Untitled - 24grammata.com

OF POLITICAL THEORIES. 353rank. Nothing, therefore, short of the most violent revolutions could be supposed capable of thischanging characterinto its opposite.What, then, is the boundarybetween the two ? We knowonly one, and that must be determined by the possession ofthe sovereignty or chief power. The essential distinction ofmonarchy consists in this being held by the prince that ofa republicin itsbeing possessed by the people, or a certainportion of them. A republic, as well as a monarchy, hasbut one chief officer, but then the relation in which thisofficer stands to the people is very different in the two ina monarchy he is above, in a republic he is below, thepeople. In the former he is 1 prince, or sovereign (whatevertitle he may bear) ;in the latter he is magistrate. Commonparlance, which is generally the echo of sound reason, haslong drawn this distinction it is;only by the sophisms oftheorists that it became confused. The kings of France andEngland have the name of sovereigns, and are so. ThePresident of America and the Landammann of Switzerlandneither receive the title, nor are they sovereigns.But this " holding of power over the people" this sovereignty of monarchS) what does it,and what does itnot,essentially imply? For it is only by an accurate answer tothis questionthat we can determine what is essentially necessary to the support of the monarchical principle inexisting states.It implies,in the firstplace, that the prince shouldpossess his dignity independently of the :people in otherwords, that the crown should be hereditary and inviolable.Elective kingdoms, where the election is only in favour ofthe individual, and not of his heirs, are not true monarchies.Whoever is chosen merely as regards his own person,isbythe very act of his election subjected to the people, what-1It would appear, however, that we have authority against us on thispoint in Frederick the Great, who called himself "a Servant of the State,who had his duty to perform like others. w Nevertheless, Frederick wasundoubtedly master in his dominion, and it is impossible to be at oncemaster and servant. Had he chosen to follow out this idea, the truth, andthe falsehood contained in it, would have been easily shown.He was no doubt a servant in a moral sense of the word, since, as a man,he was subject to the law of conscience, which obliges alike princes andservants to do their duty but in a; political sense he was not so, as he didnot serve the state but rule it. For the rest, Frederick knew very well thedistinction between himself as king, and Washington as President.