country is, the better it is fitted for this species of government.   [begin page 190] 

On the contrary, government in a well constituted republic, requires no belief from man beyond what his reason can give.  He sees the rationale of the whole system, its origin and its operation; and as it is best supported when best understood, the human faculties act with boldness, and acquire, under this form of government, a gigantic manliness.

As, therefore, each of those forms acts on a different base, the one moving freely by the aid of reason, the other by ignorance; we have next to consider, what it is that gives motion to that species of government which is called mixed government, or, as it is sometimes ludicrously styled, a government of this, that, and t’other.
 
The moving power of this species of government, is of necessity, corruption. However imperfect election and representation may be in mixed governments, they still give exercise to a greater portion of reason than is convenient to the hereditary part; and therefore it becomes necessary to buy the reason up.  A mixed government is an imperfect everything, cementing and soldering the discordant parts together by corruption, to act as a whole.  Mr. Burke appears highly disgusted, that France, since she had resolved on a revolution, did not adopt what he [begin page 191] calls, A British Constitution and the regretful manner in which he expresses himself on this occasion, implies a suspicion, that the British Constitution needed something to keep its defects in countenance.
 
In mixed governments there is no responsibility: the parts cover each other till responsibility is lost; and the corruption which moves the machine, contrives at the same time its own escape.  When it is laid down as a maxim, that a king can do no wrong, it places him in a state of similar security with that of idiots and persons insane, and responsibility is out of the question with respect to himself.  It then descends upon the minister, who shelters himself under a majority in Parliament, which, by places, pensions, and corruption, he can always command; and that majority justifies itself by the same authority with which it protects the minister.  In this rotary motion, responsibility is thrown off from the parts, and from the whole.
 
When there is a part in a government which can do no wrong, it implies that it does nothing; and is only the machine of another power, by whose advice and direction it acts.  What is supposed to be the king in mixed governments is the cabinet; and as the cabinet is always apart [begin page 192] of the parliament, and the members justifying in one character what they advise and act in another, a mixed government becomes a continual enigma; entailing upon a country, by the quantity of corruption necessary to solder the parts, the expense of supporting all the forms of government at once, and finally resolving itself into a government by committee; in which the advisers, the actors, the approvers, the justifiers, the persons responsible, and the persons not responsible, are the same persons.
 
By this pantomimical contrivance, and change of scene and character, the parts help each other out in matters which neither of them singly, would assume to act.  When money is to be obtained, the mass of variety apparently dissolves, and a profusion of parliamentary praises passes between the parts.  Each admires with astonishment, the wisdom, the liberality, the disinterestedness of the other; and all of them breathe a pitying sigh at the burdens of the nation.
 
But in a well constituted republic, nothing of this soldering, praising, and pitying, can take place; the representation being equal throughout the country, and complete in itself, however it may be arranged into legislative and executive, they have all one and the same natural source. [begin page 193]  The parts are not foreigners to each other, like democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy.  As there are no discordant distinctions, there is nothing to corrupt by compromise, nor confound by contrivance. 

Public measures appeal of themselves to the understanding of the nation, and, resting on their own merits, disown any flattering application to vanity.  The continual whine of lamenting the burden of taxes, however successfully it may be practised in mixed governments, is inconsistent with the sense and spirit of a republic.  If taxes are necessary, they are of course advantageous; but if they require an apology, the apology itself implies an impeachment.  Why then is man thus imposed upon, or why does he impose upon himself?
 
When men are spoken of as kings and subjects, or when government is mentioned under the distinct or combined heads of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, what is it that reasoning man is to understand by the terms?  If there really existed in the world two or more distinct and separate elements of human power, we should then see the several origins to which those terms would descriptively apply; but as there is but one species of man, there can be but one ele- [begin page 194] ment of human power, and that element is man himself.  Monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, are but creatures of imagination; and a thousand such may be contrived, as well as three.
 
From the revolutions of America and France, and the symptoms that have appeared in other countries, it is evident that the opinion of the world is changed with respect to systems of government, and that revolutions are not within the compass of political calculations.  The progress of time and circumstances, which men assign to the accomplishment of great changes, is too mechanical to measure the force of the mind, and the rapidity of reflection, by which revolutions are generated.  All the old governments have received a shock from those that already appear, and which were once more improbable, and are a greater subject of wonder, than a general revolution in Europe would be now.
 
When we survey the wretched condition of man under the monarchical and hereditary systems of government, dragged from his home by, one power, or driven by another, and impoverished by taxes more than by enemies, it becomes evident that those systems are bad, and that a general revolution in the principle and construction of governments is necessary.   [begin page 195]
 
What is government more than the management of the affairs of a nation?  It is not, and from its nature cannot be, the property of any particular man or family, but of the whole community, at whose expense it is supported; and though by force or contrivance it has been usurped into an inheritance, the usurpation cannot alter the right of things.  Sovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the nation only, and not to any individual; and a nation has at all times an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any form of government it finds inconvenient, and establish such as accords with its interest, disposition, and happiness.  The romantic and barbarous distinction of [making] men into kings and subjects, though it may suit the condition of courtiers, cannot that of citizens; and is exploded by the principle upon which governments are now founded.  Every citizen is a member of the sovereignty, and, as such, can acknowledge no personal subjection; and his obedience can be only to the laws.
 
When men think of what government is, they must necessarily suppose it to possess a knowledge of all the objects and matters upon which its authority is to be exercised.  In this view of government the republican system, as established [begin page 196] by America and France, operates to embrace the whole of a nation; and the knowledge necessary to the interest of all the parts, is to be found in the center which the parts by representation form.  But the old governments are on a construction that excludes knowledge as well as happiness; government by monks, who know nothing of the world beyond the walls of a convent, is as consistent as government by kings.
 
What were formerly called revolutions, were little more than a change of persons, or an alteration of local circumstances.  They rose and fell like things of course, and had nothing in their existence or their fate that could influence beyond the spot that produced them.  But what we now see in the world, from the revolutions of America and France, is a renovation of the natural order of things, a system of principles as universal as truth and the existence of man, and combining moral with political happiness and national prosperity.
 
"I. 	Men are born and always continue free and equal in respect to their rights.  Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on public utility.
 
"II. 	The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible [begin page 197] rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression.
 
"III. 	The Nation is essentially the source of all Sovereignty ; nor can any individual or any body of men, be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from it 

In these principles, there is nothing to throw a nation into confusion by inflaming ambition.  They are calculated to call forth wisdom and abilities, and to exercise them for the public good, and not for the emolument or aggrandizement of particular descriptions of men or families.  Monarchial sovereignty, the enemy of mankind, and the source of misery, is abolished; and sovereignty itself is restored to its natural and original place, the nation.  Were this the case throughout Europe, the cause of wars would be taken away.
 
It is attributed to Henry IV of France, a man of an enlarged and benevolent heart, that he proposed, about the year 1610, a plan of abolishing war in Europe.  The plan consisted in constituting an European Congress, or as the French authors style it, a Pacific Republic; by appointing delegates from the several nations, who were to act as a court of arbitration in any disputes that might arise between nation and [begin page 198] nation. Had such a plan been adopted at the time it was proposed, the taxes of England and France, as two of the parties, would have been at least ten millions sterling annually to each nation less than they were at the commencement of the French Revolution.
 
To conceive a cause why such a plan has not been adopted (and that instead of a congress for the purpose of preventing war, it has been called only to terminate a war, after fruitless expense of several years), it will be necessary to consider the interest of governments as a distinct interest to that of nations.
 
Whatever is the cause of taxes to a nation, becomes also the means of revenue to a government.  Every war terminates with an addition of taxes, and consequently with an addition of revenue; and in any event of war, in the manner they are now commenced and concluded, the power and interest of governments are increased.
 
War, therefore, from its productiveness, as it easily furnishes the pretence of necessity for taxes and appointments to places and offices, becomes a principal part of the system of old governments; and to establish any mode to abolish war, however advantageous it might be to nations, would be to take from such government [begin page 199] the most lucrative of its branches.  The frivolous matters upon which war is made, show the disposition and avidity of governments to uphold the system of war, and betray the motives upon which they act.

Why are not republics plunged into war, but because the nature of their government does not admit of an interest distinct from that of the nation?  Even Holland, though an ill-constructed republic, and with a commerce extending over the world, existed nearly a century without war: and the instant the form of government was changed in France, the republican principles of peace and domestic prosperity and economy arose with the new Government; and the same consequences would follow the same causes in other nations.

As war is the system of government on the old construction, the animosity which nations reciprocally entertain, is nothing more than what the policy of their governments excites, to keep up the spirit of the system.  Each government accuses the other of perfidy, intrigue, and ambition, as a means of heating the imagination of their respective nations, and increasing them to hostilities.  Man is not the enemy of man, but through the medium of a false system of govern- [begin page 200] ment.  Instead, therefore, of exclaiming against the ambition of kings, the exclamation should be directed against the principle of such governments; and instead of seeking to reform the individual, the wisdom of a nation should apply itself to reform the system.
 
Whether the forms and maxims of governments which are still in practise, were adapted to the condition of the world at the period they were established, is not in this case the question.  The older they are, the less correspondence can they have with the present state of things.  Time, and change of circumstances and opinions, have the same progressive effect in rendering modes of government obsolete, as they have upon customs and manners.  Agriculture, commerce, manufactures, and the tranquil arts, by which the prosperity of nations is best promoted, require a different system of government, and a different species of knowledge to direct its operations, than what might have been required in the former condition of the world.
 
As it is not difficult to perceive, from the enlightened state of mankind, that hereditary governments are verging to their decline, and that revolutions on the broad basis of national sovereignty, and government by representation, are [begin page 201] making their way in Europe, it would be an act of wisdom to anticipate their approach, and produce revolutions by reason and accommodation, rather than commit them to the issue of convulsions.

From what we now see, nothing of reform on the political world ought to be held improbable.  It is an age of revolutions, in which every thing may be looked for.  The intrigue of courts, by which the system of war is kept up, may provoke a confederation of nations to abolish it: and an European Congress, to patronise the progress of free government, and promote the civilisation of nations with each other, is an event nearer in probability, than once were the revolutions and alliance of France and America.