Political Science

ΤΟ

PRESIDENT PORTER,

OF YALE College,

These Volumes are Inscribed,

IN MEMORY OF LONG FRIENDSHIP,

BY THE AUTHOR.

MEM AOBK TIBKVKA

PREFACE.

THE present work grew out of lectures, delivered in successive courses, while the author was president of Yale College, between the years 1846 and 1871. On his resignation of his office in the year last named, it was suggested to him to prepare his notes for publication. When he came to the task, the large mass of materials which was on hand was almost entirely laid aside; and the book has been composed after new examination of the subject, and with consultation of a number of the most approved recent writers.

With regard to the plan of the work the author desires to say a few words. The division into three parts, which somewhat answers to the Naturrecht, Staatslehre, and Politik of the Germans, seemed to be necessary, unless the results of the first or introductory part on rights should either be taken for granted, or discussed somewhat at length here and there within the second part, which treats of the theory of the state. It seemed more advisable to begin the theory of the state on the foundation of a conception of justice, than to work at this foundation while the theory was in the process of construction.

The relations of the second part of the work to the third need a word of explanation, if not of defence. A leading thought of this second part lies in the distinction between that which the state must do, if it would fulfil the essential office of the state, and that which it may and perhaps ought to do, without prohibiting individuals or associations, where the nature of the case allows, from doing the same things. After endeavoring to establish this distinction, it seemed best to leave the particulars to be considered in the appropriate section of the third or practical part. Thus, for example, it being established that some immoral actions ought to be forbidden by state law, it remained in the third to consider what these were. And

while in the second part the author tried to show that the state might set up an established church, provided that in so doing no rights were violated, the discussion of the expediency of establishments in modern societies seemed to find in the third part its appropriate place. This plan of looking at the theoretical and the practical sides of the same subjects in different places must be confessed to be not without its evils. It can hardly be followed rigorously and without excep tions. But a greater evil is that it exposes a writer to repetitions against which the author was on his guard, and did much to prevent or to remove them, yet not with complete success.

The plan of the third part included not only a general view of forms of government, departments and institutions in their growth and at their maturity, but of a number of individual states also, which, having figured largely in the history of the world, may serve as types and illustrations of the forms to which they pertain. Here the enquiry arose, Shall those states which passed through a succession of forms-Rome, for instance-be treated as having a continuous life through their stages, or shall they be considered in one of their forms, under the head of monarchy, under another, of aristocracy, and so on? The latter plan was pursued, and if it should be condemned as breaking up the existence of certain nations into parts, the author must acknowledge its disadvantages, which seemed, however, to be overbalanced by the gain on the other side.

The third part is much larger than the two others taken together. This was caused by the wish to exhibit the politics of the leading states in their growth and changes, with so much, and only so much of their history introduced as might seem necessary for this end. Whether these exhibitions of the course of politics in the historical way is a useful part of practical politics, the reader must judge.

As far as style, selection of materials, and proportion in using them are concerned, the book must speak for itself. The political opinions which find their appropriate place in the work, especially in the last part of it, the author could not disguise, nor can he hope that they will be acceptable to all his readers.

THEODORE D. WOOLSEY.

October 30, 1877.

CONTENTS OF VOL. I.

Part 1.

DOCTRINE OF RIGHTS AS THE FOUNDATION OF A JUST STATE.