There is no great share of probity necessary to support a
monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in
one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct
and maintain the whole. But in a popular state, one spring
more is necessary, namely, virtue.

What I have here advanced is confirmed by the unanimous
testimony of historians, and is extremely agreeable to the
nature of things. ^b For it is clear that in a monarchy, where
he who commands the execution of the laws generally thinks
himself above them, there is less need of virtue than in a pop-
ular government, where the person intrusted with the execu-
tion of the laws is sensible of his being subject to their direc-
tion.

Clear is it also that a monarch who, through bad advice or
indolence, ceases to enforce the execution of the laws, may
easily repair the evil; he has only to follow other advice, or
to shake off this indolence. But when, in a popular govern-
ment, there is a suspension of the laws, as this can proceed only
from the corruption of the republic, the state is certainly un-
done.

A very droll spectacle it was in the last century to behold
the impotent efforts of the English towards the establishment
of democracy. As they who had a share in the direction of
public affairs were void of virtue; as their ambition was in-
flamed by the success of the most daring of their members; ^c
as the prevailing parties were successively animated by the
spirit of faction, the government was continually changing:
the people, amazed at so many revolutions, in vain attempted
to erect a commonwealth. At length, when the country had
undergone the most violent shocks, they were obliged to have
recourse to the very government which they had so wantonly
proscribed.

When Sylla thought of restoring Rome to her liberty, this
unhappy city was incapable of receiving that blessing. She
had only the feeble remains of virtue, which were continually

-20-