have made a fourth form of government, compounded either of any two or of all three of these forms, and different from all; which is known by the name of a mixed government. On this variety of government, which is commonly considered as different from either monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, though in fact it is not opposed to them, more will be said in its proper place.

VI.

MONARCHY.-ROYALTY.-KING.

MONARCHY, in its proper sense, signifies the government of one; that is, when the whole sovereignty belongs to one person. "When the sovereign power (says Blackstone) is intrusted in the hands of a single person, the government takes the name of a monarchy." Examples of this are afforded by the government of France under Louis the Fourteenth, who used to say, "L'état c'est moi; " and by the actual governments of Russia, Austria, Prussia, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, &c. It is in this sense that Machiavelli understands the word in his treatise on the art of monarchical government, his Principe. The same definition of monarchy is also given in the passages quoted above from Hobbes, Montesquieu, Mill, and

+ The same expression, applied to a monarch, occurs in Eschylus, Suppl. 370.

σύ τοι πόλις, σὺ δὲ τὸ δήμιον,

πρύτανις ἄκριτος ὢν,

κρατύνεις βωμὸν ἑστίαν χθονός.

Rousseau; the latter of which writers has enlarged upon the subject in another place, always restricting it to the supremacy of one person.* * So likewise Mr. Crabb, in his Dictionary of English Synonyms, says, that "Monarch signifies one having sole authority;" and again, "The term monarch does not define the extent of the power, but simply that it is undivided, as opposed to that species of power which is lodged in the hands of the many." In this sense the kingly office is taken by a late writer on the history of England:-" If by the royal dignity (says Mr. Palgrave ) we are to understand a permanent authority, enabling the sovereign to give laws to his subjects in time of peace, to command them to follow him in time of war, and to impose taxes or tributes upon the nation at all times, such an authority was wholly unknown to the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons, before they settled in Britain." The same definition of monarchy is also given by Martens; who says, that "when the rights of sovereignty, and consequently the majesty of a state, are lodged in the hands of one person, the government is monarchical; when they are lodged in the hands of several persons, it is republican." He proceeds, however, to modify this definition

* Contrat Social, liv. 3, ch. 6.
In the word Prince.

History of England, vol. 1. p. 73.

by adding, that "when we say that the rights of sovereignty are intrusted to some one, we do not always mean that he possesses them all without exception; it is understood that he possesses the greatest part, or the most essential of them."* And he further states, that "in applying these principles to the states of Europe, it is easy to perceive that every state in it which has a King for its chief, is monarchical."+ Such undoubtedly is the common use of the term monarchy, although it does not result from the principles laid down by Martens. For, at the time when his book was written, neither the greatest part, nor the most essential, of the powers of sovereignty belonged to the King of England, although the English government was then, and ever since has been, called a monarchy; and the same is now the case with the King of France. The fact is, that, by common agreement, we call all governments of which a King is chief, monarchies; which agreement is solely derived from historical recollections, and is not founded on the actual state of things. There was a time when the Kings of France were truly monarchs, or absolute princes: there was a time when the Kings of England were, in practice, nearly absolute, and when the crown was by far the most important part of the constitution.

* Law of Nations, p. 34.

+ Ibid. p. 35.

The King of England is always, in solemn language, styled "our sovereign lord."* Yet the King of England possesses only a part, and that the least important part, of the sovereign power. With regard to the administration of the laws, and the declaration of peace and war, he is sovereign; but the entire legislative sovereignty he shares with two deliberative bodies, altogether forming a Parliament, which alone possesses the power of making laws. To this arrangement of the supreme power Gibbon has adapted his account of monarchy, when he says, that "the obvious definition of a monarchy seems to be that of a state in which a single person, by whatsoever name he may be distinguished, is intrusted with the execution of the laws, the management of the revenue, and the command of the army."+

According to this usage, therefore, monarchy would signify, not only a government in which the whole sovereign power is possessed by one, but all governments in which the head of the state

*This, however, (as was above remarked,) does not prevent us from calling our government a limited monarchy, and our King a limited King: although a limited sovereign is an impossibility.

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. 3. at the beginning. Under the army, he probably means to include the navy; but it is to be observed, that he studiously excepts the making of laws, in which, according to Blackstone, all sovereign power is centered. Above, p. 45.