speech gave a sketch of his policy, which he recommended fur their adoption, and was listened to with deep attention by the whole Assembly; for the moment all the discordant opinions vibrated in harmony.
It is an interesting question whether this early establishment of the Parliamentary system was of benefit or was an evil to Chile. The Chilian historian, Vicuña Mackenna, considers it premature. He says, "the dictatorship of a Caesar rather than that of a Cicero" would have been preferable for a people without constitutional education. Gervinus thinks that it assured to Chile, later on, that tranquillity so wanting in the other republics of South America. Lastarria, more philosophical than either, observes that the establishment of the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, even under such restrictions as placed them in the hands of a few only, was the true way to weaken colonial prejudices and to arouse the idea of the dignity of man. The fact is that it was the natural outcome of the feudal character of Chilian society. In the Parliamentary drama the people played the part of the Greek chorus, which repeated the words of the principal actor. Chile soon remedied the error, copied from Buenos Ayres, of incorporating Congress with the Executive, which shows the existence of a hidden force neutralising the effect of an evil example.
The revolutions of Holland and the United States had shown the world that a regulating Congress was compatible with a dictatorship; and even in South America it was seen later on that no dictatorship, however powerful, could disregard the will of the people from whom its authority was derived. In Chile less than in any other colony was this possible; nevertheless it is certain that Rozas convened this Congress in obedience to a solemn promise exacted from him by O'Higgins as a condition of his support.
The Moderate party, which had a large majority in Congress, knew not what use to make of their power; they
