legality is more respected in Prussia and Austria, both despotisms in theory, than in France, which has the profession of a limited monarchy. This difference is owing to the security of the two first governments, and to the insecurity of the last.
These facts show the necessity of distinguishing between names and things in governments, as well as in other matters. The institutions of no country are rigidly respected in practice, owing to the cupidity and passions of men; and vigilance in the protection of principles is even more necessary in a democracy than in a monarchy, as their violation is more certain to affect the interests of the people under such a form of government than under any other. A violation of the principles of a democracy is at the loss of the people, while, in a monarchy, it is usually their gain.
ON REPUBLICKS.
Republics have been as liable to frauds, and to departures from their professions, as any other polities, though no government can properly be termed a republick at all, in which the predominant authority of a single hereditary ruler is acknowledged. In all republicks there must be more or less of direct representation, however much its influence is lessened by the duration and by the magnitude of the trusts.
Poland was formerly termed a republick, because the kingly office was elective, and on account of the power of the Diet. At that time any member of this body could defeat a law by exclaiming in Latin, Veto, (I forbid it,) from which usage the word veto has been
