ters.

blic. Rome and Carthage, the two great rival republics of ancient times, differed widely in their original conftitution. Much has been faid of thefe republics by hiftorians and political wriThere is one point of comparison, that will fet in a clear light the difference of their conftitutions, with refpect to peace and war. Carthage, advantageoufly fituated for commerce, became a great and flourishing trading town. The Carthaginians having no object but riches, admitted none into a participation of their privileges. War was against their genius: but conquest was not, if it produced wealth; and therefore they made war in order to load their new fubjects with taxes. Rome, on the contrary, was ill fituated for commerce: its inhabitants were from the beginning employed in war, either defenfive or offenfive. Their great object accordingly was power; to which end, they were always difpofed to adopt as citizens the best of those they conquered. Thus Rome became a city of warriors, Carthage of merchants. The fubjects of the latter were always ripe for a revolt, while the fubjects of the former were always faithful. Between two fuch ftates, there could be no equality in war; and had the Carthaginians been as fkilful in politics as they were in commerce, they would have avoided, with the ftricteft circumfpection, every occafion of quarrel with the Romans. Rome employ'd its own citizens in war: Carthage had none to employ but mercenaries. an offenfive war, the object of the latter was riches; that of the former was power and glory, motives much fuperior, and more animating. In a defenfive war, the difference is infinite between mercenaries, who have no interest but to receive their pay, and citizens, who fight for their country, and for their wives and children. What then are we to think of Hannibal, who, reversing the laws of nature, carried on war against the Romans with an army of mercenaries, was fuccefsful in every engagement, and brought them to the very brink of ruin? He certainly was the

In

greatest

greatest General the world ever faw. If any one is to be excepted, it is the present King of Pruffia.

I next compare different forms of government, with respect to the influence of opulence. Riches, which, joined with ambition, produce bold attempts for power, are however not dangerous in monarchy, where the fovereign is fo far fuperior, as to humble to the duft the most afpiring of his fubjects. But riches, joined with ambition, are dangerous in a republic: ambition will fuggest the poffibility of fowing diffenfion among the leaders; riches will make the attempt fuccefsful; and then adieu to the republic. Wealth, accumulated by commerce in Carthage and in Athens, extinguished patriotifm, and rendered their democracy unjust, violent, and tyrannical. It had another bad effect; which was, to make them ambitious of conqueft. The fage Plutarch charges Themiftocles with the ruin of Athens. "That great man," fays he, "infpired his countrymen with defire of naval

power. That power produced extenfive commerce, and confequently riches : "riches again, befide luxury, inspired the Athenians with a high "opinion of their power, and made them rafhly engage in every " quarrel among their neighbours." Supprefs the names, and one will believe it to be a cenfure on the conduct of Britain. Succefsful commerce prompted the Carthaginians, against their natural intereft, to make war for gain. Had they been fuccefsful against the Romans, both nations would have fallen a facrifice to the ambition of Hannibal: after fubduing Italy, what Carthaginian durst have oppofed that glorious conqueror, returning with a victorious army, devoted to his will? That event was long dreaded by Hanno, and the wifer part of the Carthaginian fenate; and hence their fcanty fupplies to Hannibal. But what is only a fuppofition with refpect to Carthage, proved to be the fate of Rome. Inequality of rank, opulence, and luxury, relaxed every fundamental principle of the commonwealth, particularly rotation

of

of

power, which ought to have been their palladium. Conqueft at a distance, led them unwarily, in fome instances, to fufpend that fundamental law; of which Cæfar availed himself in his Gallic war, by debauching from their duty the best disciplined army of the republic and it was that army, under a leader little inferior to Hannibal, which determined the fate of Rome.

:

A state with a small territory, fuch as Hamburgh or Holland, may fubfift long as a commonwealth, without much hazard from the opulence of individuals. But an extenfive territory in the hands of a few opulent proprietors, is dangerous in a commonwealth; because of their influence over numbers who depend on them for bread. The island of Britain is too large for a commonwealth. This occurred to a profound political writer (a) who does honour to his country; and to remedy the evil, he propofes an Agrarian law. But it is vain to think, that accumulation of land can be prevented by an Agrarian law: a trust-deed is a ready fcreen for covering accumulation beyond law and dark tranfactions will be carried on without end; fimilar to what is practifed, most dishonestly, by those who elect and are elected members of parliament. When fuch comes to be the condition of landproperty, the Agrarian law will be ripe for diffolution.

In early times, we discover greater variety of character than at prefent; among fovereigns efpecially, who are not taught to govern their paffions. Perufing the history of Spain in particular, one is struck with an amazing variety of character in the Moorish Kings. In fome of them, outrageous cruelty; in others, mildnefs, and affection for their people: in fome, unbounded ambition, furmounting every obstacle of justice and humanity; in others, ftrict attention to commerce and to every moral virtue; fome heaping up treasure; fome fquandering all upon voluptuoufnefs;

(a) Harrington.

fome

fome cultivating peace; fome fond of war. During the nonage of fociety, men exert their natural bias without referve: in the progrefs of fociety, they are taught to moderate their turbulent paffions at last mild and courtly behaviour, produced by education and imitation, give an air to men of figure as if they were all copies from one original; which is peculiarly the cafe in France. The mildnefs of external behaviour, muft have a confiderable influence on the internal part; for nothing tends more to foften or to suppress a passion, than never to give it vent; and for that reafon, abfolute monarchy in France is far from being fo dreadful as it was formerly. It is at prefent far from being violent or fanguinary; the manners of the people having the fame influence there, that laws have in a free country. The King, delicate with refpect to his conduct, and dreading the cenfure of the world, is guilty of few exceffes; and the people, tame and fubmiffive, are easily kept in order. Among men of rank, to be difcharged the court, or to be relegated to their country-feats, is more terrible than a capital punishment.

We finish this fhort effay with a comparison of different governments as to the execution of laws. Laws relative to property and pecuniary intereft, are every where preferved in vigour, because the violation of them hurts many. Laws refpecting the public, are kept alive in monarchical governments; because the King, to whom execution of law is intrusted, seldom benefits by their tranfgreffion. For a steady execution of fuch laws, a democracy has nothing to rely on but patriotifm; and when that fubfides, fuch laws fall asleep. The reafon is, that the powers both of legiflation and execution center in the people; and a multitude, frequently no better than a mob, will never with conftancy direct execution against themselves.

SKETCH

408

!

།།

SKETCH IV.

PROGRESS OF STATES from fmall to great, and from great to small.

W

Hen tribes, originally small, spread wider and wider by population till they become neighbours, the flightest differences enflame mutual averfion, and inftigate hoftilities that never end. Weak tribes unite for defence against the powerful, and become infenfibly one people: other tribes are fwallow'd up by conqueft. And thus ftates become more and more extensive, till they are confined by feas or mountains. Spain originally contained many small states, which were all brought under the Roman yoke. In later times, it was again poffeffed by many ftates, Christian and Mahometan, continually at war, till by conqueft they were united in one great kingdom. Portugal still maintains its independency, a bleffing it owes to the weakness of Spain, not to advantage of fituation. The small states of Italy were fubdued by the Romans; and those of Greece by Philip of Macedon, and his fon Alexander. Scotland efcaped narrowly the paws of Edward I. of England; and would at last have been conquered by its more potent neighbour, had not conqueft been prevented by a federal

union.

But at that rate, have we not reafon to dread the union of all nations under one univerfal monarch? There are feveral caufes that for ever will prevent a calamity fo dreadful. The local fitua