18 mSTORY OF GREECE. rould be strong enough to protect itself and its own commerce without the help of Athens : but to the weaker allies, the break- ing up of the Athenian empire would have greatly lessened the security both of individuals and of commerce, in the wa- ters of the JRgean, and their freedom would thus have been purchased at Jhe cost of considerable positive disadvantages. 1 1 It is to be recollected that the Athenian empire was essentially a govern- ment of dependencies ; Athens, as an imperial state, exercising authority over subordinate governments. To maintain beneficial relations between two governments, one supreme, the other subordinate, and to make the sys- tem work to the satisfaction of the people in the one as well as of the people in the other, has always been found a problem of great difficulty. Who- ever reads the instructive volume of Mr. G. C.Lewis (Essay on the Govern- ment of Dependencies), and the number of instances of practical misgovern- ment in this matter which arc set forth therein, will be inclined to think that the empire of Athens over her allies makes comparatively a creditable figure. It will, most certainly, stand full comparison with the government of England, over dependencies, in the last century ; as illustrated by the his- tory of Ireland, with the penal laws against the Catholics ; by the Decla- ration of Independence, published in 1776, by the American colonies, setting forth the grounds of their separation ; and by the pleadings of Mr. Burke against Warren Hastings. A statement and legal trial alluded to by Mr. Lewis (p. 367), elucidates, farther, two points not unimportant on the present occasion : 1. The illibe- ral and humiliating vein of sentiment which is apt to arise in citizens of the supreme government towards those of the subordinate. 2. The protection which English jury-trial, nevertheless, afforded to the citizens of the de- pendency against oppression by English officers. "An action was brought, in the court of Common Pleas, in 1773, by Sir. Anthony Fabrigas, a native of Minorca, against General Mostyn, the gov- ernor of the island. The facts proved at the trial were, that Governor Mostyn had arrested the plaintiff, imprisoned him, and transported him to Spain, without any form of trial, on the ground that the plaintiff had presented to him a petition for redress of grievances, in a manner which he deemed im- proper. Mr. Justice Gould left it to the jury to say, whether the plaintiff's behavior was such as to afford a just conclusion that he was about to stir ap sedition and mutiny in the garrison, or whether he meant no more than earnestly to press his suit and obtain a redress of grievances. If they thought the latter, the plaintiff was entitled to recover in the action. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff with 3,000 damages. In the following term, an application was made for a new trial, which was refused by the wh jle court. " The following remarks of the counsel for Governor Mostyn, on this trial. contain a plain and naive statement < f the doctrine, that a dependency is to bt
governed, not for its own interest, butfo that of the dominant state. ' Gentlemen
