by means of which the people of a great
and extended empire can exercise, conveniently and efficiently, a
general sovereignty held in common by them all, had been understood in
ancient times, it is very doubtful whether it could, in those times,
have been carried into effect, for want of certain facilities which
are enjoyed in the present age, and which seem essential for the safe
and easy action of so vast and complicated a system as a great
representative government must necessarily be. The regular transaction
of business at public meetings, and the orderly and successful
management of any extended system of elections, requires a great deal
of writing; and the general circulation of newspapers, or something
exercising the great function which it is the object of newspapers to
fulfill, that of keeping the people at large in some degree informed
in respect to the progress of public affairs, seems essential to the
successful working of a system of representative government comprising
any considerable extent of territory.

However this may be, whether a great representative system would or
would not have been practicable in ancient times if it had been tried,
it is certain that it was never tried. In all ancient republics, the
sovereignty resided, essentially, in a privileged class of the people
of the capital. The territories governed were provinces, held in
subjection as dependencies, and compelled to pay tribute; and this was
the plan which Otanes meant to advocate when recommending a republic,
in the Persian council.

The name of the second speaker in this celebrated consultation was
Megabyzus. He opposed the plan of Otanes. He concurred fully, he said,
in all that Otanes had advanced in respect to the evils of a monarchy,
and to the oppression and tyranny to which a people were exposed whose
liberties and lives were subject to the despotic control of a single
human will. But in order to avoid one extreme, it was not necessary to
run into the evils of the other. The disadvantages and dangers of
popular control in the management of the affairs of state were
scarcely less than those of a despotism. Popular assemblies were
always, he said, turbulent, passionate, capricious. Their decisions
were controlled by artful and designing demagogues. It was not
possible that masses of the common people could have either the
sagacity to form wise counsels, or the energy and steadiness to
execute them. There could be no deliberat