UNIVERSITY COURIER.
9
for expansion. This is why a handful of Athenians two thousand years ago are more interesting than all the millions of their contemporaries.
The republic insures the best government. Passing by the questions of inherent rights and of development, we are confronted by the fact that government is a powerful machine, that incompetency in officials is an earnest for failure, that brains as well as honor are necessary to the state. Every country demands two things: Her best men and their best work in official positions. If these can be attained, government will be well nigh perfect. On this point the opponents of popular government are accustomed to point with derision to the tyranny of party rule. This is, indeed, a fact to be lamented and deplored. But popular governments are less liable to fail from this cause than other systems can be. No country has ever been free from party strife. England suffered infinitely more in the Wars of the Roses, in which the people had no interest at stake, than she ever suffered through any popular movement. With her broad and liberal aristocracy to-day, she is confused and troubled by parties no less than her democratic neighbors. There seems to be no immediate escape from this condition of things. But the republic offers the most reasonable solution to the problem. Its very foundations are fixed on public intellectual culture. Recognizing the fact that ideas govern the world, it rests its hope on universal education. In this it differs from every aristocratic system that ever existed. They furnish enlightenment to the higher classes, but not to the lower. Enlightenment is the knowledge of truth. Truth is mighty. Once let the true solution of a problem be reached and it spontaneously compels universal assent. The solution of any moral or political question forthwith becomes an undisputed rule of action from which no one can ever free himself. In the anarch of opinion now prevailing on many points of interest to society, we may confidently hope that with the dominion of reason will also come the reign of justice.
Many Americans look with a kind of reverence upon what is called "Constitutional Monarchy." Such a government is that of England. They assert that it is more efficient and more permanent than the republic; that is, that heads of departments retain their positions longer, and are thus able to render more valuable service. The difference between an absolute and a constitutional monarchy is that in the latter the king is limited in the exercise of his authority by ministers who are responsible; that is, are subject to impeachment and removal for maladministration. In England these ministers are chosen by the sovereign from the dominant party in the House of Commons. Here party spirit runs high, and ministers are chosen, not for their executive ability, but for their party influence in the House. This exposes the country to all the evils of party tyranny. For an example of permanence, take the conduct of the war-office which fairly illustrates the working of the system. From 1762 to 1868 there were thirty-four administrations in this department. Of these thirty-four, eleven lasted less than one year each; five others less than two years; five others less than three years. Only three of the thirty-four lasted longer than six years. Can any republic present a worse record?
comment. The complaints of oppression among her poor are threatening like the latent forces of a volcano. Among her subjects thousands of women and children, scarcely heeded, cry for bread. Away with a respected and venerable aristocracy that has no ear of mercy for want and misery! But their woes shall have an end. On every hand they talk of revolution. Her statesmen are perplexed and fearful of the future. France and America, on the other hand, with the improvement of their systems, look forward confidently to imperial greatness.
There is no better guide to the success of a government than the condition of the governed. The discontent of England's lower orders is a subject of frequent
Nations in their eras of progress have always advanced toward a more popular form of government. There is no surer index to the future than the history of the past. From feudal times there has been one continued contest between aristocracy and the people. The true history of the English people is the story of this contest. The virtues of her kings have not placed among the leading powers of the world, but the indomitable spirit of the sturdy sons of soil. England is a great nation exactly as her people have asserted and attained their rights. Her greatness is a democratic greatness, and her progress a democratic progress. So it is with every power in Europe. France has thrown off the last vestige of royalty. True, she has reached her present condition through misery, crime, and bloodshed; but her crimes are justly laid at the doors of her kings, not at her people's. Her progress since the foundation of the republic is a worthy comment on the success of republican principles. Her power as a nation in Europe is due to the completeness of her democratic institutions.
The opposition of royalty may have served as a proper check upon popular presumption, but progress has been uniformly in one and the same direction, toward popular intelligence and popular power. That the tide of progress should turn backward, that an almost effete sy.tem, with which the people have been struggling for centuries to secure their liberties, should be re-instated, is contrary to all the lessons of history. The world moves. Republican principles are irresistible. Reason and justice must reign. Their dominion will be assured in the perfect republic.
NEGATIVE.
W. H. Johnson, of Orophilan Society.
The rights of the people secured and defended is the true object of all national supremacy, and the struggle for their acquirement characterizes the history of every country. Kingdoms, empires, and republics have suffered and even perished in the conflict. Unexampled revolutions and civil wars producing misery untold have been undergone. The people have ever been ready and willing to array themselves against the arm of oppression in defence of that which is dearest to all. In some cases the condition of society has been improved; while in others, the way was opened for greater injustice. To alleviate the wrongs of the people has been the great problem, and that government which does this will be lasting.
The question states it thus: Resolved, "That Republicanism will be the ultimate form of government."
There are just three points that I wish to establish to refute the argument of the affirmative. First, that the accumulation of wealth is hostile to popular government; second, that the natural tendency of republican