defective, in having overlooked the destroyer of his favourite theory of checks and balances; and that this new enemy
to human liberty must be met by some other form of government; that composed of checks and balances modified
according to the old theory, having become its victim, after
a feeble resistance.
To prove that the new English practice is inconsistent with the old English theory, let us consider the declaration of Mr. Adams, "that among the ancient forms of government, the Lacedemonian approached nearest to the English," wherefore he bestows on it particular commendations. Our evidence results from a comparison between the present English form of government and the Lacedemonian.
By one, money was despised; of the other, it is the God. One inspired heroism; the other avarice. One taught nobles to fight for their country; the other, to become the sycophants of a king. In one, the legislature controlled two kings; in the other, one king corrupts two legislative bodies. One inspired a love of country; the other, a derision of patriotism. One taught frugality and temperance; the other, profusion and luxury. In short, one disclosed the few virtues natural to the aristocracies of the first and second ages; the other, all the vices natural to the aristocracy of the third.
That forms of government mould manners, will not he denied; and as the manners of the Spartans and the modern English, bear no similarity to each other, it follows that the principles of their governments were also essentially different. To assert, that the principles were the same, but the effects different, would destroy the only solid ground of reasoning, namely, that similar causes will produce similar effects; and deprive us of the entire motive for a preference between forms of government.
If this difference exists, between the principles and manners of the Spartans and the modern English, the resemblance between the English and Spartan governments seen
